Anabaldi v. Sunbeam Corp.

• Decision Date: 27 January 1987
• Docket Number: No. 82 C 3052.,82 C 3052.
• Citation: 651 F. Supp. 1343
• Parties: Mary Ann ANABALDI and James Robert Anabaldi, Natural Guardians and parents of Eric Anabaldi, a minor; and Mary Ann Anabaldi and James Robert Anabaldi, Individually; and William Duminski and Alice Duminski, Natural Guardians and parents of Anne Duminski, a minor; and William Duminski and Alice Duminski, Individually, Plaintiffs, v. SUNBEAM CORPORATION, a subsidiary of Allegheny International, a Delaware Corporation; and Allegheny International, a Delaware Corporation, successor in interest to Sunbeam Corporation, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

651 F. Supp. 1343

Mary Ann ANABALDI and James Robert Anabaldi, NaturalGuardians and parents of Eric Anabaldi, a minor; and Mary Ann Anabaldi and James Robert Anabaldi, Individually; and William Duminski and Alice Duminski, NaturalGuardians and parents of Anne Duminski, a minor; and William Duminski and Alice Duminski, Individually, Plaintiffs, v.SUNBEAM CORPORATION, a subsidiary of Allegheny International, a Delaware Corporation; and Allegheny International, a Delaware Corporation, successor in interest to Sunbeam Corporation, Defendants.

No. 82 C 3052.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D.

January 27, 1987.

George A. Hilborn, Southfield, Mich., John J. Corbett, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.

Lloyd E. Williams, Jr., Jacobs, Williams & Montgomery, Chicago, Ill., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

BRIAN BARNETT DUFF, District Judge.

This diversity action alleging strict products liability, negligence, and breach of express and implied warranties of merchantability comes before the court on two related motions: plaintiffs' motion to strikedefendant's affirmative defenses, and defendant's "motion to declare the law of the case."Each motion requires the court to consider whether the substantive law of Illinois or Pennsylvania governs this case, and whether the applicable statutes of limitation bar plaintiffs' claims for strict liability and breach of warranty.

DefendantSunbeam Corp. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois.Sunbeam manufactured home cooker/fryers at its plant in Illinois and distributed them in Pennsylvania where, in October, 1980, a cooker/fryer filled with hot oil tipped over and severely burned the two plaintiff children, both Pennsylvania residents.

Plaintiffs filed this action in May, 1982, and Sunbeam answered the complaint soon afterwards.In November, 1984, Sunbeam amended its answer to assert two affirmative defenses: first, that because it initially sold the cooker/fryer no later than May, 1968, the 12-year statute of repose for products liability actions in Illinois, Ill.Rev. Stat. ch. 110, ¶ 13-213, bars plaintiffs' strict liability claim; and second, that for the same reason, the four-year statute of limitations for breach of warranty actions in Illinois, Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 26, § 2-725, bars plaintiffs' breach of warranty claims.

DISCUSSION

Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes courts to "order stricken from any pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter."Plaintiffs contend that the affirmative defenses are insufficient because Pennsylvania law governs this case and their claims are timely under Pennsylvania law.Plaintiffs also argue that it is unfair for Sunbeam to raise its limitations defenses for the first time more than two years into this litigation.

As a federal court exercising its diversity jurisdiction, this court applies the substantive law of the forum in which it sits, including that forum's choice-of-law rules, Goldberg v. Medtronic, Inc.,686 F.2d 1219, 1225(7th Cir.1982), and its statutes of limitation, Guaranty Trust Co. v. York,326 U.S. 99, 110-11, 65 S.Ct. 1464, 1470, 89 L.Ed. 2079(1945).

Illinois applies the "most significant contacts" test to determine the applicable law in tort cases.Ingersoll v. Klein,46 Ill.2d 42, 47-48, 262 N.E.2d 593(1970).This test requires the court to weigh four factors: "(a) The place where the injury occurred; (b) The place where the conduct occurred; (c) The domicile, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties; (d) The place where the relationship of the parties is centered."Id.

These factors require the application of Pennsylvania substantive law.The injury occurred in Pennsylvania, and while part of the conduct at issue occurred in Illinois (the manufacture of the allegedly defective cooker/fryer), another part of the conduct occurred in Pennsylvania (the distribution and sale of such cooker/fryers).Plaintiffs are Pennsylvania citizens, and although Sunbeam's principal place of business is in Illinois, the company also does business in Pennsylvania.Finally, the relationship of the parties is centered in Pennsylvania because that is the only place where their spheres of activity intersected.

A determination that the substantive law of Pennsylvania governs this case does not settle the adequacy of Sunbeam's affirmative defenses, however, because it leaves open the question of whether an Illinois court would apply Illinois or Pennsylvania statutes of limitation to plaintiffs' claims.As a general rule Illinois courts apply Illinois statutes of limitation to common law causes of action arising in other states, even when...