Products Liability Law Reporter

Decisions: Commercial Products

You must be a Products Liability Law Reporter subscriber to access this content.

If you are a member of the Products Liability Section or a subscriber, log in below. Not yet a Section member? Join today!

Join the Products Liability Section

Roof truss manufacturer may be liable to insurer-subrogee

January 14, 2025

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the manufacturer of roof trusses used in chicken house roofs on several Arkansas poultry farms may be liable to an insurer that indemnified the farms after the roofs collapsed following a severe winter storm.

Chicken house roofs on several Arkansas poultry farms insured by Norfolk & Dedham Mutual Fire Insurance Co. collapsed after a heavy snowfall. Norfolk & Dedham indemnified the farms for over $4.7 million in damages. The insurer then sued Rogers Manufacturing Corp., which manufactured the roof trusses used in the chicken houses, alleging strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranties. The defendant moved to dismiss the case as time-barred under Arkansas’s statute of repose, Ark. Code Ann. §16-56-112. The district court granted the motion.

Reversing and remanding, the Eighth Circuit noted that under §16-56-112, an injured person may not bring a cause of action more than five years after the substantial completion of a construction project, regardless of when the alleged injury occurs. Where a defendant performs custom design work, the court added, it would be covered by the statute of repose; however, the statute of repose does not apply to manufacturers of standardized goods or materials.

Applying these principles here, the court found that the plaintiff’s complaint plausibly supports an inference that the roof trusses were standardized goods. The defendant did not necessarily custom design the trusses, the court said, finding that the mere allegation that the defendant designed them did not mean they were custom designed for a particular customer.

Consequently, the court held that the complaint supported the reasonable inference that the defendant was liable and that a complaint allowing for multiple plausible readings should not be dismissed.

Citation: Norfolk & Dedham Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Rogers Mfg. Corp., 122 F.4th 312 (8th Cir. 2024).

Plaintiff counsel: Gregory S. Hudson, Houston; and David M. Donovan, Little Rock, Ark.