Narrative Opinion Summary
In this legal dispute, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) appealed a district court's summary judgment in favor of CBS Corporation, formerly known as Westinghouse Electric Corporation, concerning a breach of express contractual warranty related to metal cracking in turbine rotors. The district court had concluded that PG&E's claim was time-barred by California's four-year statute of limitations, which starts at the discovery of the breach. A central issue on appeal was the timing of the accrual of the cause of action for breach of warranty. The appellate court highlighted that under California law, when a warranty covers future performance, the cause of action accrues upon the discovery of the breach. The court found that PG&E could not have discovered the breach until 1994, when the metal cracking actually appeared, contradicting the district court's opinion that PG&E should have discovered it in 1992. As a result, the appellate court reversed the lower court's judgment and remanded the case for trial, ensuring PG&E had the opportunity to seek remedy. The appellate decision is not to be published or cited, except under specific provisions of Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Accrual of Cause of Action for Breach of Warrantysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: A cause of action for breach of warranty accrues when the breach is discovered if the warranty explicitly extends to future performance.
Reasoning: Under California law, if a warranty extends to future performance, the cause of action accrues upon the discovery of the breach.
Determination of Breach Discoverysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that PG&E could not have discovered the metal cracking breach until it physically manifested, thus delaying the accrual of the action.
Reasoning: The evidence indicates that PG&E could not ascertain structural defects until an actual crack occurred, which was first discovered in 1994.
Reversal and Remand for Trialsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for trial, recognizing PG&E's right to pursue the claim.
Reasoning: Consequently, the appellate court reversed the district court's ruling and remanded the case for trial on the merits.
Statute of Limitations in Warranty Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court found that the district court incorrectly applied the statute of limitations, since PG&E could not have discovered the breach until an actual defect occurred, which was in 1994.
Reasoning: The district court ruled that PG&E’s claim was barred by California's four-year statute of limitations, which starts when the breach is discovered.