Helvey v. Wabash County REMC
151 Ind. App. 176, 278 N.E.2d 608, 10 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 333 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The sale of electricity is a transaction in 'goods' as defined by the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Therefore, legal actions for breach of warranty related to the sale of electricity are governed by the UCC's four-year statute of limitations.
Facts:
- Helvey was a residential customer of Wabash County REMC (REMC), an electric utility.
- On January 10, 1966, REMC supplied electricity to Helvey's home at a voltage of 135 volts or more.
- The high-voltage electricity caused damage to several of Helvey's 110-volt household appliances.
- Helvey identified the date of the incident with the help of an affidavit from Bill Yentes, who was present that night.
Procedural Posture:
- Helvey (appellant) filed an action in the trial court against Wabash County REMC (appellee) for breach of implied and express warranties.
- REMC filed an answer asserting the affirmative defense that the four-year statute of limitations under the Uniform Commercial Code had expired.
- REMC filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the suit was time-barred.
- The trial court granted REMC's motion for summary judgment.
- Helvey filed a motion to correct errors, which the trial court overruled.
- Helvey appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals of Indiana.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the sale of electricity a transaction in 'goods' under the Uniform Commercial Code, thereby making the UCC's four-year statute of limitations applicable to a breach of warranty claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Robertson, J.
Yes, the sale of electricity is a transaction in 'goods' under the Uniform Commercial Code. To be considered 'goods' under the UCC, an item must be a thing, existing, and movable at the time of identification to the contract for sale. The court found that electricity meets all three criteria. Its movability is demonstrated by the fact that it passes through a meter and can be measured to determine the quantity sold, which establishes the price. The court also cited persuasive authority from a Pennsylvania case, Gardiner v. Philadelphia Gas Works, which held that natural gas was considered 'goods' under the UCC. Because electricity is classified as goods, the UCC's four-year statute of limitations applies, and since Helvey filed his claim more than four years after the incident, his action is barred.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for establishing that electricity is a 'good' under the Uniform Commercial Code, rather than a service. This classification subjects electric utility providers to the UCC's provisions, including its implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. Consequently, future claims against utilities for damages caused by power surges or other electrical issues will be treated as product liability cases governed by the UCC's framework and its four-year statute of limitations. This ruling aligns the treatment of electricity with other consumable utilities like natural gas, promoting uniformity in commercial law.
