Atkinson

Atkinson v. Elk Corp. of Texas

Good Law
142 Cal. App. 4th 212·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1285·48 Cal. Rptr. 3d 247·60 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 1346·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7936
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 23, 2006H028933California7,087 words

Opinion

Opinion

Elia, J.

In this second appeal between these two parties we are asked to decide if roofing shingles purchased by Pacific Coast Roofing (hereinafter Pacific) pursuant to a contract to reroof an existing dwelling for James Atkinson are consumer goods under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty — Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act ( Pub.L. No. 93-637 (Jan. 4, 1975) 88 Stat. 2183 ; 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq.) (hereinafter Magnuson-Moss). In addition, we must decide whether Atkinson’s claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under Magnuson-Moss is barred by the statute of limitations.

Facts and Proceedings Below

On August 15, 1992, Atkinson contracted with Pacific to reroof his family home. Atkinson chose Prestique I shingles manufactured by Elk Corporation of Texas as the roofing material. The brochure in which the shingles were advertised contained the following language: “When you upgrade to Prestique I High Definition, you get the protection and durability to match the beauty. Elk’s 30-year limited warranty covers both labor and shingles, plus you get a 5-year limited wind warranty.” The last page of the brochure contained a comparison chart of Elk products, including…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.