93 N.Y.2d 48 (1999)
A statute of repose, which prevents a cause of action from arising after a specified period regardless of accrual, is considered substantive law for choice-of-law purposes in New York.
Summary
In a products liability case filed in New York federal court, the Second Circuit certified a question to the New York Court of Appeals regarding whether a Connecticut statute of repose (§ 52-577a) barred the plaintiff’s claim. The plaintiff, a New York resident, was injured in Connecticut while using a printing press more than ten years after its sale. The Court of Appeals held that the Connecticut statute was substantive, not procedural, because it acted as a statute of repose, preventing a cause of action from ever accruing after ten years from the date of sale, thus barring the claim.
Facts
Danbury Printing and Litho, Inc. purchased a printing press manufactured by Heidelberg et al. in November 1983 and installed it in their Connecticut plant.
In January 1994, more than ten years after the press was sold, Tanges, a New York resident working for Danbury Printing, was injured while operating the press in Connecticut.
Tanges received worker’s compensation benefits and then filed a products liability action against Heidelberg et al. in federal court in New York, based on diversity jurisdiction.
Procedural History
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment for the defendant, holding that Connecticut General Statutes § 52-577a barred the claim.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals certified the question of whether Connecticut General Statutes § 52-577a bars Tanges’ claim to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether Connecticut General Statutes § 52-577a bars Tanges’s claim brought in the Southern District of New York?
Holding
Yes, because Connecticut General Statutes § 52-577a acts as a statute of repose, preventing a cause of action from ever arising more than ten years after the product’s sale, and is therefore considered substantive law in New York for choice-of-law purposes.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that under New York choice-of-law rules, substantive law of another state applies to the case, whereas procedural law is governed by the forum state (New York). While statutes of limitations are generally considered procedural, Connecticut General Statutes § 52-577a contains a provision of repose: “no such action may be brought against any party…later than ten years from the date that the party last parted with possession or control of the product.”
The court distinguished statutes of limitations, which bar a remedy after a cause of action accrues, from statutes of repose, which prevent a cause of action from ever arising. The court quoted from 4 American Law of Products Liability 3d § 47:55, at 88, stating that “the period of repose has the effect of preventing what might otherwise have been a cause of action from, ever arising.”
Because the Connecticut statute prevents a cause of action from arising, it is substantive, not merely procedural. The court noted that Connecticut’s legislature intended § 52-577a to be integrally linked to the state’s exclusive statutory cause of action for product liability. New York’s policy considerations also support treating the statute as substantive, as it discourages forum shopping.
The court referenced Romano v Romano, 19 NY2d 444, 447, stating: “If a statute creates a cause of action and attaches a time limit to its commencement, the time is an ingredient of the cause.” Because the Connecticut statute created a cause of action and attached a time limit to its commencement, the time limit is an ingredient of the cause. Therefore, the statute is substantive.