Background
Michael Hnat was attempting to remove a retractable awning from his home in August 2023 when its retractable mechanism detached, struck him, and caused him to fall. He died from his injuries. A prior homeowner had purchased the awning from Eclipse Awning Systems LLC in 2007.
Jill Hnat, acting as executrix of Michael’s estate, sued Eclipse for negligence and wrongful death and sought punitive damages. She alleged that the awning was a fixture rather than a product and therefore fell outside Ohio’s product-liability statute of repose. The trial court granted Eclipse judgment on the pleadings, concluding that the awning was a product and that the claims were barred because the accident occurred approximately 16 years after delivery.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District affirmed. The majority held that the retractable awning was a product, not a fixture. Although bolting the awning to the house satisfied the annexation component of Ohio’s fixture test, the awning was not crucial to the use or enjoyment of the property, and its removal would not undermine the property’s utility or require replacement. Its attachment also did not establish an intention to make it a permanent part of the realty.
Because the negligence and wrongful-death allegations were product-liability claims, the court held that Ohio’s ten-year product-liability statute of repose barred them. The awning was delivered in 2007, but Hnat did not sue until 2025. The punitive-damages request also failed because punitive damages are not an independent cause of action and the underlying claims could not proceed.
Judge Hanseman concurred in the judgment only. Judge Huffman dissented, reasoning that the majority and trial court improperly weighed fixture-related facts at the pleading stage. In her view, Hnat’s allegations that the awning was permanently bolted to the home and intended as a permanent accession were sufficient to survive judgment on the pleadings, leaving the fixture question for resolution after factual development.
Key Takeaways
- A retractable awning does not become a fixture merely because it is bolted to a house; courts also consider its relationship to the property’s use and whether it was intended to be permanent.
- The majority treated Hnat’s negligence and wrongful-death claims as product-liability claims subject to Ohio’s ten-year statute of repose.
- The dissent maintained that whether the awning was a fixture presented a factual issue that should not have been resolved on the pleadings.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how classifying an installed item as a product or fixture can determine whether a tort action survives Ohio’s product-liability statute of repose. Items attached to a home may remain products when they merely enhance the property, can be removed without impairing its utility, and were not intended as permanent accessions.
The divided panel also highlights a procedural issue for litigators: whether a court may decide fixture status from the pleadings or must allow discovery into the circumstances of installation, intended permanence, and the item’s relationship to the real property.