Case Law Update: Bingham Livestock v. Paccar — Utah Appeals Court Revives Truck Warranty Claims Under the Future-Performance Rule

A Utah appellate court has revived a trucking company's warranty lawsuit that a trial judge had thrown out as too late, holding that a promise to repair or replace a vehicle in the future is a warranty that "explicitly extends to future performance" — so the clock does not necessarily start on the day the vehicle is delivered. On September 11, 2026, the Utah Court of Appeals issued a published opinion in Bingham Livestock Transportation Inc. v. Paccar LLC, No. 20250608-CA, 2026 UT App 136, reversing the First District Court's summary judgment dismissal of the buyer's contract and warranty claims and remanding them for further proceedings. The same opinion affirmed dismissal of the buyer's negligence claims against two repair shops under the economic loss rule.

What the case was about

According to the opinion, Bingham Livestock Transportation bought three new Peterbilt tractors in November and December 2013 for a combined price of a little over $460,000. Each purchase came with two written warranties — one from Peterbilt covering the vehicle, one from Paccar covering the engine. Bingham also paid an extra $8,200 per tractor to extend the Paccar engine coverage from two years or 250,000 miles to four years or 500,000 miles.

The warranties limited the buyer's remedy to "REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT OF 'WARRANTABLE FAILURES' AT AUTHORIZED . . . PETERBILT" dealers, disclaimed all other express and implied warranties, excluded incidental and consequential damages including lost profits and vehicle downtime, and shortened the time to sue: "It is agreed that you have 12 months from the accrual of the cause of action to commence any legal action arising from the purchase or use of the Vehicle, or be barred forever."

Bingham alleged the tractors began shutting down and losing power soon after purchase, and that between 2013 and 2017 the three trucks went back to authorized shops sixteen, thirteen, and nine times, with the repairs, in its telling, providing only temporary fixes. Bingham says it was refused copies of the repair invoices at the time and did not receive a full service report until after it traded the tractors back in the summer of 2017. It sent a notice of defects in October 2017 and sued in February 2018. Those are the buyer's allegations; the merits have not been decided.

What the court actually held

The trial court initially let the warranty claims proceed, then reversed course on the eve of trial in November 2024 and dismissed them, ruling the warranties were "not a promise for future services" so the limitations period ran from tender of the trucks. The Court of Appeals agreed with the defense on two points and with the buyer on the one that mattered:

• The UCC governs, and the one-year cutoff is enforceable. The agreements were predominantly contracts for the sale of goods, so Utah's UCC applied. Under Utah Code section 70A-2-725(1) the default is four years, but parties may "reduce the period of limitation to not less than one year" — which these contracts did.
• But a discovery rule applies. Section 70A-2-725(2) says a breach of warranty ordinarily occurs "when tender of delivery is made," except "where a warranty explicitly extends to future performance of the goods and discovery of the breach must await the time of such performance," in which case "the cause of action accrues when the breach is or should have been discovered." The court held both categories of Bingham's claims fell inside that exception, writing that "[a] promise to repair or replace a vehicle in the event of a future breakdown in performance is, almost by definition, a warranty that 'explicitly extends to future performance of the goods.'"
• The court leaned on what the buyer paid for. "If Bingham lost the right to sue on these warranties after just twelve months' time, the remaining three years of coverage would be of no value," the opinion states, noting the $8,200-per-truck extension.
• Word choice decided the "lemon" claims. The Utah court held the promise that the tractors "will be free from defects" appearing "during the time or mileage limitations" was future-tense, future-facing language, reaching the same result as the Indiana Supreme Court in Kenworth of Indianapolis, Inc. v. Seventy-Seven Ltd., 134 N.E.3d 370 (Ind. 2019) — a decision the Utah panel described as "stress[ing] that every word and phrase matters in these future-performance warranties."
• When the buyer should have known is a jury question. Because the discovery inquiry is "intensely fact-dependent," the court held summary judgment was improper and remanded.
• The negligence claims stayed dismissed. The economic loss rule barred Bingham's tort claims against the repair shops, whose work was performed under the same warranty framework.

What this means if you have a warranty or service-contract claim

This is a Utah decision applying Utah's UCC, and it is not binding in Florida. But the provision it construes is the uniform one — Florida codifies its version at section 672.725, Florida Statutes — and the practical points travel:

• A short deadline in the paperwork is not automatically the whole story. Many vehicle service contracts and manufacturer warranties contain shortened suit-limitation clauses. Whether the clock runs from delivery or from the failed repair can depend on the exact wording of the coverage promise.
• Keep every repair order. Dates of complaint, dates in the shop, and what was actually done are the record on which a discovery-rule argument rises or falls. Bingham's difficulty getting repair documentation became a central fact in its case.
• Read the remedy clause alongside the damages exclusion. "Repair or replace" language, an exclusion of lost income and downtime, and a shortened limitations period usually appear together, and they interact.

Nothing here predicts how any particular claim would come out. If you are dealing with a denied vehicle service contract or warranty claim in Florida, learn how vehicle service contracts work or request a free case evaluation to have your contract and repair history reviewed.

Case: Bingham Livestock Transportation Inc. v. Paccar LLC, Peterbilt Motors Company, The Jackson Group of Salt Lake, and Kenworth Sales of Ogden, No. 20250608-CA, 2026 UT App 136 (Utah Ct. App. Sept. 11, 2026) (Harris, J.), on appeal from the First District Court, Brigham City Department, No. 180100032. Published opinion. Reported as of September 15, 2026; further proceedings on remand may change the posture of the case. More rulings at Case Law & Industry Insights.