Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 355
Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.2-318 (2026)

Third party beneficiaries of warranties express or implied

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A seller's warranty whether express or implied extends to any natural person who is in the family or household of his buyer or who is a guest in his home if it is reasonable to expect that such person may use, consume or be affected by the goods and who is injured in person by breach of the warranty. A seller may not exclude or limit the operation of this section. Effective: July 1, 1960 History: Created 1958 Ky. Acts ch. 77, sec. 2-318, effective July 1, 1960.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: Compex Intern. Co., Ltd. v. Taylor, 209 S.W.3d 462 (Ky. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Compex Intern. Co., Ltd. v. Taylor, 209 S.W.3d 462 (Ky. 2007). · cites it 14× “That portion of the circuit court's judgment was reversed by the Court of Appeals, which held that the implied warranty claim was permissible under KRS 355.2-318, a statute in Kentucky's version of the Uniform Commercial Code (U.”
Williams v. Fulmer, 695 S.W.2d 411 (Ky. 1985). · cites it 4× “), KRS Chapter 355, and more particularly KRS 355.2-318, “Third party beneficiaries of warranties express or implied”: “A seller’s warranty whether express or implied extends to any natural person who is in the family or household of his buyer or who is a guest in his home if it…”
Halderman v. Sanderson Forklifts Co., 818 S.W.2d 270 (Ky. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 8× “The trial court granted appellee’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the appellee, the one-year statute of limitations had run and the appellant’s action for breach of warranty under KRS 355.2-318 was barred due to lack…”
McLain v. Dana Corp., 16 S.W.3d 320 (Ky. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 4× “He claimed he should come within the coverage of the language of KRS 355.2-318 for breach of warranty “to the buyer of the defective product and to any natural person who is in the family or household of the buyer or who is a guest in his home.”
Naiser v. Unilever United States, Inc., 975 F. Supp. 2d 727 (W.D. Ky. 2013). · cites it 2× “§ 355.2-318. It states: A seller’s warranty whether express or implied extends to any natural person who is in the family or household of his buyer or who is a guest in his home if it is reasonable to expect that such person may use, consume or be affected by the goods and who…”
Real Est. Mktg., Inc. v. Franz, 885 S.W.2d 921 (Ky. 1994). · cites it 2× “2d 411 (1985), we recognize the limiting nature of privity of contract requirement in the Kentucky version of the Uniform Commercial Code, KRS 355.2-318. We hold that breach of warranty is not a viable theory in a personal injury claim for a product sold in a defective condition…”
Snawder v. Cohen, 749 F. Supp. 1473 (W.D. Ky. 1990). · cites it 3× “extending breach of warranty in injury cases is KRS 355.2-318 ... 10 ... with breach of warranty as expressed through KRS 355.”
Bridgefield Cas. Ins. Co. v. Yamaha Motor Mfg. Corp. of Am., 385 S.W.3d 430 (Ky. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “”), codified in KRS Chapter 355, is only viable when privity of contract exists between the commercial seller and the injured party or if the injured party is one of the persons described in KRS 355.”
Yonts v. Easton Technical Prods., Inc., 676 F. App'x 413 (6th Cir. 2017). “2-318, express warranties only extend “to any natural person who is in the family or household of his buyer or who is a guest in his home if it is reasonable to expect that such person may use, consume or be affected by the goods.”
Taylor v. Southwire Tools & Equip., 130 F. Supp. 3d 1017 (E.D. Ky. 2015). · cites it 2× “Outside of a-contractual or a buyer-seller relationship, KRS 355.2-318 states that-an express or implied warranty extends only to the buyer’s family members and household residents or guests.”
Perkins v. Ne. Log Homes, 808 S.W.2d 809 (Ky. 1991). “Perkins was in privity of contract with Northeastern Log Homes if she was a co-purchaser, or indeed, even if not under the concept of privity codified in KRS 355.2-318, in 1958, which includes “any natural person who is in the family or household of [the] buyer .”
Cline v. Allis-Chalmers Corp., 690 S.W.2d 764 (Ky. Ct. App. 1985). “Allis-Chalmers contends that the appellant is then a third party to the contract to whom the warranties do not extend under KRS 355.2-318. This provision states that a seller’s express or implied warranties only extend to a natural person who is in the family, household, or a…”
Show all 25 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.