New Hampshire Revised Statutes
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 507-D:2 (2026)
Limitation of Product Liability Actions
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NH-GCgc.nh.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
507-D:2 Limitation of Product Liability Actions. –
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all product liability actions must be commenced within the following time limits and not otherwise:
I. Within 3 years of the time the injury is, or should, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, have been discovered by the plaintiff; and
II. (a) No later than 12 years after the manufacturer of the final product parted with its possession and control or sold it, whichever occurred last; or
(b) Where the defendant is a lessor, bailor or licensor of a product who is under a legal duty to inspect, maintain, repair, modify, alter or improve the product in question, no later than 12 years after the time at which the defendant ceases to have the use, possession or control of the product or ceases to be under the legal duty to inspect, maintain, repair, modify or improve it; or
(c) Where the plaintiff's action is based upon a legal duty imposed by any governmental regulatory agency to alter, repair, recall, inspect or issue warnings or instructions about the product or otherwise to take any action or precaution for the benefit of the injured party, which legal duty arose after the defendant parted with possession and control of the product or sold the product, whichever came last, no longer than 6 years after the defendant first incurred the legal duty. This subparagraph does not shorten the time period established in subparagraphs (a) and (b) of this paragraph.
III. Where the action is brought to recover indemnity or contribution for damages paid to or claimed by another, the action must be commenced within the same period established in RSA 507-D:2, I and II, plus 90 days.
IV. The limitation periods established in RSA 507-D:2, I, II and III do not apply to actions based on the defendant's fraudulent misrepresentation, concealment or nondisclosure, or to any actions based upon a written contractual obligation which provides for a different period of limitation, or to actions brought under RSA 382-A:2-313, 2-314 or 2-315 which do not seek damages for or on account of injury to person or property.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all product liability actions must be commenced within the following time limits and not otherwise:
I. Within 3 years of the time the injury is, or should, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, have been discovered by the plaintiff; and
II. (a) No later than 12 years after the manufacturer of the final product parted with its possession and control or sold it, whichever occurred last; or
(b) Where the defendant is a lessor, bailor or licensor of a product who is under a legal duty to inspect, maintain, repair, modify, alter or improve the product in question, no later than 12 years after the time at which the defendant ceases to have the use, possession or control of the product or ceases to be under the legal duty to inspect, maintain, repair, modify or improve it; or
(c) Where the plaintiff's action is based upon a legal duty imposed by any governmental regulatory agency to alter, repair, recall, inspect or issue warnings or instructions about the product or otherwise to take any action or precaution for the benefit of the injured party, which legal duty arose after the defendant parted with possession and control of the product or sold the product, whichever came last, no longer than 6 years after the defendant first incurred the legal duty. This subparagraph does not shorten the time period established in subparagraphs (a) and (b) of this paragraph.
III. Where the action is brought to recover indemnity or contribution for damages paid to or claimed by another, the action must be commenced within the same period established in RSA 507-D:2, I and II, plus 90 days.
IV. The limitation periods established in RSA 507-D:2, I, II and III do not apply to actions based on the defendant's fraudulent misrepresentation, concealment or nondisclosure, or to any actions based upon a written contractual obligation which provides for a different period of limitation, or to actions brought under RSA 382-A:2-313, 2-314 or 2-315 which do not seek damages for or on account of injury to person or property.
Source. 1978, 31:1, eff. Aug. 22, 1978.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2023 · leading case: Heath v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 464 A.2d 288 (N.H. 1983).
Heath v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 464 A.2d 288 (N.H. 1983). “), because of the twelve-year statute of limitations contained in RSA 507-D:2, 11(a) (Supp. 1979). In case No.”
Majdic v. Cincinnati Mach. Co., 537 A.2d 334 (Pa. 1988). “1983); N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 507-D:2 (1983). This trend has been evident on the federal level as well.”
Martin v. Gardner Mach. Works, Inc., 415 A.2d 878 (N.H. 1980). “These cases present identical issues concerning the application of RSA 507-D:2 II (Supp. 1979) to causes of action that accrued, but had not been brought, prior to the statute’s effective date.”
Phaneuf Funeral Home v. Little Giant Pump Co., 48 A.3d 912 (N.H. 2012). “The plaintiff asserts that if a statute of repose did apply to its claims, the applicable one would be RSA 507-D:2 (2010), which established a twelve-year repose period for product liability actions, and further notes that in Heath v.”
Wright v. Clark Equip. Co., 480 A.2d 146 (N.H. 1984). “By way of special plea and motion to dismiss, the defendant moved to dismiss the action, alleging that it was barred by RSA 507-D:2, 11(a), which provided that “all product liability actions must be commenced .”
Michael Medeiros & Nikki Medeiros, Plaintiffs v. Town of Rindge, Robert Edward Knight, CNH Indus. Am., LLC, Diamond Mowers, LLC, & Howard P. Fairfield, LLC, Defendants, 2023 DNH 042 (D.N.H. 2023). “512 (1983), the New Hampshire Supreme Court held NH RSA 507-D:2(4) unconstitutional, and voided it “in its entirety.”
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 507-D:2(4): 1 case
Michael Medeiros & Nikki Medeiros, Plaintiffs v. Town of Rindge, Robert Edward Knight, CNH Indus. Am., LLC, Diamond Mowers, LLC, & Howard P. Fairfield, LLC, Defendants, 2023 DNH 042 (D.N.H. 2023). “512 (1983), the New Hampshire Supreme Court held NH RSA 507-D:2(4) unconstitutional, and voided it “in its entirety.”
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.