R.I. Gen. Laws
Rhode Island General Laws

R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-13 (2026)

Limitation of actions generally — Product liability

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section RI-LEGwebserver.rilegislature.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Except as otherwise specially provided, all civil actions shall be commenced within ten (10) years next after the cause of action shall accrue, and not after.

(b) [Ruled unconstitutional, see case notes] Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, an action for the recovery of damages for personal injury, death, or damage to real or personal property, including any action based upon implied warranties arising out of an alleged design, inspection, listing, or manufacturing defect, or any other alleged defect of whatsoever kind or nature in a product, or arising out of any alleged failure to warn regarding a product, or arising out of any alleged failure to properly instruct in the use of a product, shall be commenced within ten (10) years after the date the product was first purchased for use or consumption.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 77 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1968–2026 · leading case: Kennedy v. Cumberland Eng'g Co., Inc., 471 A.2d 195 (R.I. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kennedy v. Cumberland Eng'g Co., Inc., 471 A.2d 195 (R.I. 1984). · cites it 30× “In 1978 the General Assembly amended § 9-1-13 to require that claims for recovery of damages involving injury-causing products must be commenced "within ten (10) years after the date the product was first purchased for use or consumption.”
Am. Condo. Ass'n v. IDC, Inc., 844 A.2d 117 (R.I. 2004). · cites it 5× “Instead, the hearing justice found that the suit was timely within the ten-year period of limitations for civil suits enunciated in G.L.1956 § 9-1-13. The hearing justice also found that the tolling agreement, which was voluntarily entered into by the parties, precluded…”
Melissa E. Goddard v. APG Sec.-RI, LLC, alias John Doe Corp., 134 A.3d 173 (R.I. 2016). · cites it 4× “1986) (holding that actions for legal malpractice were essentially claims for negligent breach of contract and were therefore subject to the statute of limitations in § 9-1-13); Mikaelian v. Drug Abuse Unit, 501 A.”
Pellegrino v. Rhode Island Ethics Comm'n, 788 A.2d 1119 (R.I. 2002). · cites it 4× “But we disagree and conclude instead that G.L. 1956 § 9-1-13(a), containing the catchall ten-year statute of limitations, is applicable to these claims to enforce statutory benefits because they do not fall within any of the other specific statutory provisions providing for…”
Lee v. Morin, 469 A.2d 358 (R.I. 1983). · cites it 5× “1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 9-1-13. Providence, Maguire, and Fanning & Doorley asserted that the Lees failed to prove causation in negligence.”
Romano v. Westinghouse Elec. Co., 336 A.2d 555 (R.I. 1975). · cites it 7× “All three parties either assume or expressly state that §9-1-13 is the section properly applicable to all counts of the instant action except the breach of warranty count.”
Boghossian v. Ferland Corp., 600 A.2d 288 (R.I. 1991). · cites it 6× “The sole issue before the court on this appeal is whether the statute of limitations set out in § 9-1-29 or in § 9-1-13 applies to an action for damages for breach of a contract to improve real property.”
Church v. McBurney, 513 A.2d 22 (R.I. 1986). · cites it 5× “1956 (1985 Reenactment) § 9-24-27: 1 Which statute of limitations applies to an action for legal malpractice — § 9-1-14, which prescribes a three-year limitation upon actions for “injuries to the person,” or § 9-1-13, which, at the time this suit was filed, prescribed a six-year…”
Fleet Nat'l Bank v. Valente (In Re Valente), 360 F.3d 256 (1st Cir. 2004). · cites it 2× “See R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-13(a) (“Except as otherwise specially provided, all civil actions shall be commenced within ten (10) years next after the cause of action shall accrue, and not after.”
Doyle v. Huntress, Inc., 301 F. Supp. 2d 135 (D.R.I. 2004). · cites it 3× “Plaintiffs suggest that this Court look to Rhode Island state law for the most analogous statute of limitations, and argue that the Court should assign the burden of proof for laches based on the ten year statute of limitations found in R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-13(a), the state…”
Walsh v. Gowing, 494 A.2d 543 (R.I. 1985). · cites it 3× “or for wrongful death arising out of any such deficiency; or (3) for contribution or indemnity for damages sustained on account of any injury mentioned in clauses (1) and (2) hereof; more than ten (10) years after substantial completion of such an improvement, provided, however,…”
Harodite Indus., Inc. v. Warren Elec. Corp., 24 A.3d 514 (R.I. 2011). · cites it 2× “[19] General Laws 1956 § 9-1-13 provides in pertinent part as follows: "(a) Except as otherwise specially provided, all civil actions shall be commenced within ten (10) years next after the cause of action shall accrue, and not after.”
Show all 77 citing cases →
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-13(a) — 22 cases
Pellegrino v. Rhode Island Ethics Comm'n, 788 A.2d 1119 (R.I. 2002). “But we disagree and conclude instead that G.L. 1956 § 9-1-13(a), containing the catchall ten-year statute of limitations, is applicable to these claims to enforce statutory benefits because they do not fall within any of the other specific statutory provisions providing for…”
Melissa E. Goddard v. APG Sec.-RI, LLC, alias John Doe Corp., 134 A.3d 173 (R.I. 2016). “1986) (holding that actions for legal malpractice were essentially claims for negligent breach of contract and were therefore subject to the statute of limitations in § 9-1-13); Mikaelian v. Drug Abuse Unit, 501 A.”
Fleet Nat'l Bank v. Valente (In Re Valente), 360 F.3d 256 (1st Cir. 2004). “See R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-13(a) (“Except as otherwise specially provided, all civil actions shall be commenced within ten (10) years next after the cause of action shall accrue, and not after.”
Doyle v. Huntress, Inc., 301 F. Supp. 2d 135 (D.R.I. 2004). “Plaintiffs suggest that this Court look to Rhode Island state law for the most analogous statute of limitations, and argue that the Court should assign the burden of proof for laches based on the ten year statute of limitations found in R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-13(a), the state…”
Am. States Ins. Co. v. Joann LaFlam, 69 A.3d 831 (R.I. 2013).
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-13(b) — 4 cases
Kennedy v. Cumberland Eng'g Co., Inc., 471 A.2d 195 (R.I. 1984). “In 1978 the General Assembly amended § 9-1-13 to require that claims for recovery of damages involving injury-causing products must be commenced "within ten (10) years after the date the product was first purchased for use or consumption.”
Walsh v. Gowing, 494 A.2d 543 (R.I. 1985). “or for wrongful death arising out of any such deficiency; or (3) for contribution or indemnity for damages sustained on account of any injury mentioned in clauses (1) and (2) hereof; more than ten (10) years after substantial completion of such an improvement, provided, however,…”
Renaud v. Sigma-Aldrich Corp., 662 A.2d 711 (R.I. 1995).
Burke v. Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft, 471 A.2d 206 (R.I. 1984).
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.