Mathias, J.
Matthew Davis (“Davis”) appeals the Elkhart Superior Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Lippert Components Manufacturing, Inc. (“Lippert”). Specifically, Davis argues the trial court erred as a matter of law when it determined that he did not qualify as a “user” or “consumer” under Indiana’s Product Liability Act (“IPLA”).
We affirm.
Facts and Procedure
Evergreen Recreational Vehicles, L.L.C., (“Evergreen”) manufactured towable travel trailers in Elkhart, Indiana…
Davis worked for Evergreen in its “slide-out department” as a “box installer” where his job was to install the box on the trailer…
On June 17, 2014, Davis was attaching the wire harness when the box started to move out. He assumed the box would stop moving, but it did not, and it fell out of the trailer and onto his lower back. Davis suffered significant injuries, including paralysis from the waist down.
…
Here, the trial court determined that Davis was not a “user” or “consumer” as those terms are defined in the IPLA, and therefore had no claim under the Act. Who qualifies under this statutory definition is a pure question of law, which we review de novo. Ballard v. Lewis, 8 N.E.3d 190, 193 (Ind. 2014); Stegemoller v. ACandS, Inc., 767 N.E.2d 974, 975 (Ind. 2002).
….
Here, the slide-out unit, consisting of the Schwintek System at issue, was never intended or expected to “reach the ultimate user or consumer in an unassembled or uninstalled form.” Id. at 1141. Evergreen produced towable trailers, and as part of its assembly, Davis installed the box, which included the Schwintek System, to create the slide-out unit. The trailer then needed to go through three more departments—trimming, final finish hangs, and a rain tunnel to check for leaks—before it was put in the yard and eventually sent to a dealer. Appellant’s App. p. 98. Therefore, the user or consumer here would be the first consuming entity to obtain possession of the completed product…
We need not reach the question of whether an owner who purchases a system such as that at issue here could be considered a user or consumer under the IPLA if injured during installation on the owner’s own travel trailer or recreational vehicle, as that is not the case before us. Davis’s installation of the box and the Schwintek System was part of the assembly and manufacture of the trailer before being released into the stream of commerce for public consumption. See Estate of Shebel ex. Rel. Shebel v. Yaskawa Elec. America, Inc., 713 N.E.2d 275 (Ind. 1999) (finding an individual was a user, in part, because it was not a case of assembling component parts). As a result, we cannot say that Davis was a “consumer” or “user” under Indiana Code section 34-6-2-29.
To conclude otherwise would controvert the exclusivity of the remedy provided to employees like Davis in the Workers Compensation System. See Ind. Code § 22-3-2-6. It would also place ultimate purchasers of a trailer or recreational vehicle in a position where their two-year time statute of limitations period1 to bring a claim under the IPLA would be dependent on the delivery date of a component part to a manufacturer, and not on the delivery date of the finished product to the consumer.
Conclusion
Based on the facts and circumstances before us, Davis does not qualify as a “user” or “consumer” under the IPLA. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment.
Najam, J., and Kirsch, J., concur.