Based on the evidence of record, the court found that "interior paint" was a technical term, and the court did not err in refusing to give the dictionary definition of "interior."

The plaintiffs' utilized Duron fire resistant paint to cover oriented strand board in the attics of their residential construction project to comply with local building codes. After several years of use, the paint began to chip. The plaintiffs sued the defendants, asserting claims of breach of warranty and products liability. The issue of whether the oriented strand board in the attic was an "interior" surface was critical to both claims. The plaintiffs had to show that the paint was used for its normal, anticipated, ordinary or intended purpose. Although there was conflicting evidence, the record did not support that the jury was required to find that an attic was interior and not exterior. The defendants also established that it was more cost-effective for the plaintiffs to use fire-resistant paint rather than fire-resistant plywood. The court found this was a motive for the plaintiffs to use the paint without regard for whether its use was recommended for attics.

Case Law Alert - 1st Qtr 2012