The caption
The parties exactly as the court lists them—not a claim about the merits.
State court of last resort · ST-VA-SC
Royal Indemnity Co. v. Tyco Fire Products
No. 091993Supreme Court of Virginia
091993 Royal Indemnity Co. v. Tyco Fire Products 01/13/2011 (Revised 01/18/2011) In a product liability case, exterior sidewall sprinkler heads were "equipment" rather than ordinary building materials under Co…
The clerk's words are shown exactly as filed.The activity
Orders, motions, and filings in the clerk's own words and sequence.
The source
The official docket and available court documents attached to every update.
091993 Royal Indemnity Co. v. Tyco Fire Products 01/13/2011 (Revised 01/18/2011) In a product liability case, exterior sidewall s…
- Court
- Supreme Court of Virginia
- First added here
- October 4, 2026
- Last entry
- January 13, 2011
No bill or executive-order citation is attached to this file.
Official docket
Case timeline
The clerk's wording is shown verbatim and linked to the court's own document page where available.
Docket entry
091993 Royal Indemnity Co. v. Tyco Fire Products 01/13/2011 (Revised 01/18/2011) In a product liability case, exterior sidewall sprinkler heads were "equipment" rather than ordinary building materials under Code § 8.01-250, and hence not subject to the statute of repose. The manufacturer's description of how a sprinkler head functions did not constitute an express warranty of future performance. The designer and installer of the sprinkler system was neither a manufacturer or "supplier" of the products, and thus was entitled to protection under the statute of repose. The judgment of the circuit court sustaining the manufacturer's plea in bar under Code § 8.01-250 is reversed, and its judgmen…
Open court document ↗Rulings in this case over time
Courts at different levels and stages can reach different results in the same case. Each entry is the court's own record; read it before drawing a conclusion.
1 entry, oldest first.
· Supreme Court of Virginia
Reversed
The court's record, as written
091993 Royal Indemnity Co. v. Tyco Fire Products 01/13/2011 (Revised 01/18/2011) In a product liability case, exterior sidewall sprinkler heads were "equipment" rather than ordinary building materials under Code § 8.01-250, and hence not subject to the statute of repose. The manufacturer's description of how a sprinkler head functions did not constitute an express warranty of future performance. The designer and installer of the sprinkler system was neither a manufacturer or "supplier" of the products, and thus was entitled to protection under the statute of repose. The judgment of the circuit court sustaining the manufacturer's plea in bar under Code § 8.01-250 is reversed, and its judgmen…
Outcome words in this text: reversed.
Method: an entry is marked with an outcome only when its own text contains the outcome word, and the word is shown beside it. Orders, opinions and judgments whose text does not say are marked Other. Party filings, notices and routine procedural orders (appearances, extra pages, time extensions, scheduling) are not listed. No link between this case and any other case is recorded in our data, so only this case's own record is shown. Open the court's docket
Documents and links