The Court of Appeals summarily affirmed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment, and did not entertain any of Plaintiffs’ arguments on why the statute of repose should not apply. Further, with respect to the claims against the product manufacturer, since the product was incorporated into a residence, the Court held that all claims against the manufacturer for money damages were barred by the statute of repose, notwithstanding the fact that the manufacturer issued a 20 year express warranty for its product. The Court held that the only claim that could extend beyond the statute of repose was for specific performance of the warranty, and not for money damages.