dissenting.
I dissent. I do not believe that the twelve year statute of repose set out in 42 Pa.C.S. § 5536 applies to designers and manufacturers of products that are incorporated into the construction of improvements to real property. Section 5536, Construction projects, provides, in relevant part, as follows:
(a) General rule. — Except as provided in subsection (b), a civil action or proceeding brought against any person lawfully performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision or observation of construction, or construction of an improvement to real property must be commenced within 12 years after completion of construction of such improvement to recover damages ...
(emphasis added) A manufacturer does nothing other than supply the component products for an improvement to real property. The fact that a manufacturer designs and plans those component products is irrelevant under the statute, since the statute is concerned with only those persons involved in the design, planning, supervision, or construction of the improvement to real property itself. Thus, the clear and unambiguous language of § 5536 establishes that manufacturers who supply defective products that are incorporated into an improvement to real property are not entitled to that statute’s benefits.1
*528Appellants James F. and Diane D. McCormick have consistently alleged that appellee Columbus Conveyor designed, manufactured, and sold the product that caused Mr. McCormick’s injuries. Thus, this is an appropriate case to address their argument “that section 5536(a) does not apply to manufacturers whose products are incorporated into real estate by others as improvements.” Maj. op. at 526. That the engineer and construction company involved in the project were also alleged to have designed, manufactured, and sold the product at issue is irrelevant to the issue of the manufacturer’s liability and the applicability of the statute of repose.
Accordingly, I would reverse the order of Superior Court affirming the entry of summary judgment, and I would remand to the Court of Common Pleas for further proceedings.
PAPADAKOS, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.. Although this Court did not “decide the question whether ‘suppliers’ could ever be entitled to the protection of the statute,” maj. op. at 910 n. 2, in Freezer Storage, Inc. v. Armstrong Cork Co., 476 Pa. 270, 382 A.2d 715 (1978), the case does provide the basis for distinguishing *528between "suppliers” and "builders” under our statute of repose. In that case, this Court stated that:
[E]very building is unique and far more complex than any of its component parts____ The Legislature can rationally conclude that the conditions under which builders work are sufficiently difficult that limitations should be placed on their liabilities, but not on the liabilities of suppliers.
Id., 476 Pa. at 277, 382 A.2d at 719.
The within appellee, Columbus Conveyor, designed a product that was custom built to fit into a particular space, as specified by the engineering firm that designed the power house at Bucknell University. That customized product, however, was manufactured in the "controlled environment of the factory," id., and was therefore readily subject to quality-control standards in a way that the building itself was not so subject.