I. BACKGROUND [¶ 2] The factual and procedural history of this case is laid out in two previous decisions of this Court: Brawn v. Oral Surgery Assocs., 2003 ME 11, 819 A.2d 1014 ( Brawn I) and Brawn v. Oral Surgery Assocs., 2006 ME 32, 893 A.2d 1011 ( Brawn II). The Vitek implants at issue in these decisions were the subject of a United States Food and Drug Administration safety alert in 1990 that warned of the "serious problems" associated with Vitek implants, including the risk of "implant perforation, fragmentation, and/or [a] foreign body response which may result in progressive bone degeneration." Brawn I, 2003 ME 11, ¶ 2, 819 A.2d at 1018.

"OSA" will be used to refer to all of the defendants.See Dutil v. Burns, 674 A.2d 910 (Me. 1996); Dutil v. Bums, 1997 ME 1, 687 A.2d 639; Brawn v. Oral Surgery Assocs. (Brawn I), 2003 ME 11, 819 A.2d 1014; Brawn v. Oral Surgery Assocs. (Brawn II), 2006 ME 32, 893 A-2d 1011; Farnum v. Oral Surgery Assocs., 2007 ME 140, 933 A.2d 1267. The negligence claim included several more specific claims: (1) failure to warn; (2) failure to provide adequate information for informed consent; (3) false representations of material fact; (4) fraudulent concealment; (5) failure to appropriately monitor patients' conditions; and (6) failure to diagnose and treat patients once failure of the implant was known to OSA.

Baker v. Farrand , 2011 ME 91, ¶ 31, 26 A.3d 806. To survive a limitations defense raised at summary judgment and proceed to adjudication of the facts, a plaintiff, either with or without statements of additional material fact, see M.R. Civ. P. 56(h)(2), bears the burden of demonstrating that the summary judgment record generates a factual dispute about the running of the limitations period, seeBrawn v. Oral Surgery Assocs., P.A. , 2006 ME 32, ¶ 10, 893 A.2d 1011. “When the plaintiff fails to set forth facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial on a statute of limitations defense, summary judgment may be granted on the ground that the applicable statute of limitations has run.” Id.

496 A.2d 286, 297 (Me. 1985). We have also previously imposed a duty to warn of "learned dangers" in the professional negligence context of an oral surgeon's duty to warn of hazards associated with dental implants, recognizing the importance of the patient's reliance on the expertise of her surgeon. Farnum v. Oral Surgery Assocs., 2007 ME 140, ¶¶ 7-8, 933 A.2d 1267, 1270-71; Brawn v. Oral Surgery Assocs., 2006 ME 32, ¶ 11, 893 A.2d 1011, 1015; Welch v. McCarthy, 677 A.2d 1066, 1069-70 (Me. 1996). [¶ 17] In the matter before us, Crown knew of the risk to forklift operators created by new shelving arrangements, had created a kit for reducing or eliminating that risk, was in personal contact with Prime, an indirect purchaser of the forklift, and performed an evaluation of that very forklift.

" Lougee Conservancy v. CitvMortgage, Inc., 2012 ME 103, ¶ 11, 48 A.3d 774. "When the plaintiff fails to set forth facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial on a statute of limitations defense, summary judgment may be granted on the ground that the applicable statute of limitations has run." Brawn v. Oral Surgery Assocs., P.A., 2006 ME 32, ¶ 10, 893 A.2d 1011. IV. DISCUSSION

"When the plaintiff fails to set forth facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial on a statute of limitations defense, summary judgment may be granted on the ground that the applicable statute of limitations has run." Brawn v. Oral Surgery Assocs., 2006 ME 32, ¶ 10, 893 A.2d 1011. The construction on defendants' property that is the subject of plaintiffs' complaint was completed in 2004.