26 results for 'cat:"Product Liability" AND cat:"Contract"'.
J. Flanagan grants a generator production company’s partial dismissal in this product liability class action brought by an ice cream truck driver who was chemically burned when the truck’s gasoline tank malfunctioned. The driver argues the company knew the tanks were faulty, claiming fraud by omission. Because the driver fails to give sufficient information as to when the company supposedly began hiding this information, and because he does not point to any specific way that the company tried to hide information, this part of his claim fails.
Court: USDC Eastern District of North Carolina, Judge: Flanagan, Filed On: May 1, 2024, Case #: 7:23cv1329, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Fraud, product Liability, contract
J. Lasnik denies Mercedes-Benz summary judgment for an unjust enrichment claim in the consumer's class action alleging that Mercedes-Benz manufactured and sold vehicles with defective brakes. Mercedes-Benz argues that the Washington Products Liability Act preempts the consumer's unjust enrichment claim, but the consumer is seeking to recover economic losses which the WPLA does not preempt, and the consumer plausible infers that the money he paid for the vehicle enriched Mercedes-Benz.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Lasnik, Filed On: April 11, 2024, Case #: 2:22cv665, NOS: Contract Product Liability - Contract, Categories: Vehicle, product Liability, contract
J. Jenkins partially grants the defendant isobutane manufacturer’s motion to dismiss a pharmaceutical company’s breach of contract, breach of warranty, negligence and product liability claims. The isobutane manufacturer produces a component used in the pharma company’s antifungal spray, and now the pharma company accuses the manufacturer of contaminating that component with benzene. The court allows most of the pharma company’s claims to stand but dismisses its negligence and strict liability claims, finding they are barred by the economic loss doctrine.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Jenkins, Filed On: March 24, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv4391, NOS: Contract Product Liability - Contract, Categories: product Liability, Warranty, contract
J. James finds the Appeals Court erred in affirming a trial court ruling for one provision of a contract as it relates to liability. “To waive tort liability, contract language must be clear and explicit; waiver will not simply be deduced from inference or implication.” Reversed.
Court: Oregon Supreme Court, Judge: James, Filed On: March 7, 2024, Case #: S070083, Categories: product Liability, contract
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Vascura grants the shingle manufacturer's motion for summary judgment, ruling the homeowners have produced no expert testimony or other evidence to support their claim the shingles installed at their home were defective. Rather, the majority of their claims relate to the improper installation of the shingles by the roofing company; therefore, the manufacturer cannot be held liable.
Court: USDC Southern District of Ohio, Judge: Vascura, Filed On: March 5, 2024, Case #: 2:22cv3231, NOS: Contract Product Liability - Contract, Categories: Evidence, product Liability, contract
J. Walter grants a request by a Texas fabricating and manufacturing company to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds claims arising from a contract product liability suit brought against a Louisiana design business by a fiberglass factory, also located in Texas. The Louisiana company alleges the fabricator is responsible for making parts of two 111-feet ventilation stacks for the fiberglass factory, one of which blew over from about 35-feet above ground level, damaging the plant below. The only performance of the contract in Louisiana was done by the design company located in Shreveport. The Texas-based fabrication plant did not purposefully avail itself of the privilege of conducting business within Louisiana or invoke the benefits and protections of Louisiana law. Therefore, the Louisiana court does not have jurisdiction over the Texas stack-builder.
Court: USDC Western District of Louisiana , Judge: Walter, Filed On: March 4, 2024, Case #: 5:22cv5837, NOS: Contract Product Liability - Contract, Categories: product Liability, Jurisdiction, contract
J. Stadtmueller partially grants summary judgment to the trucking company in a lawsuit involving a disputed warranty claim from an insurance company on behalf of an insured whose driver was driving a truck manufactured and serviced by the company when he crashed into a highway median, which he and the company claim was caused by the truck's defective power steering. The insurance company's claim of breach of implied warranties fails and is dismissed with prejudice, in part because the disclaimer language regarding implied warranties in the relevant warranty agreement is conspicuous enough, though it is "a close case." The insurance company's breach of express warranty claim survives and will move forward to trial for a jury to decide whether the crash was caused by defective power steering or the driver's own fault.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Wisconsin, Judge: Stadtmueller, Filed On: February 12, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv219, NOS: Contract Product Liability - Contract, Categories: product Liability, Warranty, contract
J. Hardy dismisses a home builder’s breach of contract and negligence claims against the lumber company that provided moist, and eventually moldy, materials for the builder's personal house. The homeowner lacks standing because the contract was with his company, which ultimately owns the house, not the home builder as an individual.
Court: USDC Western District of Pennsylvania, Judge: Hardy, Filed On: February 8, 2024, Case #: 2:20cv1763, NOS: Contract Product Liability - Contract, Categories: Negligence, product Liability, contract
J. Clay finds the lower court properly granted the brake manufacturer's motion for summary judgment on indemnification claims. Not only did Nissan fail to produce any evidence at the product liability trial that the brake system was defective and played a role in numerous car accidents, but the jury in the product liability action also failed to attribute any blame to the brake parts, which prevents Nissan from recouping any of the damages awarded by the jury. Affirmed.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Clay, Filed On: February 6, 2024, Case #: 22-5469, Categories: product Liability, Indemnification, contract
J. Coughenour denies the technology company summary judgment for its warranty claim in its lawsuit alleging that the trading company produced and sold chicken with bones instead of the agreed-upon boneless chicken, putting customer safety at risk. The technology company and the trading company offer conflicting evidence on whether the product qualifies as "breast trim," and a reasonable jury could believe either argument.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Coughenour, Filed On: January 29, 2024, Case #: 2:22cv296, NOS: Contract Product Liability - Contract, Categories: product Liability, Warranty, contract
J. Lanier finds that the lower court properly granted summary judgment to the company on the state's claims relating to defective sprinkler system components that led to leaks in a building on a university campus. The evidence showed that the company did not manufacture or sell the defective components. Affirmed in part.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Lanier, Filed On: December 27, 2023, Case #: 2023CA0320, Categories: product Liability, contract
J. Rowland grants Mercedes-Benz’s motion to compel arbitration in a class action suit over its onboard navigation service, for which the suing class claim to have never fully agreed to use. The court finds that, per a user license agreement, the parties are contractually bound to arbitrate the dispute.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Rowland, Filed On: December 11, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv6099, NOS: Contract Product Liability - Contract, Categories: Arbitration, product Liability, contract
J. Winmill grants a medical equipment manufacturer's motion to dismiss a hospital's allegations that a machine that detects prostate cancer malfunctioned, giving incorrect results for some patients. The hospital seeks to recoup medical expenses it paid for patients whose results were incorrect. The hospital has not shown the existence of any contract terms beyond the agreement to purchase the machine or shown how the company breached the contract. The hospital has not provided facts to allege whether the machine malfunctioned or was defectively installed. The hospital is granted leave to amend.
Court: USDC Idaho, Judge: Winmill, Filed On: October 4, 2023, Case #: 3:22cv382, NOS: Contract Product Liability - Contract, Categories: Negligence, product Liability, contract
J. Simms grants in part a boat company's motion for partial summary judgment after a boat dealership sued it for breach of implied contract and other claims. The parties had an amicable relationship for years, and the company introduced a line of self-bailing boats that had yet to be tested or approved by a national boat safety association. Although a representative of the dealership was aware of this, he agreed to purchase at least 45 of the boats. When the dealership's customers began to complain that the self-bailing feature was dysfunctional, the dealership and company fell into disagreement. The dealership fails to prove there was an implied contract based on the long-term relationship between the parties and that the company was still obligated to continue to sell boats to the dealership. The relationship does not imply a contract or any such obligation, and the company was allowed to terminate the parties' relationship.
Court: USDC Maryland, Judge: Simms, Filed On: September 25, 2023, Case #: 1:20cv1414, NOS: Recovery of Overpayment & Enforcement of Judgment - Contract, Categories: product Liability, Warranty, contract
[Consolidated.] J. Cronan partially grants both parties' discovery motions in a dispute between a mining company and its supplier over three contracts to purchase industrial filter presses used to process refinery waste. The miner's expert may testify that bauxite residue in the filters may have caused longer cycle times, but not that this was the only reason for slower-than-expected cycle times. However, the supplier is entitles to dismissal of claims for negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.
Court: USDC Southern District of New York, Judge: Cronan, Filed On: September 11, 2023, Case #: 1:20cv4136, NOS: Contract Product Liability - Contract, Categories: product Liability, Discovery, contract
J. Albregts grants the refrigerator manufacturer's motion to quash the subpoena seeking to depose the company president in this suit brought on allegations that a refrigerator caught fire, damaging an RV and house. The company president is not a named party, but is the chairman/president and director of two named parties. A subpoena was unnecessary to depose him.
Court: USDC Nevada, Judge: Albregts , Filed On: June 15, 2023, Case #: 2:21cv2167, NOS: Contract Product Liability - Contract, Categories: Tort, product Liability, contract
J. Richardson grants the car manufacturer's dismissal motion in this lawsuit concerning a 2021 Nissan Altima, which allegedly suffered from multiple problems, including "stopping while accelerating." The complaint fails to state a claim for breach of contract against the manufacturer, as it does not "plausibly allege the existence of a contract" between the customer and the manufacturer. The customer's claim under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act will also be dismissed.
Court: USDC Middle District of Tennessee , Judge: Richardson, Filed On: June 15, 2023, Case #: 3:22cv809, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Consumer Law, product Liability, contract
J. Welling finds the trial court properly found in favor of the senior healthcare facility on its breach of contract claim stemming from a defect in the design and installation of air conditioning units. The AC units were inoperable after they were installed. The pretrial order determining the limitation of liability was improperly entered though because the property, located on land zoned as “commercial” or “mixed use” — which constitutes “residential property” — makes it subject to the Homeowner Protection Act. Affirmed in part. Reversed in part.
Court: Colorado Court Of Appeals, Judge: Welling, Filed On: May 25, 2023, Case #: 21CA0906, Categories: Construction, product Liability, contract