Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Construction Resources Group, LLC v. Element Financial Corp.

United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma

May 24, 2017

CONSTRUCTION RESOURCES GROUP, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company; MARK LIVINGSTON, an individual; MAX MULLER, an individual, Plaintiffs,
v.
ELEMENT FINANCIAL CORP., a Delaware corporation; CLARK EQUIPMENT COMPANY d/b/a DOOSAN INFRACORE CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AMERICA, a Delaware corporation, Defendants, ELEMENT FINANCIAL CORP., Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
THOMAS MAXWELL, an individual, Third-Party Defendant/ Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
CLARK EQUIPMENT COMPANY d/b/a DOOSAN INFRACORE CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AMERICA, Third-Party Defendant.

          ORDER

          VICKI MILES-LaGRANGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This case is scheduled for trial on the Court's June 2017 trial docket.

         Before the Court is defendant Clark Equipment Company d/b/a Doosan Infracore Construction Equipment America's (“DICEA”) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed April 3, 2017. On April 24, 2017, plaintiffs filed their response.[1] On May 1, 2017, DICEA filed its reply, and on May 15, 2017, plaintiffs filed their surreply. Based upon the parties' submissions, the Court makes its determination.

         I. Introduction

         On November 5, 2013, plaintiff Construction Resources Group, LLC (“CRG”) ordered a Doosan DL 420-3 Wheel Loader (the “Loader”) from H&E Equipment Services, Inc. (“H&E”)[2].[3]H&E received the Loader and completed an Arrival Condition Report; the Arrival Condition Report notes that the “delivery packet”[4] was received with the Loader. DICEA asserts that the DICEA Warranty Statement was available to dealers on the dealer internet portal and that it was the standard business practice for the dealer to go through the delivery report with the customer and cover all the items, including the warranty. DICEA further asserts that the dealers are expected to provide a copy of the standard DICEA warranty statement to the customer. Plaintiffs allege they never received a copy of the DICEA warranty.

         The DICEA warranty provides that it is “expressly in lieu of any other warranties, expressed or implied, including any warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.” New Doosan Product Standard Warranty, attached as Exhibit 5 to DICEA's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The DICEA warranty further provides:

The liability of DICEA [Doosan Infracore Construction Equipment America] under this warranty is expressly limited to the provisions specified above and in no event shall DICEA incur any liability (including liability for general, special, incidental or consequential damages, economic or moral loss, arising out of any failure of Machine) which is not expressly assumed by DICEA under this warranty. In all matters DICEA's decision is final.

Id.

         Plaintiffs allege that there were fourteen instances where the Loader was inoperable due to issues with the Loader's Scania engine/emission system. Additionally, plaintiffs allege there were five other issues with the Loader due to mechanical issues other than the engine/emission system. Each time the Loader would be inoperable or would have mechanical issues, either Scania or H&E would attempt to repair the problem. After the attempted repair, the Loader would work for some period of time but would have problems again some period of time thereafter.

         On December 17, 2014, plaintiffs filed the instant action. Plaintiffs allege the following causes of action against DICEA: (1) breach of express warranty, (2) breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and (3) indemnification, contribution, and equitable subrogation. DICEA now moves this Court for summary judgment on the above-referenced causes of action.

         II. Summary Judgment Standard

          “Summary judgment is appropriate if the record shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The moving party is entitled to summary judgment where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party. When applying this standard, [the Court] examines the record and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the non- moving party.” 19 Solid Waste Dep't Mechs. v. City of Albuquerque, 156 F.3d 1068, 1071-72 (10th Cir. 1998) (internal citations and quotations omitted).

         “Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Furthermore, the non-movant has a burden of doing more than simply showing there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. Rather, the relevant inquiry is whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Neustrom v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 156 F.3d 1057, 1066 (10th Cir. 1998) (internal citations and quotations omitted).

         III. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.