Andy Mohr Truck Center, Inc. v. Volvo Trucks North America
869 F.3d 598
7th Cir.2017Background
- Volvo Trucks and Mohr, a Volvo dealer, entered into a 2010 dealership agreement that soured and led to separate, consolidated federal lawsuits.
- Mohr won a jury verdict of $6.5 million and prevailed on Volvo’s declaratory-judgment claim that it could terminate Mohr for misrepresentation regarding a new facility.
- Volvo argued Mohr failed to build a promised new facility; Mohr countered with an IFDA/IDFPA claim alleging Volvo promised a Mack Truck franchise to induce Mohr to invest in a new facility.
- Mohr claimed Volvo discriminated unfairly among franchisees via pricing concessions under Volvo’s RSA program, violating IDFPA.
- The district court granted Mohr summary judgment on the new-facility claim, denied Volvo’s Rule 50(b) motion on discrimination, and Mohr prevailed on the IDFPA claim at trial.
- This court reverses the 50(b) denial on the unfair-discrimination claim, affirms the new-facility judgment, and affirms the Mack-claim judgment; each side bears its own appellate costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Volvo discriminated unfairly among franchisees under the IDFPA | Mohr: evidence shows systematic unfair concessions to Mohr vs comparators. | Volvo: perfunctory, non-similar comparisons; no pattern of unfair discrimination; data cherry-picking. | Volvo verdict reversed; insufficient proof of unfair discrimination. |
| Whether the district court erred in denying Volvo’s Rule 50(b) motion on the discrimination claim | Mohr argues evidence supports discrimination; jury could rely on RSA data. | Volvo asserts lack of similarity, cherry-picking, extraterritoriality issues; insufficient. | District court erred; judgment entered for Volvo on the discrimination claim. |
| Whether Mohr's new-facility misrepresentation claim survives the integration clause | IFDA fraud claim preserved despite integration clause; reliance questions unresolved. | Integration clause bars extrinsic evidence; reliance on future promises not reasonable. | Affirm summary judgment for Mohr on new-facility claim; integration clause not fatal here. |
| Whether Mohr's claim for Mack franchise misrepresentation survives | IFDA misrepresentation claim supported by promised Mack franchise. | Mack promise not included in contract; no basis for reliance. | Mohr's cross-appeal on Mack claim affirmed; district court judgment stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- Canada Dry Corp. v. Nehi Beverage Co., Inc. of Indianapolis, 723 F.2d 512 (7th Cir. 1983) (discrimination among franchisees requires arbitrary, disparate treatment among similarly situated entities)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1981) (pretext framework in discrimination analysis)
- Reeder-Simco GMC, Inc. v. GMC, Inc., 546 U.S. 164 (U.S. 2006) (Robinson-Patman price-discrimination context; not applicable here)
- Franklin v. White, 493 N.E.2d 161 (Ind. 1986) (integration clause weight and contract integration under Indiana law)
- Judson Atkinson Candies, Inc. v. Kenray Assocs., Inc., 719 F.3d 635 (7th Cir. 2013) (integration clause consideration under contract formation)
- America’s Directories Inc. v. Stellhorn One Hour Photo, Inc., 833 N.E.2d 1059 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (integration clause effect on extrinsic evidence)
- Krieg v. Hieber, 802 N.E.2d 938 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (integration clause treated as contract provision; evidentiary weight varies)