Arundel Valley, LLC v. Branch River Plastics, Inc.
151 A.3d 938
Me.2016Background
- Arundel Valley sued Branch River alleging Branch River manufactured and supplied defective structural insulated panels (SIPs), and proceeded at trial on two counts: breach of implied warranty of merchantability and breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.
- Arundel Valley’s expert (DeStefano) testified at trial about two manufacturing defects (panel joint gaps and internal foam gaps); Branch River did not object at trial to the internal-foam-gap testimony and later moved for a new trial claiming surprise.
- Evidence at trial showed Branch River had a “standard” 20-year warranty (purportedly voided), then sent an express warranty (Exhibit 21) containing a disclaimer of implied warranties that Arundel Valley did not sign; Exhibit 21 was admitted but Branch River told the court it would not argue disclaimer issues to the jury.
- The trial court told the parties that any legal or factual issues regarding the effectiveness of the disclaimer would be decided by the court post-verdict, and the jury was instructed only on the two implied-warranty claims.
- The jury returned a verdict for Arundel Valley (~$660,080 judgment after offsets). Branch River moved for a new trial arguing unfair surprise and that the court erroneously failed to adjudicate the disclaimer; the court denied the motion.
- The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment as to the two implied-warranty counts and remanded for the trial court to decide (on the existing record or after further argument) whether Branch River effectively disclaimed implied warranties; if so, judgment for Branch River; if not, reinstate the verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expert testimony about internal foam gaps was an unfair surprise warranting a new trial | DeStefano’s testimony was disclosed and not an ambush; no new trial needed | Testimony introduced a new theory at trial and surprised Branch River | Court: No abuse of discretion in denying new trial; Branch River had notice and did not timely object |
| Whether Branch River effectively disclaimed implied warranties, barring Arundel Valley’s claims | Implied warranties apply; disclaimer not operative against Arundel Valley | Branch River disclaimed implied warranties via standard or express warranty (Exhibit 21) | Court: Issue withdrawn from jury and must be decided by trial court; remanded for determination whether disclaimer was legally effective |
Key Cases Cited
- Seabury-Peterson v. Jhamb, 15 A.3d 746 (Me. 2011) (deferential review of denial of a motion for a new trial because trial court best positioned to assess fairness)
- State v. Daluz, 143 A.3d 800 (Me. 2016) (noting deferential review based on trial court’s unique ability to evaluate fairness of proceedings)