Bamcor LLC v. Jupiter Aluminum Corp.
767 F. Supp. 2d 959
N.D. Ind.2011Background
- Bamcor, LLC and Bamcor personnel refurbished a fire-damaged gearbox for Jupiter Aluminum after a 2006 plant fire.
- Bamcor quoted a price with a clause nullifying terms in purchase orders, and Jupiter issued a PO with different terms including lost profits recovery.
- The gearbox installation involved external lubrication and subsequent failure leading to a nine-day plant shutdown in January 2008.
- Bamcor asserted defamation, and Jupiter claimed breach of contract; the court addressed defamation law choice of law and the applicability of the contracts.
- Bamcor moved to exclude certain expert testimony; Jupiter sought summary judgment on multiple counts; Bamcor opposed with its own expert disclosures and affidavits.
- The court denied most of Bamcor’s motions, granted partial summary judgment in part, and granted several of Jupiter’s motions to strike or exclude evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which contract governs (quotation vs. purchase order) | Bamcor argues quotation controls | Jupiter argues purchase order governs | Purchase order controls; battle of the forms favors Jupiter |
| Defamation claim choice of law and sufficiency | Ohio defamation law should apply; Bamcor can show false statements | Indiana law would apply or Bamcor cannot prove false statements | Ohio law applies; Bamcor lacks sufficient evidence of specific defamatory statements; summary judgment for Jupiter on defamation |
| Admissibility and sufficiency of expert testimony | Carbonara/Bookwalter provide valid methodology; credible analyses | Experts lack necessary credentials and data to support opinions | Carbonara/Bookwalter testimony allowed; Daubert/Kumho standard applied; some challenged testimony preserved as to weight |
| Whether Bamcor can prove that spray bar broke due to Bamcor’s actions | Evidence supports Bamcor’s theory; records show circumstantial support | Record lacks direct evidence Bamcor caused the break; experts’ opinions disputed | Remains a genuine issue of material fact; summary judgment denied on breach/declaratory counterclaims |
| Whether Balogh affidavit should be struck for Rule 26 disclosure | Balogh information relates to defamation claim | Balogh undisclosed; prejudice to Jupiter | Balogh affidavit struck; Bamcor’s defamation claim dismissed (summary judgment) for lack of evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard; burden on movant to show no genuine issues)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (genuine issue of material fact; standard for summary judgment)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (gatekeeping for reliability of expert testimony)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (Daubert applies to all expert testimony; flexible factors)
- Gates v. Petri, 127 Ind.App. 670, 143 N.E.2d 293 (1957) (mirror-image rule for contract formation)
- Uniroyal, Inc. v. Chambers Gasket & Mfg. Co., 380 N.E.2d 571 (Ind.App.1978) (mirror-image rule / contract formation)