CAPITAL MOTOR LINES v. Detroit Diesel Corp.
799 F. Supp. 2d 11
D.D.C.2011Background
- Capital Motor, an Alabama corporation, purchased a 2002 model motor coach equipped with a Detroit Diesel Series 60 engine.
- The coach was operated by Greyhound Lines under a contract with Capital Motor.
- On June 8, 2005, the coach caught fire in Washington, D.C.; the fire caused a total loss of the coach.
- August 2005 inspection attributed the fire to engine malfunction; no injuries occurred.
- Detroit Diesel issued a March 2006 report acknowledging Series 60 engines’ susceptibility to turbocharger compressor failures and announced a safety recall campaign.
- Capital Motor filed suit on June 5, 2008 alleging breach of implied warranty and two negligence counts; Detroit Diesel moved for summary judgment which the court granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the implied warranty claim is barred by the four-year SOL | Capital Motor argues the waiver occurred but seeks to avoid it | Detroit Diesel argues the claim accrued at delivery in 2001 and was timely defense-waived | Summary judgment for Detroit Diesel; claim barred by SOL |
Key Cases Cited
- Hull v. Eaton Corp., 825 F.2d 448 (D.C.Cir. 1987) (statute of limitations accrual and discovery rules in DC)
- Long v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 877 F. Supp. 8 (D.D.C. 1995) (tender of delivery triggers accrual for warranty)
- Daingerfield Island Protective Soc'y v. Babbitt, 40 F.3d 442 (D.C.Cir. 1994) (affirmative defense waiver and amendment considerations)
- Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380 (Supreme Court 1993) (excusable neglect factors in filing and amendments)
- Harris v. Secretary, U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 126 F.3d 339 (D.C.Cir. 1997) (Rule 15 and waiver considerations for affirmative defenses)
- Saratoga Fishing Co. v. J.M. Martinac & Co., 520 U.S. 875 (Supreme Court 1997) (economic loss doctrine—'product' versus 'other property' distinction)
- Mt. Lebanon Personal Care Home, Inc. v. Hoover Universal, Inc., 276 F.3d 845 (6th Cir. 2002) (narrow reading of 'other property' exception under economic loss)
- National Coach Works of Virginia v. Detroit Diesel Corp., 128 F. Supp. 2d 821 (D. Md. 2001) (engine vs. motor coach damages under economic loss)
- A.J. Decoster Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 333 Md. 245, 634 A.2d 1330 (Md. 1994) (Baltimore Md. heightened interpretation of 'other property')
- Travelers Indem. Co. v. Dammann & Co., 594 F.3d 238 (3d Cir. 2010) (application of economic loss rule to complex products)
- Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Equipment Corp. of America, 646 F. Supp. 2d 51 (D.D.C. 2009) (economic loss rule applied in DC federal court)
- Potomac Plaza Terraces, Inc. v. QSC Products, Inc., 868 F. Supp. 346 (D.D.C. 1994) (economic loss rule articulation in DC courts)