2:15-cv-02255
W.D. Tenn.Sep 2, 2016Background
- Cornerstone (broker) and Prestress (precast fabricator) entered a written hauling Agreement for deliveries from Memphis to the Ole Miss parking garage in April 2014.
- Agreement specified payment of $550 per load delivered and set $0.00 for canceled deliveries not canceled prior to drivers "departing to Prestress" and $0.00 per hour for long delays.
- Cornerstone billed Prestress TONU (truck order not used), empty-return, and jobsite shuttle charges across multiple invoices; Prestress refused payment.
- Cornerstone sued for breach of contract seeking roughly $137,060; Prestress moved for summary judgment.
- Court analyzed whether the Agreement unambiguously governed TONU, empty-return, and shuttle charges and whether any genuine fact disputes precluded summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TONU charges are payable under the Agreement | TONU invoices were not "canceled deliveries" within the contract; fact issues exist about timing of cancellations | The contract governs cancellations: deliveries canceled after drivers had departed are $0.00; TONU here were after departure | TONU not recoverable; summary judgment for Prestress |
| Whether empty-return charges are payable under the Agreement | Parties intended payment for delivery and return; empty returns were part of services and should be paid at $550 per trip | Agreement is silent on returns; plain meaning of "$550 per load delivered" covers only deliveries, not empty-return trips | Empty-return charges not covered by Agreement; summary judgment for Prestress |
| Whether jobsite shuttle charges are payable under the Agreement | Prestress requested/agreed to pay shuttles (testimony from trucking company employees) | Agreement is silent; any separate agreement is outside the Complaint’s breach-of-Agreement claim | Shuttle charges not covered by Agreement; summary judgment for Prestress |
| Whether genuine disputes of material fact preclude summary judgment | Plaintiff contends factual disputes exist as to whether charges fall within Agreement terms | Prestress contends the Agreement unambiguously precludes recovery of these charges and Plaintiff concedes some facts at hearing | No genuine disputes as to contractual obligation; Court grants summary judgment to Prestress |
Key Cases Cited
- Haddad v. Alexander, Zelmanski, Danner & Fioritto, PLLC, 758 F.3d 777 (6th Cir. 2014) (summary judgment standard)
- Am. Copper & Brass, Inc. v. Lake City Indus. Prods., Inc., 757 F.3d 540 (6th Cir. 2014) (genuine dispute definition)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for genuine issue at summary judgment)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (initial burden on movant for summary judgment)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (inferences for nonmoving party)
- Bruederle v. Louisville Metro Gov’t, 687 F.3d 771 (6th Cir. 2012) (Rule 56(c) citation requirement for proving/disputing facts)
- United States ex rel. Compton v. Midwest Specialties, Inc., 142 F.3d 296 (6th Cir. 1998) (district court may interpret unambiguous contract on summary judgment)