Dominic v. Eurocar Classics
310 Ga. App. 825
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Dominic owned a 2000 Ferrari 360 Modena later damaged by a fire; repair contract was between Ferrari of Atlanta and Eurocar Classics for Dominic's car.
- Dominic had the car shipped to Atlanta after inspecting in California and later found overheating upon arrival.
- Eurocar Classics (Baez) supervised repairs, and Ferrari of Atlanta diagnosed an air pocket and a blown fuse, performing bleeding and fuse replacement under the repair contract.
- Eurocar Classics invoiced Ferrari of Atlanta for the repairs; Dominic paid Baez in cash and was not a party to the repair contract.
- After initial repair, the car overheated again, Baez and Eurocar Classics attempted further bleeding, and ultimate repair did not prevent a subsequent fire destroying the car.
- Dominic sued Eurocar Classics, Baez, and later Ferrari of Atlanta for contract breach, negligence, and punitive damages; the trial court granted summary judgment to Ferrari of Atlanta on contract and negligence claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dominic is a third-party beneficiary to the repair contract | Dominic asserts the contract's terms imply his benefit as the owner. | Ferrari of Atlanta contends no express term shows Dominic as a third-party beneficiary. | Dominic is not a third-party beneficiary. |
| Whether Ferrari of Atlanta owed Dominic a duty of care independent of the contract | Dominic argues a duty arises from privity or third-party beneficiary status. | Ferrari of Atlanta owed no independent duty to Dominic absent privity or beneficiary status. | No independent duty found; judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Walls, Inc. v. Atlantic Realty Co., 186 Ga.App. 389, 391(1), 367 S.E.2d 278 (1988) (general rule of no privity for contract claims)
- Kaesemeyer v. Angiogenix, Inc., 278 Ga.App. 434, 434, 629 S.E.2d 22 (2006) (de novo review of summary judgment; third-party beneficiary standard)
- Perry Golf Course Dev. v. Housing Auth. of City of Atlanta, 294 Ga.App. 387, 388(1), 670 S.E.2d 171 (2008) (express terms needed to show intent for third-party beneficiary)
- Hubbard v. Dept. of Transp., 256 Ga.App. 342, 352(4), 568 S.E.2d 559 (2002) (third-party beneficiary status requires express contract terms)
- J. Kinson Cook of Ga., Inc. v. Heery/Mitchell, 284 Ga. App. 552, 555(a), 644 S.E.2d 440 (2007) (negligence claim must rest on independent duty; privity absent here)