491 F. App'x 628
6th Cir.2012Background
- Greens and Flex sued Ritz-Craft in Geauga County, Ohio for defects in a Model Home built under a Pennsylvania-law governed Builder Agreement; the model was not the Greens’ residence and the Greens were not parties to the Agreement at purchase.
- Ritz-Craft removed the case to federal court; the district court granted in part and denied in part motions to dismiss and for summary judgment.
- Trial concerned negligence, breach of implied warranty of workmanship, and products liability; Greens prevailed on three claims with a $12,675 award.
- District court rejected damages for Flex’s contract claim and dismissed several Flex and OCSPA claims; Greens’ OCSPA claim was dismissed on summary judgment.
- Jury instructed with respect to damages and diminution; the court refused to allow certain expert testimony on re-direct; several evidentiary objections were resolved against the Greens; the jury verdict was upheld on appeal.
- On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings and the jury verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract dismissal proper for Greens | Greens as third-party intended beneficiaries | Contractual rights reserved to original parties; no third-party beneficiary status for Greens | Greens not third-party beneficiaries; breach claim affirmed dismissal |
| Flex breach of contract claim surviving summary judgment | Defect evidence shows damages; liability not limited by cap | Damages limited by agreed remedy; no recoverable damages shown | Summary judgment upheld; no recoverable damages under the agreement |
| OCSPA claim properly dismissed as non-consumer transaction | Transaction should be treated as consumer; errors in classification | Transaction was business-to-business; not a consumer transaction | OCSPA claim properly dismissed on summary judgment |
| Diminution-in-value instruction inappropriate | Court should instruct on diminution of value as damages measure | Evidence of diminution outweighed by repair-cost testimony; no instruction needed | No diminution instruction required; evidence did not prejudice verdict |
| Evidentiary rulings on Thompson, Olson, and Tegler improper | Re-direct schematic testimony and expert cost estimates should be admitted | Non-disclosed evidence and lack of proper foundation justify exclusion | Rulings did not prejudice the outcome; the jury verdict affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (rules on pleading standard)
- Napolitano v. Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, 648 F.3d 365 (6th Cir. 2011) (de novo review of dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers & Hod Carriers Pension & Welfare Fund, 583 F.3d 935 (6th Cir. 2009) (contract interpretation and third-party beneficiary context)
- Wausau Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Vulcan Dev., Inc., 323 F.3d 396 (6th Cir. 2003) (interpretation of district court orders and grounds for affirmance)
- Superior Kitchen Designs, Inc. v. Valspar Indus., Inc., 263 F. Supp. 2d 140 (D. Mass. 2003) (readiness to plead claims and not reading implied warranties into breach)
- Gugliotta v. Morano, 829 N.E.2d 757 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005) (definition of consumer transaction under Ohio law)
- In re Scrap Metal Antitrust Litig., 527 F.3d 517 (6th Cir. 2007) (reliability and admissibility of expert testimony)