Home Depot U. S. A., Inc. v. Wabash National Corp.
724 S.E.2d 53
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Home Depot leased 33 Wabash flatbed trailers (S trailers) via Lease Plan; 150 other trailers were involved in a Ryder settlement- transferral to Ryder of claims; Home Depot alleged defective kingpin assemblies and defective repair protocol; Wabash issued technical bulletins for inspection/repair; Home Depot hired an engineering firm and incurred repair, lease, and salvage costs; trial court granted summary judgment for Wabash on all substantive claims; Home Depot appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of injury—which trailers are at issue | Home Depot argues more than 33 trailers are implicated | Wabash/Wabash relied on settlement transferring 150 trailers to Ryder | Only the 33 S trailers at issue |
| Economic loss rule applicability | Tort claims should not be barred; exceptions may apply | Damages are economic losses; misrepresentation/accident exceptions apply variably | Economic loss rule bars tort claims other than fraud/misrepresentation; accident exception does not apply |
| Fraud/negligent misrepresentation regarding original manufacture | Wabash misrepresented counter-weighting and anti-corrosive coating | No competent evidence of such manufacturing defects; no genuine issue | Summary judgment for Wabash; insufficient proof of manufacturing defects |
| Fraudulent concealment and repair protocol promissory estoppel | Wabash concealed defect and promised safe repair; promissory estoppel applies | No evidence the repair was unsafe or causally harmed Home Depot; no enforceable promise | Dismissed for lack of proof; promissory estoppel/fraud claims fail |
| Attorney fees, expenses, and punitive damages | If substantive claims survive, fees may follow | No surviving substantive claims → no fees or punitive damages | Denied/defaulted to Wabash as no underlying claims survived |
Key Cases Cited
- Busbee v. Chrysler Corp., 240 Ga.App. 664 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999) (economic loss rule; misrepresentation/accident exceptions; if no personal injury, damages are economic)
- Vulcan Materials Co. v. Driltech, 251 Ga. 383 (Ga. 1983) (definition of economic loss; contract remedies for such losses)
- Holloman v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 241 Ga.App. 141 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999) (accident exception limits; misuse of product may not qualify as accident)
- ReMax North Atlanta v. Clark, 244 Ga.App. 890 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000) (fraud elements; reliance; justifiable reliance required)