James v. Terex Corporation, 5:16-cv-00060

Row Equipment, Inc. (Georgia) purchased two industrial wood chippers manufactured by Terex; John James personally guaranteed both purchases.
Plaintiffs allege both chippers were defective and that Terex knew of the defects.
After sale, Terex allegedly assured Row it would repair the defective chippers; plaintiffs assert Terex failed to do so.
Plaintiffs bring breach of contract/warranty claims and a separate fraudulent inducement claim based on Terex's post‑contract promises to repair.
Terex moved for partial judgment on the pleadings seeking dismissal of the fraudulent inducement claim under Georgia's economic loss rule.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Georgia's economic loss rule bars the fraudulent inducement claim	Fraud claim is based on post‑contract promises to repair, independent from breach	Economic loss rule bars tort claims that duplicate contract/warranty remedies	Denied — fraud claim survives because it alleges post‑contract conduct independent of the sale
Whether alleged fraud and breach arise from the same conduct	Fraud arises from separate, later assurances to repair, not the original sale	Fraud is merely a repackaged breach of contract/warranty	Court found plaintiffs pleaded independent conduct and possible distinct damages
Whether Rule 12(c) dismissal is appropriate	Complaint alleges sufficient factual matter to state fraud claim	Requests judgment on the pleadings because no independent tort exists	12(c) denial — pleadings must be taken as true and reasonable inferences drawn for plaintiffs
Whether damages for fraud are necessarily the same as for breach	Plaintiffs contend post‑contract promises could create different damages	Terex contends damages flow from the defective product and thus fall under warranty law	Court noted damages may be different and left the issue for later stages

Mergens v. Dreyfoos, 166 F.3d 1114 (11th Cir. 1999) (Rule 12(c) standard and when judgment on the pleadings is appropriate)
Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701 (11th Cir. 2010) (pleading standards; courts must draw inferences for plaintiff on Rule 12 motions)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state facts raising relief above speculative level)
Fin. Sec. Assurance, Inc. v. Stephens, Inc., 500 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2007) (requirement that complaints plead material elements to sustain recovery)
Roe v. Aware Woman Ctr. for Choice, Inc., 253 F.3d 678 (11th Cir. 2001) (pleading requirements for alleging claims)
Holloman v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 524 S.E.2d 790 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999) (Georgia exception to economic loss rule for fraud or passive concealment)
Vulcan Materials Co. v. Driltech, Inc., 306 S.E.2d 253 (Ga. 1983) (warranty law as appropriate remedy for disappointed commercial expectations)
Rakip v. Paradise Awnings Corp., [citation="514 F. App'x 917"] (11th Cir. 2013) (noting economic loss rule does not bar certain tort claims like conversion/civil theft)