775 F.Supp.3d 946
D. Md.2025Background
- Plaintiff John C. Grimberg Co., Inc. (Grimberg) was the general contractor for a school construction project in Virginia, utilizing Insulated Concrete Form (ICF) wall systems made by Nudura (subsidiary of Tremco).
- Nudura supplied ICF products via a Purchase Order to Grimberg, and a third-party subcontractor, PCS Group, was engaged to install the walls.
- Delays and construction deficiencies occurred, with the Navy later determining the ICF walls were non-compliant and requiring their demolition and reconstruction at a cost exceeding $24 million.
- Grimberg sued Nudura and Tremco for breach of contract, indemnity, promissory estoppel, breach of warranty, and various torts, primarily alleging failure to provide required technical support under the Purchase Order.
- Both parties moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants, and denied Grimberg’s cross-motion.
- The court also granted Defendants' motion to exceed the page limitation for appendices and denied as moot the motion to strike Grimberg’s rebuttal expert disclosures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of Contract (technical support obligation) | Nudura failed to provide required technical support as promised | No contractual breach; support only required "when required" | No breach; Grimberg failed to show Nudura breached |
| Indemnity | Entitled to indemnity for costs resulting from breach | No indemnity since there was no breach | No indemnity; fails since no breach |
| Promissory Estoppel / Detrimental Reliance | Grimberg relied on promises of technical support | Not permitted where contract exists on same subject matter | Claim barred by existence of binding contract |
| Breach of Express Warranty | Nudura expressly warranted certain qualities/services | No warranty related to goods; any statements did not relate to goods | No breach; statements not express warranties under UCC |
| Tort Claims (negligence, misrepresentation, etc.) | Duties arose from pre-contractual representations, and risk to safety | Only contractual duties exist; source-of-duty rule bars tort claims | Tort claims barred by contract and source-of-duty doctrine |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment, genuine dispute of material fact)
- Calomiris v. Woods, 353 Md. 425 (parol evidence rule, contract interpretation)
- General Motors Acceptance v. Daniels, 303 Md. 254 (contract interpretation—reasonable person standard)
- Pavel Enters., Inc. v. A.S. Johnson Co., 674 A.2d 521 (elements of promissory estoppel)
- Council of Co-Owners Atlantis Condo., Inc. v. Whiting-Turner Contracting Co., 308 Md. 18 (recovery of cost to correct conditions—negligence and privity)
- Heckrotte v. Riddle, 224 Md. 591 (tort liability in contractual relations)