Jorgensen Farms, Inc. v. Country Pride Cooperative, Inc.
2012 SD 78
| S.D. | 2012Background
- Jorgensen Farms sued Country Pride for rye-contaminated rye fertilizer affecting its 2007 wheat crop.
- Country Pride settled with Jorgensen while preserving claims against Agriliance, Agrium, and Dakota Gasoline Co. (Dakota Gas).
- Agriliance acted as a sales broker; Agrium produced ammonium sulfate and urea; Dakota Gas produced ammonium sulfate.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Agriliance, Agrium, and Dakota Gas, dismissing all third-party claims.
- Court addressed warranty, negligence, indemnity/contribution, and the Carmack Amendment issues, focusing on notice, economics, and statute of limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Agriliance liable for warranty or negligence? | Country Pride argues circumstantial evidence supports Agriliance liability for contamination. | Agriliance contends no direct or legally sufficient basis for warranty or negligence liability. | Agriliance not liable as a matter of law. |
| Are Agrium's claims barred by notice, economic loss doctrine, or statute of limitations? | Country Pride contends Agrium may be liable for urea-related contamination; notices may have been given timely. | Agrium asserts lack of proper notice, economic loss doctrine bars tort claims, and statute of limitations bars indemnity claim. | Country Pride's claims barred by notice, economics, and statute of limitations; summary judgment for Agrium affirmed. |
| Did Dakota Gas bear duty to inspect Baker Trucking’s vehicles such that it could be liable? | Dakota Gas as ammonium sulfate producer owed duty to ensure contaminant-free trailers. | Duty to inspect rested with the carrier, Baker Trucking, not Dakota Gas. | Dakota Gas not liable; carrier duty resides with Baker Trucking; summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hepper v. Triple U Enterprises., Inc., 388 N.W.2d 525 (S.D. 1986) (notice within a reasonable time to investigate breach)
- Berry v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 124 N.W.2d 859 (S.D. 1910) (duty to furnish suitable vehicles; carrier liability limits carrier responsibility)
- City of Lennox v. Mitek Indus. Ins., 519 N.W.2d 330 (S.D. 1994) (economic loss doctrine in UCC contexts)
- Diamond Surface, Inc. v. State Cement Plant Comm’n, 1998 S.D. 97 (S.D. 1998) (economic loss doctrine; torts not recoverable for pure economic losses)
- Weiszhaar Farms, Inc. v. Tobin, 522 N.W.2d 484 (S.D. 1994) (distinguishing indemnity and contribution and related rights)
- Murray v. Mansheim, 2010 S.D. 18 (S.D. 2010) (strict adherence to statutes of limitations; tolling not invoked)
- Highmark Fed. Credit Union v. Hunter, 814 N.W.2d 413 (S.D. 2012) (summary judgment standard; de novo review)
- Adrian v. Vonk, 807 N.W.2d 119 (S.D. 2011) (affirms de novo review; standard for summary judgments)