964 F. Supp. 2d 993
D. Minnesota2013Background
- Marvin Lumber and Cedar Co. bought painted aluminum lineals from Sapa for windows/doors for over a decade.
- Coastal customers complained of paint adhesion loss, prompting costly repairs and litigation in 2010.
- Sapa’s paint supplier Valspar is implicated via third-party claims for contribution/indemnity.
- The court granted partial summary judgment on July 22, 2013, and now sets forth those rulings.
- disputing whether Sapa provided a stand-alone Performance Warranty and whether attached Terms & Conditions apply to finished lineals.
- The case involves multiple claims including breach of contract, warranties, fraud, and consumer-protection theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sapa provided a separate Performance Warranty | Marvin argues Sapa gave a ten-year performance warranty. | Sapa contends only Valspar provided the performance warranty. | Genuine issue of material fact; jury must decide. |
| Whether T&Cs apply to lineal purchases | Marvin argues T&Cs do not apply to finished lineals. | T&Cs potentially apply to lineals via FMCs. | Jury to resolve applicability of T&Cs. |
| Whether T&Cs' warranties disclaimer and damages limitation are enforceable | Disclaimer and cap cannot bar future-performance warranty or related damages. | Sapa relies on UCC provisions to enforce disclaimers and limitations. | Disclaimers of warranties invalid; damages-limitation invalid for future-performance warranty. |
| Whether Marvin’s claims were time-barred by statute of limitations | Discovery and accrual rules may extend the period for future-performance warranties. | Abstains from extending beyond four-year accrual window absent future-performance breach. | If Performance Warranty exists, accrual depends on discovery; otherwise barred for pre-2004 goods. |
| Whether fraud and related tort claims survive under economic loss doctrine | Claims distinct from contract/warranty may lie if independent duty exists. | Economic loss doctrine bars tort theories arising from sale of goods; some claims duplicative of contract. | Fraud/related torts limited; some claims barred; others survive only if independent-duty theory applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marvin Lumber & Cedar Co. v. PPG Indus., Inc., 401 F.3d 901 (8th Cir. 2005) (damages for future performance must remedy future defects; precludes simple cost-recovery damages)
- Hydra-Mac, Inc. v. Onan Corp., 430 N.W.2d 846 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988) (warranty disclaimer post-dating representations may be invalid)
- Minnesota Forest Prods., Inc. v. Ligna Mach., Inc., 17 F.Supp.2d 892 (D. Minn. 1998) (express warranty vs. disclaimer reconciliability governs enforceability)
- Werwinski v. Ford Motor Co., 286 F.3d 661 (3d Cir. 2002) (economic loss doctrine nuances; fraud exception in some jurisdictions)
- Highway Sales, Inc. v. Blue Bird Corp., 559 F.3d 782 (8th Cir. 2009) (accrual for warranties of future performance; discovery rule)