Mary Haley v. Kolbe & Kolbe Millwork Co.
863 F.3d 600
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Kolbe & Kolbe manufactured windows sold nationwide (since 1997); plaintiffs are multiple homeowners who allege common design defects causing leaking, rot, and paint failure (including issues with an exterior finish called K‑Kron).
- Kolbe issued multiple differing written warranties (including K‑Kron warranties) with conditions requiring proper finishing/maintenance, notice requirements, and a Wisconsin choice‑of‑law clause for later versions.
- Plaintiffs asserted a putative nationwide class and individual claims for breach of express and implied warranties, negligent design/manufacture, negligent/fraudulent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment; many state statutory claims were dismissed earlier.
- District court granted partial summary judgment dismissing several claims (statutes of limitations, economic loss, forfeiture/abandonment), denied class certification, and excluded plaintiffs’ experts (Wolf and Beckham) under Rule 702/Daubert for unreliable methodology or untimeliness; district court then dismissed the remaining individual warranty claims for lack of expert proof of defect/causation.
- Plaintiffs appealed; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, concluding plaintiffs forfeited many legal arguments, expert opinions were properly excluded, distributor emails and other evidence were inadmissible or insufficient to show defect/causation without expert proof, and plaintiffs received adequate process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Wolf's expert opinions | Wolf reliably identified design features causing rot; exclusion was factual credibility, not gatekeeping | Wolf relied on incorrect factual assumption (unfinished sash undersides); disclosure deadline violated; opinions unreliable | Forfeited many challenges; district court acted within Rule 702/Daubert; exclusion affirmed |
| Admissibility of Beckham's paint‑failure opinions | Beckham's saturation tests show K‑Kron traps moisture and is defective; methodology sufficient | Beckham used unreliable testing and did not compare to alternatives or industry standards; methodology not generally accepted | Exclusion affirmed as unreliable and not helpful under Rule 702/Daubert |
| Class certification under Rule 23 | Nationwide class manageable; common issues (defect, causation, warranty breach) can be proven class‑wide | Individualized issues (product types, years, state laws, causation, damages) preclude predominance/ascertainability; expert proof lacking | District court did not abuse discretion in denying class certification; expert exclusion dispositive |
| Sufficiency of individual warranty claims without experts | Plaintiffs argue emails, photos, and service records permit jury inference of defect/causation without experts | Kolbe: such evidence is hearsay, lay testimony cannot supply technical causation, and expert proof is required to link rot to design/paint | Individual express and implied warranty claims require expert proof; remaining claims dismissed for lack of admissible causation evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (district court gatekeeping role for expert testimony under Rule 702)
- Deputy v. Lehman Bros., Inc., 345 F.3d 494 (7th Cir. 2003) (Daubert factors application described)
- Kunz v. DeFelice, 538 F.3d 667 (7th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for Rule 702/Daubert rulings)
- Alioto v. Town of Lisbon, 651 F.3d 715 (7th Cir. 2011) (forfeiture/waiver principles on appellate review)
- Osler Inst., Inc. v. Forde, 333 F.3d 832 (7th Cir. 2003) (court may grant summary judgment sua sponte with notice and opportunity to respond)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standards)
- Bushendorf v. Freightliner Corp., 13 F.3d 1024 (7th Cir. 1993) (distributor is not automatically an agent for hearsay exception)
- Plyler v. Whirlpool Corp., 751 F.3d 509 (7th Cir. 2014) (limits on lay testimony to offer expert conclusions)