Pfingsten v. Southern Wisconsin Auto and Tire, LLC, 3:16-cv-00316

Background

Pfingsten bought a used 1995 Peterbilt truck from Southern Wisconsin Auto and Tire (SWAT); the truck was manufactured by a Paccar subsidiary.
SWAT purchased the truck at auction, advertised it, told prospective buyers to inspect vehicles, and sold the truck to Pfingsten under a written Motor Vehicle Purchase Contract stating "AS IS - NO WARRANTY" and disclaiming implied warranties.
After delivery to Fargo, the truck sometimes leaked and would not start reliably; Pfingsten parked it inside his commercial shop.
On February 25, 2015, a fire started in the truck’s engine compartment and spread, damaging Pfingsten’s shop and other property.
Pfingsten sued SWAT and Paccar for breach of implied warranty, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation; he later withdrew his claims against Paccar.
SWAT moved for summary judgment on all claims; the court granted judgment for SWAT (and Paccar as to withdrawn claims), holding warranty claims waived/disclaimed and tort claims barred by the economic loss doctrine.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether implied warranties exist despite the written "AS IS" contract	Pfingsten contended the truck was represented to be in good condition and overhauled	SWAT argued the written contract disclaimed implied warranties conspicuously and plaintiff waived any warranty claim	Court: Warranty claim waived by plaintiff; contract language "AS IS" and conspicuous disclaimer bars implied warranties — summary judgment for SWAT
Whether negligence claims survive despite contract-based remedies	Pfingsten sought tort recovery for shop and other property damage caused by truck fire	SWAT argued economic loss doctrine precludes tort recovery for defective product damage foreseeable at time of sale	Court: Economic loss doctrine bars tort recovery for damage to other property here because such damage was foreseeable — summary judgment for SWAT
Whether negligent misrepresentation claim is viable	Pfingsten relied on alleged pre-sale statements about truck condition	SWAT argued tort claims, including negligent misrepresentation, are barred by economic loss doctrine and contract disclaimers	Court: Negligent misrepresentation barred by economic loss doctrine — summary judgment for SWAT
Whether SWAT can pursue indemnity crossclaim against Paccar	SWAT sought contractual or equitable indemnity from Paccar for liability/defense costs	Paccar moved for summary judgment; parties disputed underlying claims	Court: Crossclaim motions dismissed as moot because plaintiff’s claims were resolved in favor of defendants

Key Cases Cited

Dakota Gasification Co. v. Pascoe Bldg. Sys., 91 F.3d 1094 (8th Cir. 1996) (economic loss doctrine bars tort recovery for foreseeable damage to purchaser’s other property)
Everkrisp Vegetables, Inc. v. Tobiason Potato Co., 870 F. Supp. 2d 745 (D.N.D. 2012) (predicting North Dakota would apply economic loss doctrine to bar tort recovery for other property damage)
Leno v. K & L Homes, 803 N.W.2d 543 (N.D. 2011) (discussion of economic loss and warranty remedies under North Dakota law)
Ward Farms P’ship v. Enerase Coop. Res., 863 N.W.2d 868 (N.D. 2015) ("As-Is, Where-Is" disclaimers can be clear and conspicuous to exclude warranties)
Eggl v. Letvin Equip. Co., 632 N.W.2d 435 (N.D. 2001) (party must establish existence of a warranty to prevail on breach of warranty claim)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (summary judgment standard: no genuine issue of material fact)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (nonmoving party must present specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial)