Pleasant Grove Independent School District v. FieldTurf USA Inc. and Altech, Inc.
634 S.W.3d 84
Tex. App.2020Background
- Pleasant Grove ISD contracted Altech as general contractor; Altech subcontracted ultimately to FieldTurf for a Prestige XM-60 artificial turf field with DuraSpine fibers installed in 2009.
- FieldTurf issued an 8-year limited warranty; the product was marketed as durable with a 10–12 year useful life.
- By 2014 the turf showed accelerated fiber degradation, color loss, and safety/playability concerns; Pleasant Grove demanded replacement under warranty and later replaced the field at its own expense.
- Pleasant Grove sued Altech (breach of warranty/contract) and FieldTurf (breach of warranty and fraud/fraudulent inducement). Trial court granted summary judgment for Altech (generally) and partial summary judgment for FieldTurf on fraud claims; Pleasant Grove’s warranty claim against FieldTurf was tried and a jury awarded $175,000.
- On appeal the court reversed Altech’s summary judgment solely as to a G‑Max specification warranty (because a G‑Max testing report that remained in the summary‑judgment record raised a fact issue) and affirmed FieldTurf’s partial summary judgment dismissing Pleasant Grove’s fraud/fraudulent‑omission claims; the case was remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Altech’s summary judgment was defective / whether a fact issue exists on Altech’s G‑Max warranty | Pleasant Grove: Altech didn’t address or negate an express G‑Max warranty; G‑Max test shows breach | Altech: it didn’t warrant inherent product defects; it moved on traditional and no‑evidence grounds | Reversed as to G‑Max claim — G‑Max report remained in record and raised a fact issue; Altech’s motions not facially defective otherwise |
| Whether FieldTurf’s express warranty negates reliance for fraud in inducement | Pleasant Grove: reliance on FieldTurf reps induced purchase despite warranty language | FieldTurf: presenting an express warranty negates reasonable reliance as a matter of law | Rejected — mere warranty presentation did not negate reliance; FieldTurf failed to prove reliance element conclusively |
| Whether Pleasant Grove produced evidence of affirmative misrepresentations by FieldTurf | Pleasant Grove relied on declarations/deposition of its AD that FieldTurf reps made durability/longevity claims | FieldTurf: the declarations/testimony were improper/sham and were excluded | Held for FieldTurf — court treated removal of that testimony as valid for summary‑judgment purposes, leaving no summary‑judgment evidence of affirmative misrepresentation |
| Whether FieldTurf had a duty to disclose (fraud by omission) | Pleasant Grove: FieldTurf knew DuraSpine was degrading, had internal reports and litigation against supplier; nondisclosure made prior statements misleading | FieldTurf: no duty to disclose; no special relationship; no partial disclosures creating duty | Held for FieldTurf — no summary‑judgment evidence supporting a legal duty to disclose, so fraud‑by‑omission claims fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2003) (standard: de novo review of summary judgment)
- First United Pentecostal Church of Beaumont v. Parker, 514 S.W.3d 214 (Tex. 2017) (no‑evidence motions are considered before traditional motions)
- Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 92 S.W.3d 502 (Tex. 2002) (no‑evidence summary judgment reviewed under legal‑sufficiency/directed‑verdict standard)
- Seim v. Allstate Tex. Lloyds, 551 S.W.3d 161 (Tex. 2018) (objected‑to summary‑judgment evidence remains in the record unless a written order sustaining objection is entered)
- Formosa Plastics Corp. v. Presidio Eng’rs & Contractors, 960 S.W.2d 41 (Tex. 1998) (independent‑injury rule does not bar fraud in the inducement claims)
- JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Orca Assets G.P., L.L.C., 546 S.W.3d 648 (Tex. 2018) (circumstances that negate reasonable reliance, e.g., red flags or contract language directly contradicting oral statements)
- McConnell v. Southside Indep. Sch. Dist., 858 S.W.2d 337 (Tex. 1993) (a motion for summary judgment must stand or fall on the grounds expressly presented)
- D.S.A., Inc. v. Hillsboro Indep. Sch. Dist., 973 S.W.2d 662 (Tex. 1998) (independent‑injury rule explained)