Ronald Becker v. Continental Motors, Inc.
709 F. App'x 263
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Becker (Texas) bought a new aircraft engine from Continental (Delaware corp.; Alabama principal place) and received express engine and cylinder warranties covering repair or replacement for defects in material or workmanship.
- Becker's engine ran 336.5 hours within the warranty period; he reported high oil consumption to mechanic Stephen Sherman at Dugosh Aircraft.
- Continental authorized G&N (its warranty repair facility) to inspect and overhaul the cylinders twice; G&N rejected/replaced some parts (exhaust guides) and Continental paid for the work.
- Oil consumption problems persisted after reinstallation; Sherman declined recommended test flights citing airworthiness concerns and performed ground runs.
- Continental requested Becker send the engine to its Alabama factory and initially sought a signed work order referencing a mechanic’s lien; Becker refused, sent a DTPA demand letter, and sued.
- A magistrate judge found Continental breached the express warranty and violated the Texas DTPA, awarded damages, attorneys’ fees, and issued a declaratory judgment that the engine/cylinders were defective; the court of appeals affirmed the declaratory judgment but reversed the warranty/DTPA holdings and fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Continental breach the express warranty by failing to repair/replace a defective engine or cylinders? | Becker: Continental’s conduct (requiring a signed work order, delays, and not completing an effective cure) amounted to failure/refusal to repair under the warranty. | Continental: It paid for authorized repairs, repeatedly authorized inspections/overhauls, and never refused to repair; Becker refused to send the engine for further work. | Reversed — no breach: Continental did not refuse or fail to repair as a matter of law. |
| Did Continental violate the Texas DTPA based on the alleged warranty breach? | Becker: DTPA claim flows from breach of express warranty. | Continental: No breach occurred, so no DTPA violation predicated on breach. | Reversed — DTPA finding vacated because no warranty breach. |
| Was a declaratory judgment correctly entered that the engine/cylinders were defective under the warranties? | Becker: Circumstantial and expert evidence show a defect (high oil consumption, G&N’s rejection of parts, expert recommendations). | Continental: Plaintiff failed to identify a specific defect; precedents require specific defect proof. | Affirmed — declaratory judgment stands; warranty language required only a preponderance that a defect in material or workmanship existed. |
| Were attorneys’ fees properly awarded under the DTPA and Texas contract-fee statute? | Becker: Fees justified by successful breach/DTPA claims. | Continental: Fees improper absent breach/DTPA liability. | Reversed — fees vacated because underlying claims reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Baldwin v. Stalder, 137 F.3d 836 (5th Cir. 1998) (standard of review on bench trial from magistrate judge)
- Chemtech Royalty Assocs., L.P. v. United States, 766 F.3d 453 (5th Cir. 2014) (clearly erroneous standard explained)
- Med. City Dallas, Ltd. v. Carlisle Corp., 251 S.W.3d 55 (Tex. 2008) (breach of warranty vs. contract; warranty analysis)
- Gen. Motors Corp. v. Garza, 179 S.W.3d 76 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2005) (plaintiff must show product presented for repair and defendant failed/refused to repair)
- Tenneco Inc. v. Enter. Prods. Co., 925 S.W.2d 640 (Tex. 1996) (courts will not rewrite agreements to insert terms parties did not bargain for)