Superior Broadcast Products v. Doud Media Group, L.L.C.
2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 9791
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Doud Media operates two Abilene radio stations and purchased a transmitter from Superior in 2003.
- Installation occurred on April 18–19, 2003, with key personnel present from both sides.
- Doud Media sued April 18, 2005, alleging defect, fraud, DTPA violations, and warranty breaches; Richard Doud signed the original petition.
- Superior moved to dismiss in March 2007, asserting lack of licensed-attorney representation and seeking sanctions; Doud Media later amended.
- Doud Media settled against Elenos, and trial proceeded to a jury; the jury awarded $231,000 for breach of warranty and $500 for fraud; Superior was credited for various amounts in judgment.
- The trial court reduced the verdict by 10% for Doud Media’s fault and granted credits, then entered a final judgment of $163,150; on appeal, the court held the evidence insufficient to support the warranty damages and remanded for a new trial on liability and damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Limitation and laches defenses waived? | Doud Media did not preserve limitations/laches; but, if preserved, four-year limit applied. | Superior preserved defenses; argued suit barred. | Waived; defenses not properly preserved; remand unnecessary on this point. |
| Whether warranty questions were properly submitted to the jury | Express warranties existed (1-year and 2-year) and should be decided by jury. | No evidence of specific warranty or proper maintenance of claims. | Questions properly submitted; conflicting evidence created jury issues. |
| Whether it was proper to submit a consequential damages question | Damages including lost profits, replacement, and fees were foreseeable. | Foreseeability not properly instructed; potential error without foreseeability instruction. | Proper to submit; damages were foreseeable consequences of breach. |
| Legal sufficiency of lost profits damages | Lost profits supported by expert-like testimony and revenue loss estimates. | Lost profits not proven with competent evidence; testimony lacked certainty. | No competent evidence of lost profits; damages not supported; remand for new trial on all damages. |
| Remedy after insufficient damages evidence; liability and damages retrial | Jury verdict on damages should stand if liability proven. | Damages verdict tainted by improper or unsegregated awards. | Remand for a new trial on liability and damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holt Atherton Indus., Inc. v. Heine, 835 S.W.2d 80 (Tex. 1992) (lost profits must be proven with competent evidence and reasonable certainty)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standard for legal sufficiency review in evidence challenges)
- Exito Elecs., Co., Ltd. v. Trejo, 142 S.W.3d 302 (Tex. 2004) (general appearance effects and service rules)