467 F.Supp.3d 545
S.D. Ohio
2020
Read the full case

Background

  • WEL Companies (plaintiff) is a commercial trucking/warehousing company; Haldex Brake Products (defendant) manufactures the Haldex Gold Seal brake chamber at issue.
  • On Jan. 30, 2018 a Haldex Gold Seal brake chamber allegedly experienced a spring failure, causing a wheel-end fire that destroyed WEL's tractor, trailer, and cargo; WEL relies on expert and former-Haldex-employee testimony and Haldex lab/emails showing spring failures.
  • WEL originally pleaded common-law negligence, breach of warranty, and strict liability; it sought leave to add an OPLA claim and punitive damages and filed a Second Amended Complaint.
  • Court granted WEL leave to amend, denied Haldex’s broad motion in limine (treating it as premature/dispositive), and considered Haldex’s summary-judgment motion.
  • Court held WEL’s common-law product claims (Counts I–III) are abrogated by Ohio’s OPLA as to this commercial buyer and granted summary judgment on those counts; WEL’s OPLA claim (Count IV) survives because the warranty limiting remedies was found unconscionable and there is a factual dispute whether the limited remedy failed of its essential purpose.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
1) Leave to amend to add OPLA claim and punitive damages Evidence obtained in discovery (depositions, lab reports, emails) gave good-faith basis to add OPLA and punitive damages; motion timely before dispositive deadline Amendment unduly delayed, prejudicial, and Plaintiff should have pled punitive damages earlier Granted—no undue delay or prejudice; good cause to amend before dispositive deadline
2) Motion in limine to exclude WEL's damages evidence N/A (WEL argued motion was procedurally improper) Move to exclude all damages based on warranty/OPLA; sought pretrial bar of damages evidence Denied as procedurally improper (raised same arguments as summary judgment); to be resolved on summary judgment/trial
3) Whether WEL's common-law negligence/warranty/strict-liability claims are abrogated by OPLA for a commercial buyer seeking economic loss WEL argued an economic-loss exception permits common-law claims (and may plead OPLA in the alternative) Haldex argued OPLA abrogates common-law claims and commercial buyers cannot use the economic-loss exception Court: OPLA abrogates common-law product claims; as a commercial buyer WEL cannot pursue common-law economic-loss claims — summary judgment for Haldex on Counts I–III
4) Whether Haldex warranty bars WEL's OPLA recovery (limited remedy/disclaimer) Warranty is unconscionable and/or fails essential purpose because springs were latent/inherently defective and replacement/credit would be no remedy given destruction of truck, trailer, cargo Warranty limits liability to replacement or credit; remedies are enforceable and customary Court: Genuine dispute that the limited remedy failed its essential purpose and, as a matter of law, the warranty is unconscionable here; summary judgment denied on Count IV

Key Cases Cited

  • Gen. Elec. Co. v. Sargent & Lundy, 916 F.2d 1119 (6th Cir. 1990) (district court has broad discretion on motions to amend)
  • Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (U.S. 1984) (motions in limine derive from trial-managing authority; courts cautious about excluding evidence pretrial)
  • Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary-judgment standard; evidence and inferences for nonmovant)
  • Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (movant's initial burden on summary judgment)
  • Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (genuine dispute requirement for trial)
  • Chemtrol Adhesives v. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co., 537 N.E.2d 624 (Ohio 1989) (commercial buyer remedies and UCC contract remedies; significance for economic-loss rule)
  • HDM Flugservice GmbH v. Parker Hannifin Corp., 332 F.3d 1025 (6th Cir. 2003) (economic-loss rule limits tort recovery for product purchasers)
  • Glazer v. Whirlpool Corp., 722 F.3d 838 (6th Cir. 2013) (recognition that Ohio law allows non-privity consumers to bring negligent-design/economic-injury claims in limited circumstances)
  • Traxler v. PPG Indus., 158 F. Supp. 3d 607 (N.D. Ohio 2016) (latent/inherent defects can render limited-repair-or-refund remedies no remedy; essential-purpose analysis)
  • Louzon v. Ford Motor Co., 718 F.3d 556 (6th Cir. 2013) (motions in limine cannot be used to decide matters proper for summary judgment)
Read the full case