Thermal Design, Inc. v. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating & Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11809
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- ASHRAE is a standards organization that publishes energy-performance standards; it does not manufacture products.
- Thermal Design makes liner systems for metal buildings and competes with over-the-purlin systems.
- Standard 90.1 sets U-factors for insulation; pre-2010 non-laminated vs laminated assemblies caused different presumptions of compliance.
- Thermal alleged NAIMA and MBMA representatives influenced ASHRAE’s U-factor data to favor over-the-purlin systems.
- Thermal discovered errors in Appendix A in 2005–2006, reported them to ASHRAE, but ASHRAE published the standard as originally written.
- Thermal initially sued in 2007 for unfair competition and Wis. DPTA; district court dismissed some claims and later granted summary judgment on remaining claims, leading to this appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wisconsin DPTA viability | Thermal argues ASHRAE violated § 100.18 by deceptive publication affecting sales. | ASHRAE was not engaged in a commercial transaction and did not mislead the public in a product sale. | DPTA claim fails as misrepresentations were not in a commercial transaction. |
| Unfair competition against ASHRAE | NAIMA/MBMA representatives acted as ASHRAE agents to distort data and interfere with Thermal’s contracts. | No agency or apparent authority; ASHRAE cannot be liable for actions of its committee members. | Thermal cannot prevail; ASHRAE not liable for alleged acts of its members. |
| Discovery denial | ASHRAE controlled committee member documents and thus should be compelled to produce. | ASHRAE did not have requisite control over non-employees’ documents. | No abuse of discretion; discovery denial affirmed. |
| Standard of review and preservation of claims | Thermal preserved and supplemented claims through amendments; should survive summary judgment. | Claims failed on pleading and liability grounds; no triable issues remain. | Claims resolved in favor of ASHRAE; affirmed on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Novell v. Migliaccio, 749 N.W.2d 544 (Wis. 2008) (elements of Wis. DPTA claim; purpose to deter false representations)
- K&S Tool & Die Corp. v. Perfection Mach. Sales, Inc., 720 N.W.2d 507 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006) (DPTA applies to false representations in commercial transactions)
- Slane v. Emoto, 582 F. Supp. 2d 1067 (W.D. Wis. 2008) (DPTA applicability to commercial transactions; broad interpretation rejected)
- Am. Soc. of Mech. Eng’rs, Inc. v. Hydrolevel Corp., 456 U.S. 556 (U.S. 1982) (apparent authority in standards-setting context (Hydrolevel doctrine))
- Dexia Credit Local v. Rogan, 231 F.R.D. 538 (N.D. Ill. 2004) (control for discovery purposes in Rule 34 context)
- Bonte v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 624 F.3d 461 (7th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for dismissal and summary judgment decisions)