590 F. App'x 532
6th Cir.2014Background
- Thompson I.G., LLC (MI window manufacturer) contracted (2005 Usage Purchase Agreement) to buy EPDM-type Super Spacer foam spacers from Edgetech I.G., Inc. (OH) for insulated glass (IG) units.
- At a 2005 meeting Edgetech allegedly represented Super Spacer had passed various industry tests and recommended polysulfide as a secondary sealant; Thompson claims those representations were false and polysulfide incompatible with EPDM.
- Thompson began receiving fogged/defective IG units (allegedly from outgassing) by 2011, prepared a warranty report listing many returns, but failed to preserve most returned units and underlying test data.
- Thompson sued for breach of contract, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty (dismissed), and fraud; district court granted summary judgment for Edgetech on remaining claims; Thompson appealed.
- Key evidentiary disputes: (1) whether the reported failed units actually contained Super Spacer vs. aluminum spacers; (2) whether failures were caused by outgassing of Super Spacer or by Thompson workmanship; (3) insufficient preserved physical evidence and expert data to establish causation.
- Choice-of-law: Contract contained Ohio governing-law clause; court applied Ohio law to contract/warranty claims; applied Michigan law to fraud claim under Michigan choice-of-law rules because most injury and activity occurred in Michigan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Thompson produced sufficient evidence that Super Spacer was defective and caused the IG failures (breach of contract / express warranty under Ohio UCC) | Thompson: circumstantial evidence (customer complaints, comparative failure rates, expert Howes’s observations) creates genuine dispute on defect and causation | Edgetech: evidence is speculative; Thompson failed to preserve units/data; no reliable expert proof of outgassing causation | Summary judgment affirmed — insufficient evidence of defect or causation for a reasonable juror under Ohio law |
| Admissibility/weight of expert opinions tying Super Spacer to outgassing | Thompson: Howes can testify that Super Spacer/EPDM outgasses and caused failures; visual exam of units supports his opinion | Edgetech: Howes lacked preserved data and did not perform destructive testing; Reichert disqualified as expert due to former Edgetech role | Court allowed Howes to testify but found his and Thompson's evidence too attenuated and lacking destructive testing to establish causation |
| Whether Michigan or Ohio law governs the fraud claim | Thompson: Ohio law should apply (contract choice-of-law clause) and Ohio economic-loss doctrine would not bar fraud | Edgetech: Michigan law applies; Michigan economic-loss doctrine bars fraud | Court applied Michigan law (injury occurred in Michigan) and affirmed dismissal of fraud claim under Michigan economic-loss doctrine |
| Whether spoliation/sanctions were warranted for Thompson’s failure to preserve returned units | Edgetech: seek sanctions—Thompson destroyed/failed to preserve key evidence, obstructing inspection | Thompson: attempted preservation; some losses due to customers; no prejudice that precludes expert Lingell’s opinion | District court denied sanctions; appellate decision does not overturn that denial (sanctions denial not reversed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Pinney Dock & Transp. Co. v. Penn Cent. Corp., 838 F.2d 1445 (6th Cir. 1988) (summary judgment standard reviewed de novo)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (definition of "genuine" dispute of material fact)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (reasonableness of inferences in summary judgment context)
- Lewis v. Philip Morris Inc., 355 F.3d 515 (6th Cir. 2004) (nonmoving party cannot rely on mere speculation to create a genuine issue)
- Newell Rubbermaid, Inc. v. Raymond Corp., 676 F.3d 521 (6th Cir. 2012) (expert necessity in complex causation questions)
- Glastetter v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., 252 F.3d 986 (8th Cir. 2001) (caution about extrapolating from nonidentical test samples)
- Bailey v. Chattem, Inc., 684 F.2d 386 (6th Cir. 1982) (place of loss controls in fraud/place-of-wrong analysis)
- Ferens v. John Deere Co., 494 U.S. 516 (U.S. 1990) (forum-shopping and choice-of-law considerations)