United Concrete & Construction, Inc. v. Red-D-Mix Concrete, Inc., 836 N.W.2d 807

From 2002 to 2004, Red-D-Mix supplied concrete to United, which later claimed bleed water issues damaged multiple outdoor installations.
In 2007, United, seeking to renew the relationship, met Red-D-Mix’s salesman Clark, who assured improved quality, leading to a new contract.
After new defects surfaced, United obtained assignments from 22 property owners transferring their potential claims to United, with two volitional exceptions.
United filed suit in its own name and through the assignments asserting contract, express and implied warranties, Wis. Stat. § 100.18, negligence, indemnification, and contribution.
The circuit court granted summary judgment for Red-D-Mix; the court of appeals reversed on several grounds; the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Clark's statements were puffery under § 100.18	United contends the statements were factual assurances, not mere puffery.	Red-D-Mix argues the statements were puffery and non-actionable.	Statements are not puffery; not a matter of law to dismiss at summary judgment.
Whether United’s assignment-based claims are barred by Linden and the economic loss doctrine	United argues assignments from homeowners permit suit in United’s name.	Red-D-Mix contends Linden bars homeowners’ claims and thus United’s assignments fail.	Linden bars United’s claims through the homeowners’ assignments; those claims must be dismissed.
Whether damages on assigned claims are sufficiently definite to survive summary judgment	Damages on the assigned claims are not speculative and may be proven at trial.	Damages are too speculative to proceed on summary judgment.	Damages through the assignments were not inherently speculative; however, the assignments are barred, so this argument is addressed in the remaining live claims.
Whether United’s own-name claims survive summary judgment	United asserts breach of contract, express/implied warranties, and related theories with concrete damages.	The circuit court dismissed these as speculative or barred by the economic loss doctrine.	United’s claims in its own name survive summary judgment in part; damages are suitably pled and may proceed to trial.

Linden v. Cascade Stone Co., Inc., 283 Wis. 2d 606 (Wis. 2005) (economic loss doctrine bars tort claims for purely economic loss against subcontractors)
Am. TV & Appliance of Madison, Inc. v. Haraldson, 146 Wis. 2d 292 (Wis. 1988) (puffery generally not actionable; expressions of opinion are not facts)
Tietsworth v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 270 Wis. 2d 146 (Wis. 2004) (puffery as opinion; some statements cannot be substantiated)
Kraemer Bros., Inc. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 89 Wis. 2d 555 (Wis. 1979) (summary judgment standard and burden shifting)
Grams v. Boss, 97 Wis. 2d 332 (Wis. 1980) (summary judgment standard and evidence considerations)
Lambert v. Hein, 218 Wis. 2d 712 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998) (puffery in context; contextual approach to claims)