William Coon v. Process Prototype Inc
333183
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 17, 2017Background
- Plaintiff (engine parts manufacturer) contracted with defendant (foundry) to cast A356 aluminum cylinder heads from Jan 2008 through 2011.
- Plaintiff later alleged defendant used re-melt A356 (mixed/ recycled metal) instead of virgin A356, produced defective castings, delayed production, required repairs, and failed to replace some deficient parts.
- Plaintiff sued (May 21, 2013) for breach of contract, breach of express and implied warranties, and fraudulent and innocent misrepresentation.
- Defendant moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), (C)(8), (C)(10), submitting invoices, shipping records, and payment records; plaintiff submitted no documentary rebuttal.
- Trial court dismissed all claims: (C)(7) barred pre-May 21, 2009 claims by the UCC four-year statute; (C)(10) dismissed remaining contract/warranty claims for lack of factual rebuttal; (C)(8) dismissed fraud claims under the economic-loss doctrine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether contractual/warranty claims before May 21, 2009 are time-barred under UCC 4‑year limitations | Coon contended claims were timely or not shown to be barred | Process Prototype relied on UCC MCL 440.2725(1) and invoices showing deliveries before cutoff | Held: pre-May 21, 2009 breach and warranty claims are barred by the 4‑year UCC statute of limitations |
| Whether defendant failed to deliver the full quantity of castings plaintiff paid for | Coon claimed short delivery and unfulfilled replacement promises | Process Prototype produced invoices/shippers/payments showing delivery and replacements | Held: summary dismissal affirmed as to quantity claim — documentary records unrebutted and show delivery/replacement |
| Whether defendant breached contract/warranty by using re-melt A356 instead of virgin A356 (for post-May 20, 2009 deliveries) | Coon alleged use of re-melt violated the parties’ agreement and impaired goods | Process Prototype asserted re-melt is still A356 and industry standard; however, its supporting testimony was not in the record | Held: summary dismissal reversed for post-May 20, 2009 claims based on use of re‑melt A356; those claims survive and are remanded |
| Whether fraud/innocent misrepresentation claims survive despite economic-loss doctrine | Coon argued misrepresentations about virgin metal support tort claims | Process Prototype argued tort claims are indistinguishable from contract/warranty claims and barred by economic-loss doctrine | Held: fraud/innocent misrepresentation claims dismissed — economic-loss doctrine bars tort recovery where misrepresentations concern product quality and duplicate contract claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109 (1999) (summary disposition standards and construing pleadings in nonmovant's favor)
- Neibarger v. Universal Cooperatives, Inc., 439 Mich. 512 (1992) (UCC governs goods; UCC 4‑year statute of limitations; economic‑loss doctrine limits tort recovery for commercial goods)
- Barnard Mfg. Co. v. Gates Performance Eng’g, Inc., 285 Mich. App. 362 (2009) (requirements for supporting summary disposition with documentary evidence and burden shifting)
- Huron Tool & Eng’g Co. v. Precision Consulting Servs., Inc., 209 Mich. App. 365 (1995) (application of UCC limitations and treatment of fraud claims extraneous to contract)