Wind Wire, LLC v. Roger Finney and Patricia Finney
977 N.E.2d 401
Ind. Ct. App.2012Background
- Finneys received Wind Wire brochure promising 75–100% utility savings and tax benefits; brochure induced contact and subsequent meetings.
- Finneys entered a May 14, 2008 contract with Wind Wire for purchase/installation of a wind turbine; installation occurred Oct 2008 and power production began Sept 2009.
- Wind Wire representations included high qualifications, expected energy savings, and that AEP would purchase excess energy; Wind Wire failed to disclose actual measurement needs and proper meter type.
- SWP’s July 2010 inquiry and six-month probation due to marketing and customer-satisfaction concerns about Wind Wire’s representations.
- Finneys alleged fraud, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, and contract breach; trial court found in Finneys’ favor and awarded substantial damages, including treble damages for fraud and attorneys’ fees.
- Contract contained an integration clause stating it expressed the complete agreement and barred extrinsic representations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether integration clause bars justifiable reliance for fraud | Finneys relied on Wind Wire’s representations | Integration clause precludes reliance | Not clearly erroneous; reliance can survive with fraud evidence |
| Whether Wind Wire breached implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose | Wind Wire’s assurances made turbine fit for Finneys’ purpose | No express/implied warranty beyond contract terms | Harmless error; court affirmed on fraud grounds, no need to address warranty |
Key Cases Cited
- Tru–Cal, Inc. v. Conrad Kacsik Instrument Sys., Inc., 905 N.E.2d 44-45 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (fraud elements; integration clause and reliance)
- Fraley v. Minger, 829 N.E.2d 476 (Ind. 2005) (clear error standard; per se integration clause analysis)
- Prall v. Ind. Nat’l Bank, 627 N.E.2d 1374 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (parol evidence rule exception for fraud in inducement)
- Circle Ctr. Dev. Co. v. Y/G Ind., L.P, 762 N.E.2d 176 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (fraud in inducement and reliance; integration clause factual evaluation)
- I.C.C. Protective Coatings, Inc. v. A.E. Staley Mfg. Co., 695 N.E.2d 1030 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (parol evidence rule and integration clause)