American Aerial Services, Inc. v. Terex Usa, LLC

39 F.Supp.3d 95 (2014)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P is a Maine company that supplies cranes and labor for the construction of steel buildings and other steel structures, and also rents cranes. P needed to purchase a new crane to replace two existing cranes. P contacted D's authorized dealer. D responded that it might have a T-780 available and attached to the email an advertising brochure which included the Crane's various specifications and information about its lifting capacity, which was presented in the form of a 'load chart.' P stated that the Data Sheet was 'a primary factor' in its decision to purchase a T-780. Each page of the Data Sheet containing load chart information also contained a disclaimer at the bottom which read, in small print, 'Data published herein is intended as a guide only and shall not be construed to warrant applicability for lifting purposes.' The Crane had actually been built five months earlier in July 2011, when it was purchased by a D distributor, and was then parked and stored in a storage yard awaiting a final purchaser. Two days later P signed a one-page sales contract to purchase the Crane for $615,000.00. The contract did not contain any language concerning warranties, warranty exclusions, or limitations. On January 6, 2012, a technician from D came to Maine to perform a delivery inspection of the Crane and determined that the Crane's engine was 22 quarts low on coolant and had likely been driven from Iowa to Maine in that condition. The same day, P wrote a letter that it was 'revoking the acceptance' of the Crane due to a partially shredded serpentine belt in the engine and the fact that the Crane had apparently been driven 1500 miles without adequate coolant in the engine. In late February 2012, P emailed D, stating that the recently-replaced serpentine belt in the Crane's engine had disintegrated again and that 'the roof of the driver's cab leaks, the jib will not retract properly, the boom is not fully retracting, fluid leaks under the engine, the boom sheaves slides side to side during operation causing the cable to fall off the boom and the smell of coolant is wafting through the air as the engine ran. In August 2012, D hired a third-party vendor, Certified Boom Repair Service Northeast, LLC ('Certified Boom'), to repair damage to the 'rooster sheave,' a component of the Crane that bolts to the top of the main telescoping boom. Service personnel at Certified Boom informed P that certain welds on the Crane's main boom and jib were defective. P hired its own consultant, Roaring Brook Consultants, Inc. ('Roaring Brook'), to inspect the Crane. The load test ended early when the Crane was lifting only 60% of its rated capacity because there was concerned about the Crane rolling over. After additional problems with no fixes in sight P filed this lawsuit and the case was removed to federal court. Ds moved for summary judgment claiming there were no warranties.