Thiel’s Welding, Inc. v. Vermeer of Washington, Inc., et al.

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Thiel’s motion for a new trial following a jury verdict for Vermeer in a dispute concerning a D80 horizontal boring machine. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying discovery motions, excluding settlement-related evidence under Rule 408, limiting witness testimony, or instructing the jury. It also concluded that substantial credible evidence supported the jury’s finding that Vermeer Sales had not sold the machine to Thiel.

Holdings

1. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying discovery seeking the identities and contact information of purchasers and end users of other D80 machines because Thiel failed to show that the information was reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence or that its exclusion caused prejudice.
2. The District Court properly excluded the letter from Vermeer Manufacturing’s counsel because it was a written offer to compromise disputed claims and was offered to prove liability, including whether a sale had occurred, within the prohibition of Rule 408, M.R.Evid.
3. The District Court did not abuse its discretion by excluding settlement-related conversations and by striking a dictionary definition of “guarantee” from Bob Roberts’s testimony.
4. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in giving or refusing the challenged jury instructions or in using the special-verdict form because the instructions, considered as a whole, fairly stated the applicable law and Thiel failed to demonstrate prejudice or preserve certain objections.
5. Substantial credible evidence supported the jury’s finding that Vermeer Sales had not sold the D80 to Thiel, and the Supreme Court would not disturb the verdict.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the District Court abused its discretion by denying Thiel’s motions to compel discovery concerning other D80 machines and their purchasers.
2. Whether the District Court erred by excluding a settlement letter as an inadmissible offer of compromise under Rule 408, M.R.Evid.
3. Whether the District Court abused its discretion by limiting testimony from Seth Shumaker, Kathy Thiel, and Bob Roberts.
4. Whether the District Court abused its discretion in giving or refusing various jury instructions and in using the special-verdict form.
5. Whether substantial credible evidence supported the jury’s finding that Vermeer Sales had not sold the D80 to Thiel.

Disposition

affirmed