7827 Tennis Enterprises, Inc. v. Appalachian Spray Foam Solution, L.L.C., Cody Hunley, Chase Hunley, and Profoam Corporation

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia partially granted and partially denied Profoam Corporation’s motion for summary judgment. The court entered judgment for Profoam on the breach-of-contract, express-warranty, and fraud claims, but allowed the implied-warranty and negligence claims to proceed based on factual disputes concerning Profoam’s product recommendations and the conduct of its sales representative.

Holdings

1. Profoam was entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's breach-of-contract claim because the evidence did not show that the Profoam-Appalachian contract was made for Plaintiff's sole benefit.
2. Profoam was entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's breach-of-express-warranty claim because the record contained no evidence that Profoam issued the warranty at issue to Plaintiff.
3. Profoam was not entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's implied-warranty claim because genuine disputes existed concerning whether Profoam had reason to know Plaintiff's particular purpose, whether Appalachian relied on Profoam's skill or judgment in selecting the product, and whether the product was unfit for that purpose.
4. Profoam was entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's fraud claim because the alleged warranty misrepresentation was made by Appalachian, not Profoam, and the record did not show that Plaintiff believed Profoam issued the warranty.
5. Profoam was not entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's negligence claim because the evidence could support a finding that Profoam owed Plaintiff a duty and that its representative negligently instructed or supervised Appalachian's work.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Profoam was entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's breach-of-contract claim where Plaintiff sought to enforce the Profoam-Appalachian contract as an intended third-party beneficiary.
2. Whether Profoam was entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's breach-of-express-warranty claim where the alleged ten-year warranty appeared in Plaintiff's contract with Appalachian rather than in a warranty issued by Profoam.
3. Whether a genuine dispute of material fact existed on the elements of Plaintiff's implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose claim.
4. Whether Profoam was entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's fraud claim where the alleged warranty misrepresentation was made by Appalachian rather than Profoam.
5. Whether a genuine dispute of material fact existed as to Profoam's duty and alleged negligence in advising or supervising Appalachian's roof-coating work.

Disposition

other