Summary
The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denied Lumigraf Inc.’s motion for summary judgment in a dispute concerning allegedly nonconforming tiles. The court declined to resolve competing expert opinions at summary judgment, held that the purchase order and implied warranty claims could proceed, and rejected arguments concerning damages and payments by affiliated third parties.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether summary judgment was proper when resolution of the breach-of-contract and warranty claims required choosing between competing expert opinions.
- Whether Plaintiff's purchase-order terms could support its breach-of-contract claim.
- Whether Plaintiff could pursue breach-of-contract and implied-warranty theories in the alternative.
- Whether the court should limit or separately adjudicate damages based on partial payment of remediation costs by affiliated third parties.
Holdings
- Summary judgment must be denied when granting it would require the court to accept the defendant's expert opinions and reject the plaintiff's competing expert opinions.
- Plaintiff's purchase-order terms could support its breach-of-contract claim alleging that Defendant supplied nonconforming goods.
- Plaintiff may pursue breach-of-contract and implied-warranty claims in the alternative, provided the claims are not fatally inconsistent.
- The court declined to adjudicate or limit damages at this stage because piecemeal adjudication was disfavored and the proposed ruling would not significantly simplify the evidence at trial.
- Payments advanced by Plaintiff's affiliated contractor and property owner did not, at the summary-judgment stage, release Defendant from potential liability for the alleged breach.
Key quotations
“In light of the summary judgment standards, this is something the Court cannot do.”
“Present adjudication is disfavored by the rule against piecemeal adjudication.”
Factual background
Plaintiff alleged that Defendant supplied nonconforming tiles in violation of the purchase order, which required the tiles to be merchantable and of the highest quality. Plaintiff asserted breach-of-contract, express-warranty, and implied-warranty claims. An affiliated contractor and property owner advanced remediation costs under an agreement that Plaintiff would pursue those damages in the action.
Procedural history
Allegheny Millwork sued Lumigraf for allegedly supplying nonconforming goods and violating express and implied warranties. Lumigraf moved for summary judgment. The district court denied the motion and stated that it would enter a later order addressing next steps.