Lester Schroeder and Viola Schroeder v. Barth, Incorporated
969 F.2d 421, 18 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 781, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 16823 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a breach of warranty claim, a plaintiff's subjective and conclusory opinion that a product is worthless, without supporting documentary evidence, is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact to survive a motion for summary judgment on the issue of damages when the defendant has provided specific, itemized evidence of repair costs.
Facts:
- On March 13, 1981, Lester and Viola Schroeder purchased a 1981 Barth MCC Model 35 motor home for $146,705.00 from a dealer, Motor Vacations Unlimited.
- The motor home was manufactured by Barth, Incorporated ('Barth') and came with a one-year limited manufacturer's warranty.
- Within five months of taking delivery in July 1981, the Schroeders identified and catalogued sixty-one separate problems with the vehicle.
- Barth extended the warranty, but the Schroeders continued to experience numerous, persistent problems with the motor home.
- Lester Schroeder attempted some repairs himself and sought assistance from others, including Barth, but the motor home never operated to the couple's satisfaction.
- Eventually, the Schroeders gave up trying to have the motor home repaired.
Procedural Posture:
- The Schroeders (plaintiffs) filed a complaint against Barth, Incorporated (defendant) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana for breach of warranties.
- The district court granted in part Barth's motion to dismiss, dismissing the implied warranty and breach of contract claims but allowing the express warranty claim to proceed.
- The district court denied Barth's subsequent motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding the Schroeders' initial claim of damages sufficient to meet the jurisdictional amount.
- The district court later sustained Barth's objection to the Schroeders' expert witness, excluding his testimony on damages.
- Barth then filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking to limit the Schroeders' damages to the cost of repair as detailed in an affidavit from a company executive.
- The district court granted Barth's motion for summary judgment, entering judgment for the Schroeders in the amount of $2,113 plus costs.
- The Schroeders (appellants) appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff's subjective, unsupported affidavit stating a product is 'worthless' create a genuine issue of material fact as to damages for breach of warranty, sufficient to survive a summary judgment motion when the defendant provides specific, itemized evidence of repair costs?
Opinions:
Majority - Bauer, Chief Judge.
No. A plaintiff's subjective opinion, such as an affidavit stating a product is 'worthless,' is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding damages for breach of warranty when the moving party has presented specific evidence to the contrary. The Schroeders, as the non-moving party, had the burden to go beyond their pleadings and present specific facts demonstrating a genuine issue for trial. Under Indiana's Uniform Commercial Code, damages for breach of warranty are typically calculated as the difference in value between the goods as warranted and as accepted, or the cost of repair. The Schroeders failed to provide any objective evidence under any recognized damage calculation method and instead relied solely on Lester Schroeder's subjective opinion. In contrast, Barth provided a detailed affidavit itemizing the costs to repair the warranted defects. A mere 'scintilla of evidence' or a subjective opinion is not enough to defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment; there must be evidence on which a jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the evidentiary standard required to prove damages in a breach of warranty claim at the summary judgment stage. It clarifies that a plaintiff cannot rely on personal, conclusory statements about a product's value to create a triable issue of fact, especially when the defendant provides specific, objective evidence like repair costs. The ruling underscores the necessity for plaintiffs to procure concrete evidence, such as expert testimony, appraisals, or repair estimates, to substantiate their damage calculations. This precedent makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to survive summary judgment on damages if they fail to present anything more than their own unsubstantiated opinion, effectively requiring them to build a case for damages with objective proof early in the litigation process.
