PITTSBURGH - Two counts in a legal action against the seller of a corn planter have been dismissed by a magistrate judge following a motion by the defendant,
In a ruling handed down on Oct. 3, Magistrate Judge Maureen Kelly agreed with the defendant, agricultural equipment seller, Lamb & Webster (L&W), that the plaintiff did not construct valid arguments on the two counts related to warranties.
A third count against the company, for breach of contract, remains on the docket in the U.S. District for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
The underlying case relates to the purchase by Douglas Beida of the planter for $168,000 from the company's Grove City store.
Beida sued the manufacturer, New Holland Industrial (CNH) and L&W, claiming the machinery was defective and as a result he failed to properly harvest his corn crop, which led to a claimed loss of approximately $250,000.
The opinion notes that the planter was delivered on May 1, but that the defendant claimed an L&W technician failed to complete servicing to make it ready for use. Various problems and malfunctions followed, it claimed, which led to the plaintiff being unable to complete planting in time.
The issue was complicated by a bulletin from CNH revealing there were problems with some of the attachments, which required Beida to buy and install a repair kit, which was not shipped until after planting season, according to the magistrate judge's order.
A suit was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Indiana County claiming breach of warranties and contract. It was removed to federal court in August under diversity rules.
L&W filed a motion to dismiss two counts - breach of the implied warranty of "merchantability" and breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.
The company argued the plaintiff failed to state a claim "because the relevant sales documents expressly and conspicuously disclaim all implied warranties." Any action is limited to breach of contract, the motion stated.
"In light of Pennsylvania’s longstanding enforcement of conspicuous warranty disclaimers such as those at issue here, Plaintiff opposes the Motion to Dismiss on two separate grounds.
The plaintiff countered that verbal promises about the suitability of the equipment rose to the level of implied warranty.
"Plaintiff’s argument, however, is not supported by citation to applicable case law or statute," Kelly concluded as she granted the motion to dismiss. "Rather, Pennsylvania law makes clear that an exclusion of implied warranties is valid" where it is in writing and conspicuous.
Any other dispute relating to the sale and use of the equipment can be covered by the breach of contract claim, the court ruled.
US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case number 19-967.