UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

B&P PROCESS EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS, 

LLC, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cv-12672 

v Honorable Thomas L. Ludington 

APPLIED INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

 Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, 

v 

GLOBAL BEARINGS AND P T INC, 

 Third-Party Defendant. 

v 

ELECTRIC MOTOR BEARING SUPPLY, Inc., 

 Third-Party Defendant 

__________________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

 Plaintiff B&P commenced the above-captioned matter on July 8, 2014 against Defendant 

Applied Industrial Technologies, Inc., (“Applied Industrial”) for breach of contract and 

indemnity. Compl. ECF No. 1. B&P claimed that Applied Industrial sold counterfeit bearings in 

violation of the terms of the purchase order. Defendant Applied Industrial then filed a thirdparty complaint against Global Bearings and P. T. INC (“Global Bearings”), alleging that Global 

Bearings is “liable and responsible for the condition of the bearings at issue and for all damages 

allegedly sustained by Plaintiff B&P.” Third-Party Compl. 3, ECF No. 7. Global Bearings in 

turn filed a third-party complaint against Electric Motor Bearings Supply, Inc. (“Electric 

1:14-cv-12672-TLL-PTM Doc # 73 Filed 03/08/16 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 1272
- 2 - 

Motor”), alleging that it purchased the bearings from Electric Motor and that the purchase was 

made pursuant to general indemnity under MCL 440.2312 and common law indemnity. ECF 

No. 23. Because Electric Motor did not answer or otherwise respond to Global Bearings’ thirdparty complaint, the clerk entered default against Electric Motor on April 16, 2015. ECF No. 29. 

 On September 9, 2015 third-party Defendant Global Bearings filed a motion for summary 

judgment as to Defendant Applied Industrial’s third-party complaint. ECF No. 36. The Court 

granted Applied Industrial’s motion on January 6, 2016, determining that B&P had not carried its 

burden of demonstrating facts that constituted an affirmative fraudulent misrepresentation on the 

part of Applied Industrial. Judgment against B&P was entered that same day, and the matter was 

closed. 

B&P then brought a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the Court committed a 

palpable defect without which the Court would have reached a different disposition of the case. 

Specifically, B&P argues that the Court incorrectly analyzed B&P’s claims using the standard 

for affirmative fraudulent misrepresentation instead of the standard for fraudulent concealment. 

In its response, Applied Industrial agrees that the Court applied the incorrect standard, but argues 

that applying the correct fraudulent concealment standard would not result in a different 

disposition of the case. Applied Industrial is correct, and B&P’s motion for reconsideration will 

be denied. 

I.

 The parties do not challenge the facts as set forth in this Court’s order granting Applied 

Industrial’s motion for summary judgment. On January 9, 2008, B&P issued a purchase order to 

Applied Industrial for four bearings. Compl. Ex. 2, ECF No. 1. The purchase order requested 

four spherical roller thrust bearings and specified their size, load limits, and manufacturer 

1:14-cv-12672-TLL-PTM Doc # 73 Filed 03/08/16 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 1273
- 3 - 

identification—SKF part No. 29480. Id. The purchase order further stated: “ACCEPT NO 

SUBSTITUTIONS”. Id. 

 Applied Industrial shipped two bearings on March 4, 2008, and two bearings on April 1, 

2008. Mot. J. Pleadings Ex. 1, Ex. 2. Each invoice identified the bearings shipped as “Part 

Number 29480EM”—the part number requested in B&P’s purchase order. Id. On April 30, 

2008, B&P issued a check for $96,306.74 to Applied Technologies pursuant to the purchase 

order. B&P incorporated the bearings into industrial mixers known as Ko-Kneaders and sold the 

mixers to a third party, Emirates Aluminum Company, Limited in Abu Dhabi, United Arab 

Emirates. Compl. ¶ 9. 

 In December 2013, B&P received a call from Emirates Aluminum Company seeking 

repairs to one of the Ko-Kneaders mixers. B&P determined that the Ko-Kneader had 

malfunctioned because of failed bearings. Emirates Aluminum Company paid B&P a total of 

$309,399.19 to replace the failed bearings and for B&P’s service time and travel. Compl. Ex. B. 

 After repairing the Ko-Kneader, B&P forwarded the failed bearing to the supposed 

manufacturer, SFK, for analysis. Compl. ¶ 12. SFK determined that it did not manufacture the 

failed bearing and the bearing in question was counterfeit. Id. ¶ 13. 

 Emirates Aluminum Company has demanded a refund of the $309,399.19 it paid to B&P 

in the mistaken belief that the Ko-Kneader failure was attributable to ordinary wear and tear, 

rather than a counterfeit bearing. Compl. ¶ 14. Moreover, B&P is expected to replace the 

remaining bearing in Emirates Aluminum Company’s other Ko-Kneader, which B&P estimates 

would cost $42,918.70. Id. ¶ 15. 

 On July 8, 2014, B&P filed this breach of contract action against Applied Industrial for 

selling the counterfeit bearings. B&P seeks to recover $352,317.89 to (1) reimburse Emirates 

1:14-cv-12672-TLL-PTM Doc # 73 Filed 03/08/16 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 1274
- 4 - 

what it paid to repair the Ko-Kneader mixer and (2) retrofit the other machines that contain the 

counterfeit bearings that have not yet failed. 

II.

Plaintiff B&P now moves for reconsideration of the Court’s order granting Applied 

Industrial’s motion for summary judgment. A motion for reconsideration will be granted if the 

moving party shows: “(1) a palpable defect, (2) the defect misled the court and the parties, and 

(3) that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case.” Michigan Dept. of 

Treasury v. Michalec, 181 F. Supp. 2d 731, 733-34 (E.D. Mich. 2002) (quoting E.D. Mich. LR 

7.1(g)(3)). A “palpable defect” is “obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain.” Id. at 734 

(citing Marketing Displays, Inc. v. Traffix Devices, Inc., 971 F. Supp. 2d 262, 278 (E.D. Mich. 

1997). 

A. 

Because the Court’s order granting Applied Industrial’s motion for summary judgment 

incorrectly applied the law governing affirmative fraudulent misrepresentations as set forth in 

McMullen v. Joldersma, 435 N.W.2d 428, 430 (Mich. App. 1988), the Court’s previous order 

contains a palpable defect that mislead the Court and the parties. The Court should have limited 

its analysis to the law governing fraudulent concealment. 

B. 

Applied Industrial argues that B&P’s motion for reconsideration should nonetheless be 

denied because analyzing the case under the correct standard of fraudulent concealment does not 

result in a different disposition of the case. Under Michigan law, a claim of fraudulent 

concealment may postpone the running of the statute of limitations: 

If a person who is or may be liable for any claim fraudulently conceals the 

existence of the claim . . . from the knowledge of the person entitled to sue on the 

1:14-cv-12672-TLL-PTM Doc # 73 Filed 03/08/16 Pg 4 of 6 Pg ID 1275
- 5 - 

claim, the action may be commenced at any time within 2 years after the person 

who is entitled to bring the action discovers, or should have discovered, the 

existence of the claim . . . . 

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5855. This statute provides a plaintiff two additional years in which to 

bring a claim “when a party conceals the fact that the plaintiff has a cause of action.” Romeo 

Investment Ltd. v. Michigan Consolidated Gas Company, 2007 WL 1264008, at *3 (Mich. Ct. 

App. May 1, 2007) (citing Sills v. Oakland Gen. Hosp., 559 N.W.2d 348, 352 (Mich. Ct. App. 

1996). 

As explained by the Michigan courts, and cited by this Court in its previous order, 

“[f]raudulent concealment means employment of artifice, planned to prevent inquiry or escape 

investigation, and mislead or hinder acquirement of information disclosing a right of action. The 

acts relied on must be of an affirmative character and fraudulent.” Tonegatto v. Budak, 316 

N.W.2d 262, 266 (Mich. App. 1982), quoting DeHaan v. Winter, 241 N.W. 923 (Mich. 1932). 

Thus, tolling only occurs when a plaintiff carries its burden of proving that a defendant 

committed affirmative acts or misrepresentations designed to prevent a plaintiff from discovering 

its potential claim. Phinney v. Perlmutter, 222 Mich.App. 513, 562–63, (Mich. 1997) (emphasis 

added). 

While B&P’s pleading was sufficient to defeat Applied Industrial’s motion for judgment 

on the pleadings, at the summary judgment stage the record does not support a claim of 

fraudulent concealment. The fact that Applied Industrial represented to B&P that the bearings 

were SKF part No. 29480 is not enough to establish fraudulent concealment without some 

evidence that Applied Industrial made the representation with the design of preventing B&P 

from discovering a potential claim. Phinney, 222 Mich.App. at 562–63. Because B&P has not 

demonstrated the existence of a material dispute regarding whether Applied Industrial’s 

1:14-cv-12672-TLL-PTM Doc # 73 Filed 03/08/16 Pg 5 of 6 Pg ID 1276
- 6 - 

representation that the bearings were SKF Part No. 19480 was “planned to prevent inquiry or 

escape investigation, and mislead or hinder acquirement of information disclosing a right of 

action”, B&P has not carried its burden of proving fraudulent concealment. Tonegatto, 316 

N.W.2d at 266. No exception to the M.C.L. § 440.2725 four-year statute of limitations applies, 

and therefore B&P’s claims are untimely. 

Because analyzing B&P’s claims under the correct standard does not result in a different 

disposition of the case, B&P’s motion for reconsideration will be denied. See Michigan Dept. of 

Treasury, 181 F. Supp. 2d at 733-34.

III. 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff B&P’s motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 

66, is DENIED. 

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

 THOMAS L. LUDINGTON 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: March 8, 2016 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served 

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first 

class U.S. mail on March 8, 2016. 

 s/Michael A. Sian 

 Michael A. Sian 

1:14-cv-12672-TLL-PTM Doc # 73 Filed 03/08/16 Pg 6 of 6 Pg ID 1277