United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-1782

___________________________

Rachel Stewart; William Stewart

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs - Appellants

v.

Norcold, Inc.; Thetford Corporation; Dyson-Kissner-Moran Corporation

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees

Camping World, Inc., doing business as Camping World of Rogers

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant

Does 1-50, inclusive

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota

 ____________

 Submitted: October 20, 2021

Filed: January 27, 2022

____________

Before SMITH, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN and BENTON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.
Rachel and William Stewart (the Stewarts) brought this product liability action

against Norcold, Inc., Thetford Corporation, and Dyson-Kissner-Moran Corporation

(collectively, Norcold) for damages arising from a fire that destroyed their RV in

2016. The district court1 granted Norcold’s motion for summary judgment and denied

the Stewarts’ post-judgment motion. The Stewarts appeal from both decisions. We

affirm.

The Stewarts purchased an RV in 2013 from Todd Spitler, who financed their

purchase through a bank loan. The RV was equipped with a refrigerator

manufactured by Norcold. In 2016, the RV was destroyed in a fire that the Stewarts

allege was caused by the Norcold refrigerator. The Stewarts brought product liability

claims against Norcold seeking damages including the market value of the RV,

emergency expenses, the value of lost personal property, and the payoff of the loan

balance on the RV.

Norcold moved for summary judgment. During the hearing on the motion, the

Stewarts affirmed the district court’s statement that the amount of the loan constituted

“the alleged damages that are the subject of this lawsuit at this time.” Shortly

thereafter, the Stewarts stated, “we are not seeking recovery of the damage to the

RV.” The district court’s order granting the motion for summary judgment stated that

“the only claim that remains in this lawsuit is for the loan payoff amount of

$43,201.85.” D. Ct. Order of Oct. 9, 2020, at 3. At no time during the hearing on the

motion for summary judgment, during the post-judgment motion, or on appeal have

the Stewarts alleged that the district court erred in determining that the only damage

claim at issue was the loan payoff amount.

1The Honorable David T. Schultz, United States Magistrate Judge for the

District of Minnesota, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent

of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

-2-
Nevertheless, in their reply brief on appeal, the Stewarts assert that they

“retained a damage claim against [Norcold]” for $106,885, which includes damages

for the market value of the RV, emergency expenses, and the value of lost personal

property. The Stewarts have not addressed—and certainly have not rebutted—the

district court’s determination that the loan payoff amount was the only damage claim

at issue. They thus have waived any challenge to that determination. See XO Mo.,

Inc. v. City of Md. Heights, 362 F.3d 1023, 1025 (8th Cir. 2004) (concluding that by

failing to address issue on appeal, party waived any challenge to district court’s

determination of that issue); United States v. 24.30 Acres of Land, 105 F. App’x 134,

135 (8th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (concluding that by failing to address jurisdiction on

appeal, party waived any challenge to district court’s determination that it lacked

jurisdiction, and declining to reach the merits). Accordingly, we do not reach the

merits of their arguments related to the other damages.

The district court properly denied the Stewarts’ motion for an amended

judgment and for additional findings of fact and conclusions of law under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 52(b). Rule 52(b) applies to “an action tried on the facts

without a jury” in which the district court makes findings of fact. Fed. R. Civ. P.

52(a)(1); see also, id. 52(a)(3) (“The court is not required to state findings or

conclusions when ruling on a motion under Rule 12 or 56 . . . .”). Accordingly, the

motion was correctly denied as procedurally improper. See Smithrud v. City of St.

Paul, 746 F.3d 391, 397 (8th Cir. 2014) (affirming denial of Rule 52(b) motion that

followed grant of motion to dismiss under Rule 12 because no trial had occurred and

district court had not made findings of fact).

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

-3-