Opinion ID: 1188883
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The PPC's wiring was installed, but by whom?

Text: Having decided that the PPC's wiring was the result of installation, not workmanship, we must next ascertain who was responsible for that installation. More precisely, we must determine whether there is evidence in the record to suggest that Deere itself installed the PPC's wiring. The warranty places on the purchaser the onus of correcting problems that originate from improper installation that was not performed by Deere, thereby providing no protection for errors made by others down the engine's supply chain. Carlisle and Buszkiewicz argue that Deere installed the PPC's wiring, a contention with which Deere disagrees. In support, each party points to evidence in the record; but as we will see, only Deere's evidence is admissible, making our decision on this issue clear.
To bolster their contention that Deere installed the PPC's wiring, Carlisle and Buszkiewicz refer us to paragraph forty-six of their Statement of Material Facts in Genuine Dispute, which reads: West Side Tractor told the Plaintiffs that John Deere came to West Side and set the wiring on the Performance Programming Connector at the time the engine was installed on The Beast. The paragraph cites portions of Steve Carlisle's deposition. According to Carlisle, West Side Tractor told him in a phone conversation that John Deere's own people came out, screwed with it, so... on and so on. West Side Tractor told Carlisle, [W]e didn't screw it up. John Deere came down. They did this. Carlisle stated that West Side Tractor advised him that the people from John Deere were messing with the torque curve wires. Unfortunately for Carlisle and Buszkiewicz, however, to defeat Deere's motion for summary judgment, they may rely only on admissible evidence. See Lewis v. CITGO Petroleum Corp., 561 F.3d 698, 704 (7th Cir.2009); Schindler v. Seiler, 474 F.3d 1008, 1010 (7th Cir.2007). If, as here, evidence is inadmissible hearsay, we may not consider it. See, e.g., Schindler, 474 F.3d at 1012. The Federal Rules of Evidence prohibit the admission of hearsay, see Fed.R.Evid. 802, which is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted, id. 801(c). On first blush, West Side Tractor's statements to Carlisle appear to fall squarely within that definition. West Side Tractor did not provide these statements, meaning that we must rely only on Carlisle's recitation. That, coupled with the fact that Carlisle and Buszkiewicz present these statements for their truththat Deere did in fact install the wiring in the PPCimplicates the evidentiary rules against hearsay. Unless an exception applies or the statements are nonhearsay, we may not consider them in our analysis. The evidentiary rules contain a laundry list of exceptions to the general prohibition on the admission of hearsay statements, see id. 803, 804, 807, as well as a category of statements commonly known as nonhearsay, which are also admissible, see id. 801(d). Carlisle and Buszkiewicz characterize West Side Tractor's statements as the latter. Rule 801(d) classifies a statement as nonhearsay if the statement is offered against a particular party and (1) is made by a person authorized by [that] party to make a statement concerning the subject, or (2) is made by that party's agent concerning a matter within the scope of the agency. Id. 801(d)(2)(C)-(D). Carlisle and Buszkiewicz argue that West Side Tractor's statements are nonhearsay under either provision. The district court decided the case on other grounds and never reached the hearsay question, making ours the first court to consider the issue. We turn first to Rule 801(d)(2)(C), under which West Side Tractor's statements would be nonhearsay if Deere had authorized the company to make them. Exactly the opposite has happened here. Paragraph F of the warranty removes from West Side Tractor any authority to make statements concerning the warranty. It states: Neither original equipment manufacturers, engine or equipment distributors, engine or equipment dealers, nor any other person or entity, has any authority to make any representation or promise on behalf of John Deere.... With this written limitation on West Side Tractor's authority to speak on Deere's behalf, Rule 801(d)(2)(C) is inapplicable. Next, we consider whether West Side Tractor was an agent of Deere, as required for its statement to be nonhearsay under Rule 801(d)(2)(D). As a general rule, a dealer is not an agent for manufacturers of the products it sells. See Bushendorf v. Freightliner Corp., 13 F.3d 1024, 1026 (7th Cir.1993). Labels such as dealer are not determinative, however, cf. Dutton v. Int'l Harvester Co., 504 N.E.2d 313, 317 n. 2 (Ind.Ct.App.1987) ([T]he mere express denial of the existence of an agency relationship is not in itself determinative of the matter.), and it is not hard to imagine circumstances whereby a dealer could be a manufacturer's agent, see, e.g., Thompson Farms, Inc. v. Corno Feed Prods., 173 Ind.App. 682, 366 N.E.2d 3, 10-12 (1977) (discussing in detail the circumstances leading to its conclusion that an implied agency existed between a dealer and a principal). Under Indiana law, an agency exists if the principal manifests consent to the agency, the agent acquiesces, and the principal exerts control over the agent. See Leon v. Caterpillar Indus., Inc., 69 F.3d 1326, 1333 (7th Cir.1995). The principal's control over the purported agent's day-to-day operations is of paramount importance. Id. Day-to-day operations could include such things as personnel decisions, bookkeeping and financial matters, and buying and selling inventory and supplies. See id. at 1333-34; cf. Salingue v. Overturf, 269 Ill.App.3d 1102, 1104, 207 Ill.Dec. 575, 576, 647 N.E.2d 1068, 1069 (1995) (noting that the existence of an agency relationship depends on a number of facts, including the manner of hiring, the right to discharge, the manner and direction of the work of the parties, the right to terminate the relationship, and the character of the supervision of the work done). It is uncontested that Deere did not exert such overarching control over West Side Tractor. Instead, Carlisle and Buszkiewicz advance a narrower argument, contending that West Side Tractor was Deere's agent only for purposes of claims made under the extended warranty. They direct us to Paragraph B of the warranty, which contains instructions for both the purchaser seeking service under the warranty and to the authorized Deere service outlets providing such service. Specifically, Paragraph B informs Deere's service providers (1) that they are to use only new or remanufactured parts, and (2) that Deere will reimburse up to $300 in the service providers' travel expenses. This language, however, is insufficient to establish an agency relationship, even on a more limited basis. We conclude that West Side Tractor's out-of-court statements fail to satisfy any of the nonhearsay definitions contained in Rule 801(d)(2) and, accordingly, constitute inadmissible hearsay. We refuse to consider them further and turn now to Deere's evidence regarding whether it installed the wiring in the PPC.
Deere has presented substantial admissible evidence that it did not wire the Beast's PPC. We return to the affidavit filed by Grant Suhre, a Deere manager. Speaking generally, Suhre said that Deere does not configure or wire the PPC of a control wiring harness sold to an engine distributor. He continued, Deere is not involved in the manufacturer's determination, or decision-process, regarding the proper setting of the PPC for that manufacturer's equipment. As such, Deere would not change the PPC wiring configuration selected by the manufacturer of the equipment in which an engine is installed as a component part. Turning to the particular engine and PPC now before us, Suhre stated that [t]here is nothing in Deere's records to show that Deere installed [or configured] the PPC or Engine in the [Beast]. Suhre also suggested that Bandit Industries, not Deere, installed the PPC. He said that the Beast's 2000 engine replacementresulting in the installation of the current enginedid not require replacement of the Beast's original PPC, which the Beast's manufacturer, Bandit Industries, had installed when the Beast was built in 1999. Said Suhre: Installation of the Engine into the [Beast] in 2000 should not have required anyone to touch or replace the original PPC installed with the [Beast's] first engine since the engine is installed in, and connected to, the [Beast] independent of the PPC. Thus, the only admissible evidence in the record supports Deere's claim that it did not install the wiring in the PPC.