Opinion ID: 6320574
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: In 2008, Pleasant Grove Independent School District contracted with Altech, Inc. for the construction of a new high-school football stadium. The District independently obtained bids from several synthetic-field-turf manufacturers and, in accordance with its architect’s recommendation, selected the Prestige XM-60 turf system— composed of a synthetic fiber known as Duraspine—manufactured by FieldTurf USA, Inc. According to the District, FieldTurf had represented that its product was more durable than its competitors’ and that the field would last ten to twelve years. Altech subcontracted with Sports Constructors, Inc. to install the turf, and Sports Constructors purchased the turf from FieldTurf and installed it. The stadium was substantially completed on October 16, 2009, and the District paid Altech for all work performed and took possession of the field. FieldTurf provided an eight-year manufacturer’s limited warranty stating in pertinent part: FIELDTURF warrants that if Prestige XM-60 . . . synthetic turf proves to be defective in material or workmanship, resulting in a loss of pile height greater than 50%, during normal and ordinary use of the Product . . . within 8 years from the date of completion of installation, FIELDTURF will, at FIELDTURF’S option, 2 either repair or replace the affected area without charge, to the extent required to meet the warranty period (but no cash refunds will be made). . . . This warranty is limited to the remedies of repair or replacement, which shall constitute the exclusive remedies available under this warranty, and all other remedies or recourses which might otherwise be available are hereby waived by the Buyer. FieldTurf expressly “disclaim[ed] all other warranties of any kind, expressed or implied, in fact or in law, including but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.” (Emphasis removed). For its part, Altech warranted in its general contract with the District that “the Work will be free from defects not inherent in the quality required or permitted, and that the Work will conform to the requirements of the Contract Documents.” One of those documents listed the specifications for the synthetic turf system, which included: The synthetic turf system shall meet the following shock absorption criteria when combined with the shock absorbency pad beneath the system: a. G-Max Rating Range (upon installation) 80-120 ASTM F355 b. G-Max Rating Range (Ultimate) 100-140 ASTM F355 c. Field surface shall maintain a G-Max rating within the limits of the Ultimate G-max range listed above throughout the life of the synthetic turf system warranty. 1 1 G-Max testing measures the shock-absorbing properties of playing surfaces. Standard F355, established by ASTM International, is a common 3 According to District personnel, they first noticed issues with field degradation in the spring of 2014. In July, the District notified FieldTurf of those issues, including problems with the field’s seams and degradation of the gold fiber lettering in each end zone compared to the adjacent black fiber. FieldTurf representative Ross Whitting inspected the field in August and repaired a loose seam. During the inspection, Whitting reportedly told District representative Steven Shatto that FieldTurf had “multiple fields that are failing” and that it was replacing some but not others. FieldTurf representative Todd Bresee inspected the field on September 22 and prepared an internal evaluation report— which was not shared with the District—in which he concluded that the field was “showing signs of accelerated wear in . . . all fiber colors in the area of the field in-between the numbers,” as well as “large amounts of broken fiber on the surface.” He rated much of the green fiber (the majority of the fiber on the playing field) as being in poor or fair condition, the white fiber (the end-zone boundary lines and markings on the playing field) as being in poor or fair condition, the fiber at the center logo as being in poor or fair condition, and the black fiber (making up the inlaid soccer lines) as being in fair or good condition. According to Shatto, Bresee stated during the inspection that the field was in bad shape and that the District was “on the right track” by insisting the field be replaced. The day after Bresee’s site visit, Shatto emailed FieldTurf representative Julie Paquin, reiterating his concern that the field had industry-standard test method for measuring impact attenuation. See https://www.astm.org/f0355-16e01.html. 4 significantly degraded and stating his hope “that FieldTurf will look at our field as a total failure and replace it under full warranty[.]” Paquin replied that FieldTurf would communicate a “plan of action” once the report was prepared and reviewed by the senior leadership team. Over the next few months, Shatto sent Paquin monthly emails requesting an update on field replacement. On January 13, 2015, FieldTurf informed the District via email that, based on the evaluation, FieldTurf had found the field to be in “fair/good” condition. Specifically, FieldTurf concluded that the field was “showing some signs of fiber degradation” but was “not exhibiting any playability or hazardous concerns.” FieldTurf proposed conducting a LayMor Scrape, which involved removing a thin top layer of infill 2 to expose more turf fiber, removing excess infill, and completing “any minor inlaid repairs needed.” FieldTurf also proposed revisiting the field in the next nine to twelve months “to monitor if there are any deviations and to discuss the field options moving forward.” The next day, the District’s superintendent sent FieldTurf a letter rejecting its proposed action as an inadequate solution to the ongoing degradation of the field. The letter included a demand that FieldTurf replace the field “with a new installed surface meeting specifications equal to or greater than the original specified products.” 3 FieldTurf responded on February 12, reiterating its conclusion that the field was 2“Infill” is the black crumb-rubber and sand mixture that fills in the spaces between the fibers to provide stability. 3 The District also requested replacement of an adjacent indoor practice field composed of the same turf system. That field is not at issue in this suit. 5 “not at the point of replacement” and that the observed fiber degradation was “predominately a problem of appearance.” FieldTurf again recommended a LayMor Scrape as “the best action at this time.” The District hired a consultant, Roland Kunkel, to assess the field. Kunkel reviewed the District’s documents and inspected the field in October 2015, concluding that, based on the field’s condition, the only viable solution was to replace it. Ultimately, in May 2016, the District hired another field supplier to replace the field for $348,050. Meanwhile, in September 2015, the District sued FieldTurf and Altech, bringing claims for breach of contract and breach of warranty against both defendants and a fraud claim against FieldTurf. 4 The District initially alleged that Altech breached its promise to provide turf materials that were free from defects, and the District subsequently amended its petition to further allege that the field had “exceeded acceptable shock absorption criteria as measured by G-Max testing.” As to FieldTurf, the District asserted that FieldTurf had breached both its express warranty that the field would be free from defects in materials and workmanship for eight years and its implied warranty that the field was fit for its intended purpose. The District also complained that FieldTurf failed to replace the field as the warranty required despite several requests that it do so. On the fraud claim, the District alleged that: it relied on FieldTurf’s representations regarding the properties, qualities, and performance characteristics of the Duraspine fiber in selecting the Prestige XM-60 turf system; FieldTurf knew or should have 4 The District also sued Sports Constructors but later nonsuited the claims against it. 6 known that the representations were false and that the materials were defective and would prematurely wear down; and FieldTurf continued to knowingly misrepresent that the product was defect-free in responding to the District’s numerous requests that the field be replaced. Altech filed a traditional and no-evidence motion for summary judgment, arguing that it played no role in selecting the allegedly defective turf product—the District chose the Prestige XM-60 and approved it as being compliant with the construction specifications— and that Altech made no guarantee or warranty that the product would be free from inherent defects or other defects permitted by the contract documents. The District responded that the contract did not exempt Altech from liability for inherent defects and that the contract expressly held Altech responsible for the acts of any downstream contractors. And the District argued that the field did not conform to the contract documents for the additional reason that it failed to maintain a G-Max rating less than 140 throughout its first eight years. In support of this assertion, the District attached to its summary judgment response a report from Bounce Diagnostics dated March 3, 2016 (the G-Max report), indicating an average field G-Max rating of 166.5 and individual results between 143.6 and 188.4, all exceeding the contractually mandated maximum of 140. The District also referenced Kunkel’s expert report, in which he opined that the turf system failed to meet contract specifications, as evidenced in part by “the G-Max testing . . . performed on 3/03/2016 by Bounce Diagnostics.” 7 In reply, Altech objected to the G-Max report on the grounds that (1) it failed to document that a proper testing device was utilized or that the device was calibrated and (2) the “authenticity of the G-Max report has not been established.” Altech further noted that the District did not assert a claim premised on “a G-Max issue” until March 2017, well after the FieldTurf product was removed from the stadium, and that Altech had thus been denied the opportunity to conduct its own test. The District filed a surreply, arguing that the testing device had been correctly calibrated and that the G-Max report was properly authenticated. At the hearing on Altech’s summary judgment motion, the parties presented additional argument regarding the G-Max report’s authenticity and resulting admissibility as summary judgment evidence. At the conclusion of the argument, the trial judge orally stated, “I’m . . . going to sustain [Altech’s] objection and Altech’s motion for summary judgment is granted.” The trial court subsequently signed a written order granting the summary judgment motion and dismissing the District’s claims against Altech with prejudice. The order did not reference the G-Max report, nor did the trial court sign any other written order sustaining Altech’s objection to the report. FieldTurf moved for partial summary judgment on all claims except the claim for breach of express warranty. FieldTurf contended the District’s contract claim was meritless because no contract existed between those two parties. As to the implied-warranty claims, FieldTurf asserted that its express limited warranty disclaimed all other warranties. And FieldTurf argued the District’s fraud claims failed for 8 a variety of reasons, including the independent-injury rule, the absence of any actionable misrepresentations, and the lack of a duty to disclose for purposes of any alleged fraudulent inducement by omission. After a hearing and supplemental briefing on the fraud claims, the trial court granted FieldTurf’s motion and dismissed all claims against it except the claim for breach of express warranty, which was tried to a jury. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the District and found that the District was entitled to $175,000 in damages—in the form of “[t]he difference at the time and place of acceptance between the value of the goods accepted and the value they would have had if they had been as warranted”—resulting from FieldTurf’s failure to comply with the warranty. The trial court rendered judgment on the jury’s verdict, awarding the District $175,000 in actual damages, plus pre- and postjudgment interest. FieldTurf moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the District moved for a new trial, and the trial court denied both motions. On appeal, the District argued that the trial court’s order granting Altech summary judgment on the District’s claim for breach of the G-Max warranty should be reversed because (1) Altech’s motion was facially defective and (2) the evidence raised a fact issue as to whether Altech breached that warranty. 5 The District also sought reversal of the trial court’s summary judgment for FieldTurf on the District’s fraud claims and argued that the trial court improperly instructed the jury as 5 The District did not complain about the trial court’s summary judgment with respect to the breach-of-warranty claim premised on Altech’s alleged failure to provide a defect-free field. 9 to the measure of damages on the warranty claim against FieldTurf. The District requested that the court of appeals remand for a new trial on the G-Max warranty claim against Altech and on the fraud and express-warranty claims against FieldTurf. FieldTurf cross-appealed, arguing that it was entitled to rendition of a take-nothing judgment because (1) the evidence conclusively showed the field did not qualify for warranty coverage; (2) the District’s exclusive remedy under the warranty was repair or replacement; (3) the Uniform Commercial Code’s exception allowing recovery of monetary damages despite a warranty’s exclusive-remedy provision was neither pleaded nor proved; (4) as a matter of law, the District failed to provide FieldTurf the required opportunity to cure; and (5) the District presented no evidence of its damages under the measure authorized by the UCC and submitted to the jury. The court of appeals reversed the summary judgment for Altech as to the G-Max warranty claim, holding that Altech’s motion was not facially defective but that the G-Max report raises a fact issue on that claim. 634 S.W.3d 84, 92–95 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2020). The court of appeals acknowledged that the trial court had sustained Altech’s objection to the report on the record but held that “unless the trial court’s order is reduced to writing, signed by the trial court, and entered of record,” “the objected-to evidence remains a part of the summaryjudgment proof.” Id. at 94–95. As to FieldTurf, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s partial summary judgment on the District’s fraud claims. Id. at 99–100. The court did not address any of FieldTurf’s arguments that it was entitled to rendition of judgment on the express- 10 warranty claim or the District’s assertions of charge error with respect to the damages instruction. Instead, the court summarily concluded that “a remand for new trial [in the interest of justice] is the appropriate remedy, because the trial court’s erroneous [summary judgment] regarding Altech limited to some degree the evidence of fault presented to the jury, and therefore the more prudent course of action is to restore the parties to the status quo at the time of the summary-judgment rulings and redo matters from that point forward.” Id. at 101 (citing TEX. R. APP. P. 43.3(b)). Altech and FieldTurf petitioned this Court for review. Altech seeks reinstatement of the summary judgment in its favor, while FieldTurf argues that the court of appeals’ remand without first addressing FieldTurf’s rendition issues was improper regardless of whether the summary judgment for Altech was correctly reversed. 6 The District did not file a cross-petition; accordingly, the portion of the court of appeals’ judgment affirming summary judgment for FieldTurf on the District’s fraud claims is final, and we do not consider it. TEX. R. APP. P. 53.1 (“A party who seeks to alter the court of appeals’ judgment must file a petition for review.”). 6 FieldTurf also joins Altech in arguing that the court of appeals erroneously reversed summary judgment for Altech, providing an additional reason the court should have addressed FieldTurf’s issues on appeal before remanding for a new trial. 11