Opinion ID: 1882739
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Summary Judgment as to the Express-Warranty Claim

Text: Rosser asserts that the trial court erred procedurally when it entered a summary judgment as to all counts, effectively dismissing the entire case, because, Rosser contends, the motion for a summary judgment only addressed the agency aspect of the case (Count I) and [t]he express warranty count (Count II) was not part of the summary judgment motion.... (Rosser's brief, p. 26.) The record belies this assertion, however. AAMCO's summary-judgment motion does in fact address the entire case. For example, the introductory paragraph of the motion asks for a summary judgment in AAMCO's favor, without any expressed limitation, and the concluding sentence of the motion states that AAMCO requests judgment in its favor and that all claims against it be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. (Capitalization in original.) Further, AAMCO asserted in the motion that it did not provide a warranty on service work performed by Swift, but that [t]he only warranties issued were issued by the independent franchisees and that AAMCO neither issued nor honored any warranties. The warranty issued in connection with the repair of the Taurus automobile, as exhibited to AAMCO's motion in properly authenticated form, explicitly declared that it was the warranty of the AAMCO Center issuing this Warranty, specifying at two different places that the issuer was an independently owned and operated AAMCO Transmission Center. Rosser alleged in the amended complaint that AAMCO breached its warranty when it gave Sylvia Milstead the 1997 Ford Taurus because the work that was done on said car, and the transmission and other parts installed in said car, was [sic] not free of defects. Rosser went on to allege more specifically that [w]hen Swift Enterprises, Inc., the actual and apparent agent of AAMCO Transmissions, Inc., failed to properly repair the transmission in the Rossers' vehicle so that it could perform as warranted, AAMCO breached its express warranty. AAMCO, in its properly supported motion for a summary judgment, made a prima facie showing that Enterprises was neither its actual nor its apparent agent and that the express warranty issued was solely that of Enterprises. Thus, AAMCO's motion clearly did address the express-warranty count and made it a part of the summary-judgment motion. Rosser's failure to sustain her claims of error with respect to the summary judgment on the issues of apparent and actual agency necessarily and fatally undercut her claim that AAMCO breached an express warranty through the acts and omissions of Enterprises as AAMCO's actual and apparent agent. Accordingly, we conclude that the summary judgment covered both counts of the complaint.