Opinion ID: 2143910
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Summary Judgment on Express Warranty

Text: Travel Craft argues that the trial court erred in finding that there were no genuine issues of material fact and granting summary judgment to Mende. The trial court focused on whether Alu-span was defective, and Mende urges us that there is no evidence of defect. Before granting summary judgment, the trial court must find that no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court must liberally construe all evidence in favor of the non-moving party and resolve any doubt against the moving party. Even if the trial court believes the non-moving party will not succeed at trial, summary judgment is inappropriate where material facts conflict or undisputed facts lead to conflicting inferences. Yang v. Stafford (1987), Ind. App., 515 N.E.2d 1157. We review a trial court's grant of summary judgment on this same basis. The trial court's summary judgment order states: A substantial difference exists between a product that is not merchantable or fit for a particular purpose and one that is defective. If it is defective it is highly unlikely it could be merchantable or fit for the particular purpose. However, it could be unmerchantable or unfit for the particular purpose without being defective. With implied warranties it is only necessary that some malfunction exist[s] that makes it unmerchantable or unfit for the particular purpose rather than showing the existence of some specific dereliction by the manufacturer that constitutes a breach. Whereas the express warranty is that the product is free under normal use from substantial defects in material or workmanship, a specific defect must be shown to constitute a breach or warranty. We disagree with the trial court's interpretation of the express warranty terms normal use and defect. The facts before the trial court on summary judgment are subject to conflicting inferences. Who would normally use this product and for what purpose would they use it? Was Alu-span defective within the meaning of the express warranty? The black-letter definition of defective suggests that a good may be defective as the result of some sort of imperfection or dereliction, and it may also be defective when the product is not fit for the ordinary purposes for which it was sold or used. Black's Law Dictionary 376 (5th ed. 1979). When the facts are viewed most favorably for non-movant Travel Craft, the express warranty may be interpreted as tantamount to an express warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. We affirm the trial court's decision on implied warranties. We reverse its grant of summary judgment on the express warranty and remand the case for further proceedings, to be conducted in accord with our holding on the admission of parol evidence. DeBRULER, GIVAN and DICKSON, JJ., concur. PIVARNIK, J., not participating.