Opinion ID: 2982603
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Breach of Contract and Breach of Warranty

Text: The district court held that Thompson submitted insufficient evidence to show that the Super Spacers outgassed or that any outgassing caused the damages detailed in the warranty report. Thompson contends that its circumstantial evidence creates genuine disputes of material fact on the issues of breach and causation. Edgetech responds that Thompson’s evidence is insufficient in this regard. The district court applied Ohio law to Thompson’s breach of contract and warranty claims. The Parties agree that Ohio law applies to these claims. Unless otherwise indicated, we treat these claims in tandem as they present overlapping issues. Under the Ohio version of the Uniform Commercial Code, to prevail on a breach of express warranty claim, the plaintiff must show that: (1) an express warranty exists; (2) the product under warranty is defective; (3) the plaintiff provided the defendant with reasonable notice of the defect; and (4) the plaintiff suffered an injury as a result of the defect. See Litehouse Prods., Inc. v. A.M.I. Int’l, Ltd., No. 46834, 1984 WL 4539, at  3 (Ohio Ct. App. Mar. 8, 1984); McKinney v. Bayer Corp., 744 F. Supp. 2d 733, 753 (N.D. Ohio 2010) (citations omitted); cf. -8- Case No. 13-2652 Thompson I.G., LLC v. Edgetech I.G., Inc. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1302.27 cmt. 13 (LexisNexis 2012) (“In an action based on breach of warranty, it is of course necessary to show not only the existence of the warranty but the fact that the warranty was broken and that the breach of the warranty was the proximate cause of the loss sustained.”); Drayton v. Jiffee Chem. Corp., 591 F.2d 352, 359 (6th Cir. 1978) (stating that “breach of an express warranty, if causally related to the injury, [is] actionable” under Ohio law). In this case, Thompson’s evidence was insufficient for a reasonable juror to conclude that the Super Spacer units were defective. Manser conceded that the warranty report was only his best guess as to the identity and number of the defective Super Spacer windows. Furthermore, Manser acknowledged that the report did not show whether the listed windows had foam or aluminum spacers, and Thompson’s customers stated that some of the listed windows had aluminum spacers. Therefore, although some of the windows in the report could have contained defective Super Spacer, a juror would have to rely on “mere speculation, conjecture, or fantasy” to so conclude. See Lewis, 355 F.3d at 533. The evidence was also inadequate to reasonably conclude that Super Spacer caused the windows to outgas. Thompson failed to preserve the windows in the warranty report and the report does not list the five windows that Howes visually examined and determined failed due to outgassing. R. at 1458, 1821. Consequently, Thompson failed to present expert testimony on (1) whether the windows in the report outgassed and (2) whether Super Spacer caused the alleged outgassing. Although Ohio law does not always require expert testimony to prove that a design is defective, the causation issues here are too complex for the jury to decide without the help of expert testimony. Compare Grover Hill Grain Co. v. Baughman-Oster, Inc., 728 F.2d 784, 793–94 (1984), with Newell Rubbermaid, Inc. v. Raymond Corp., 676 F.3d 521, 529 (6th Cir. 2012). Even Howes stated that he did not know why the windows in the report failed. R. at -9- Case No. 13-2652 Thompson I.G., LLC v. Edgetech I.G., Inc. 2269. Furthermore, although Howes visually examined five other windows and concluded that Super Spacer caused them to outgas, he stated that determining whether the fog was outgassing or mere “water fog” required a “destructive” test. R. at 1285, 1364, 1867. Heather Abbas, Thompson’s director of quality, agreed that a destructive test was required. R. at 1891–92. Hence, it is unclear how a rational juror could conclude that Super Spacer caused the five visually examined windows to outgas. Thompson contends that its circumstantial evidence creates triable issues on breach and causation. To that end, Thompson points to evidence purporting to prove that: (1) both EPDM and Super Spacer outgas; (2) Super Spacer field failures were heat-related as Howes predicted; (3) Super Spacer units failed much more than aluminum units; (4) Super Spacer was incompatible with polysulfide; and (5) Thompson has sound workmanship. We recognize that circumstantial evidence may suffice in some cases to show that a defective product caused a given injury. Rayco Mfg., Inc. v. Deutz Corp., 497 F. App’x 515, 518 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Chrysler Corp., 523 N.E.2d 489, 493–94 (Ohio 1988)). However, we disagree that Thompson’s circumstantial evidence creates genuine issues for trial. Thompson’s counterargument overlooks the obvious. There is not enough evidence to reasonably conclude that the windows Thompson designates as defective contained Super Spacer. In any event, evidentiary items (1) – (3) share an infirmity: Thompson’s and Howes’s failures to preserve pertinent evidence and data preclude meaningful comparative analysis. It is unclear that the properties of the EPDM and Super Spacer that Howes tested are comparable to the Super Spacer at issue; that the Super Spacer units and aluminum units were alike in all material respects; that the sunny conditions under which the Super Spacer at issue failed were similar to Howes’s laboratory conditions; and so on. Cf. Glastetter v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., 252 F.3d - 10 - Case No. 13-2652 Thompson I.G., LLC v. Edgetech I.G., Inc. 986, 990 (8th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted) (stating that “[e]ven minor deviations in molecular structure can radically change a particular substance’s properties and propensities”). As to item (4), although there may be evidence supporting the inference that Super Spacer is incompatible with polysulfide, Thompson opted to use polysulfide as a secondary sealant and applied it to the IG units itself. Thus, item (4) does not indicate that the Super Spacer at issue was defective when Edgetech shipped it. Concerning item (5), while Thompson arguably submitted evidence from which one could infer that it had sound workmanship overall, sound workmanship alone is generally insufficient to show breach of express warranty by a parts supplier. Therefore, the evidence was insufficient for a rational juror to conclude that the Super Spacer windows were defective or that Super Spacer caused any observed outgassing. Accordingly, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on Thompson’s interrelated claims for breach of warranty and breach of contract.