Opinion ID: 1711317
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Claim Against Ironmaster

Text: The Fishers assert that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Ironmaster. Ironmaster, a subcontractor, provided engineering, construction, and fabrication services on the expansion joint. The Fishers contend that the acceptance doctrine does not apply to Ironmaster because it is a manufacturer's representative, not a contractor or fabricator. The acceptance doctrine extends to chattels custom manufactured and installed in accordance with the customer's plans and specifications. Bloemer, 884 S.W.2d at 59. Here, the record establishes that Ironmaster prepared shop drawings from the Commission's plans and specifications before Ironmaster fabricated the joint. Ironmaster cut the expansion joint, welded anchors to it, placed welds at specifically determined locations, sandblasted, and painted the joint, all according to specifications. Ironmaster supervised the installation by Millstone of the joint, which was accepted by the Commission. The expansion joint was a chattel, custom-manufactured and installed according to the plans and specifications of the Commission. The acceptance doctrine applies to Ironmaster. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment.