 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Westfield Ins. Co. v. Huls Am.6/9/1998
he term of the warranty, (c) the limited warranty expressly excluded all other warranties, express or implied, including the warranty of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, (d) the warranty term of ten years had expired on May 4, 1991, prior to the filing of appellants' complaints, (3) the tort claims of appellants were barred by the economic-loss doctrine, and (4) HULS's failure to warn appellants of the shattering tendency of the TROCAL system was not the proximate cause of the damage claimed.
On February 24, 1997, the trial court entered judgment on its December 30, 1996 decision, granting summary judgment in favor of appellee and against all appellants on grounds that (1) pursuant to the Ohio Supreme Court's holding in Wireman v. Keneco Distributors, Inc. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 103, 661 N.E.2d 744, the roof was a fixture and not subject to product liability law, (2) appellants' failure-to-warn claims were unwarranted and inapplicable to a fixture, (3) appellants had not shown that HULS's actions were the proximate cause of appellants' injury , (4) all warranty claims were barred by the terms of the warranty or bsthe expiration of the warranty period, and (5) the statute of limitations had run on appellants' claims. Appellants sought and were granted certification to appeal pursuant to Civ.R. 54(B). Appellants appealed separately from the trial court's decision, and the appeals were consolidated in this court.
Appellant Westfield and the other appellant insurance companies assert the following assignment of error:
"I. The trial court erred in granting defendant and third-party plaintiff's motion for summary judgment."
Westfield presents the following issues for review:
"A. In determining whether a good is a `product' within the meaning of 2307.71(L) of the Ohio Revised Code, a court must assess the good at the time of sale.
"B. Even if Wireman had held that `products' are to be assessed at the time of their failure, HULS' Roofing System would still constitute a `product.'
"C. As a movant on a motion for summary judgment, HULS was required to introduce evidence concerning its `proximate cause' argument."
UAP asserts the following assignment of error:
"I. The trial court erred in granting defendant and third-party plaintiff's motion for summary judgment."
UAP presents the following issues for review:
"A. The trial court erred in finding the TROCAL Roofing System was not a product under the Ohio Product Liability Code.
"B. The trial court erred in holding Standard, UAP and Hartford's claims barred by the expiration of the warranty period.
"C. The trial court erred in finding the warranty issued by third-party plaintiff, HULS of America, Inc., did not fail of its essential purpose.
"D. As a movant on a motion for summary judgment, HULS was required to introduce evidence concerning its `proximate cause' argument.
"E. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment when HULS completely failed to address Hartford, Standard and UAP's misrepresentation claims against them."
On appeal, this court is asked to review the trial court's judgment regarding HULS's motion for summary judgment that was submitted to the court below. Summary judgment, Civ.R. 56, is a procedural device designed to terminate litigation and to avoid a formal trial where there is no genuine issue of material fact to be tried and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a mattesof law. In reviewing a summary judgment, the trial and appellate courts use the same standard, that the inferences to be drawn from the
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|