 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Midland Builders7/14/2005
Before Dykman, Lundsten and Higginbotham, JJ.
Midland Builders, Inc., a developer and builder of residential homes, appeals a circuit court judgment dismissing its claims for negligence, strict responsibility misrepresentation, breach of an implied warranty, and contribution against Semling-Menke Co. ("Semco"), a manufacturer of windows used in Midland homes. Midland argues that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Semco after determining (1) that Midland's claims for negligence and strict responsibility misrepresentation were barred by the economic loss doctrine, (2) that Midland could not pursue contribution against Semco because Midland was not the real party in interest, and (3) that Midland's breach-of-warranty claim was time-barred. We conclude that the circuit court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Semco and affirm the circuit court's judgment.
Background
Midland constructs residential homes. Semco designs and manufactures windows for residential homes. Until approximately 1996, Midland purchased Semco windows through a building supply company, UBC, for installation in hundreds of homes.
In November 2001, Midland was contacted by a homeowner who discovered rotting and deterioration below the Semco windows that had been installed in her home. Midland learned of a number of other homeowners who were experiencing the same problem. Midland also learned that some homeowners had contacted attorneys, and some homeowners had threatened to contact attorneys, if Midland did not solve the problem. Midland investigated and determined that a design flaw in the Semco windows caused some water to flow into the house structure, eventually causing rot and deterioration below the windows.
At no cost to the homeowners, Midland made modifications to stop water from penetrating the homes and repaired damage found below the windows. Midland incurred costs of over $750,000 to inspect homes and repair the problems. Semco and UBC refused Midland's request to contribute to the repair costs.
On November 11, 2002, Midland sued Semco and UBC to recover its costs and other damages. Midland alleged claims for negligence, strict responsibility misrepresentation, breach of implied warranty, and contribution against Semco. Midland alleged that its damages included the losses it incurred to repair the damaged homes, losses it incurred to satisfy claims of homeowners with failed Semco windows, and lost profits resulting from the failure of the Semco windows.
Semco moved for summary judgment. The circuit court granted Semco's motion and dismissed Midland's negligence and strict-responsibility-misrepresentation claims as barred by the economic loss doctrine. The circuit court also dismissed Midland's contribution claim because Midland was not the real party in interest, and dismissed Midland's breach-of-warranty claim as time-barred. Midland appeals.
Discussion
We perform summary judgment analysis de novo, applying the same method employed by circuit courts. Brownelli v. McCaughtry, 182 Wis. 2d 367, 372, 514 N.W.2d 48 (Ct. App. 1994). That method is well established and need not be repeated in its entirety. See, e.g., Lambrecht v. Estate of Kaczmarczyk, 2001 WI 25, -24, 241 Wis. 2d 804, 623 N.W.2d 751. It is sufficient to say here that summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See id., . We conclude that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact here and that Semco is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
I. Midland's Tort Claims for Negligenc
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Wisconsin Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|