Narrative Opinion Summary
This case involves an appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court regarding claims by United Concrete Construction, Inc. against Red-D-Mix Concrete, Inc. for allegedly supplying defective concrete. United Concrete, having obtained assignments from property owners, sued Red-D-Mix for breach of contract, negligence, and violations of Wisconsin Statute 100.18. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Red-D-Mix, citing the economic loss doctrine, the insufficiency of damages, and characterizing United's claims as puffery. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, but the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Supreme Court agreed that the economic loss doctrine barred the homeowners' claims, thus preventing United from suing in their name. However, it allowed United's remaining claims to proceed to trial, finding that damages were not overly speculative and that the statements in question did not constitute puffery under Wis. Stat. 100.18. The case was remanded with instructions to dismiss the claims based on the assignments while allowing other claims to proceed. The decision illustrates the nuanced application of the economic loss doctrine, puffery in misrepresentation claims, and the standards for summary judgment.
Legal Issues Addressed
Economic Loss Doctrine Applicationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The economic loss doctrine barred United from suing Red-D-Mix in the name of the homeowners due to the lack of privity of contract.
Reasoning: The Supreme Court ruled that, with two exceptions, the doctrine barred the claims of the homeowners, consequently barring United from suing in their name.
Puffery under Wisconsin Statute 100.18subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Statements made by Red-D-Mix's salesman regarding the quality of concrete were not considered puffery, allowing United's claim under Wis. Stat. 100.18 to survive summary judgment.
Reasoning: The analysis concludes that Clark's statements were not puffery, providing a historical context to the concept of puffery.
Speculative Damages in Breach of Contractsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court ruled that damages were not overly speculative, allowing United to proceed with its breach of contract claims.
Reasoning: The court of appeals reversed these rulings, determining that United's damages were not overly speculative.
Summary Judgment Standardssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court emphasized the necessity of examining the facts favorably for the non-moving party and highlighted that genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment.
Reasoning: In reviewing summary judgment standards, the court emphasized the necessity of examining facts favorably for United.
Validity of Assignments in Tort and Contract Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found the assignments of claims by property owners to United invalid under the economic loss doctrine, preventing United from pursuing those claims.
Reasoning: The circuit court initially granted summary judgment for Red-D-Mix, ruling that United's claims were barred by the economic loss doctrine.