The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Defendants AutoZone, Inc. and CRC Industries, Inc. in Kim Brown's lawsuit. Brown had filed a complaint alleging violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, claiming that the Defendants made false statements about their product, "Guaranteed to Pass," which he purchased to help his vehicle pass emissions testing. Despite following AutoZone's instructions, his vehicle failed the emissions test multiple times. Brown sought damages for emotional distress, embarrassment, and financial losses, along with substantial punitive damages totaling $100 million.
In their defense, the Defendants denied wrongdoing and argued that Brown's deposition revealed he did not read or follow the product's instructions, undermining his claims. They filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, concluding that Brown could not rely on the alleged misrepresentations due to his failure to adhere to the product guidelines. The appellate court confirmed this decision, upholding the trial court's ruling and remanding the case.
Defendants contended that Mr. Brown failed to demonstrate any mental or emotional distress or damages. On June 1, 2012, the trial court heard the case and Mr. Brown filed a motion to alter or amend and a notice of appeal on the same day. The court issued a summary judgment favoring Defendants on June 13, 2012, citing Mr. Brown's deposition testimony, which revealed he only noticed the phrase "Guaranteed to Pass" on the product packaging and ignored other information. The court found it mathematically impossible for Mr. Brown to have followed the product's usage directions and noted he received a refund request form but never submitted it as instructed. Consequently, Mr. Brown's action was dismissed in full.
Mr. Brown's motion to alter or amend was considered on July 13, 2012, focusing on claims that certain requests for admission should be deemed admitted. Despite the lack of a formal motion to do so, the court set aside its previous order "out of an abundance of caution." Following a subsequent hearing on July 19, 2012, the court denied the motion to deem admissions admitted, stating that even if they were admitted, they would not raise a genuine issue of material fact. The court reinstated the summary judgment for Defendants on August 13, 2012, leading to Mr. Brown's appeal.
Mr. Brown presents ten issues for review, primarily questioning whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. Under Tennessee law, a moving party not bearing the burden of proof can succeed in a summary judgment motion by providing affirmative evidence negating an essential element of the opposing party's claim or demonstrating the insufficiency of the nonmoving party’s evidence.
Notably, no transcript or evidence statement was filed for the appeal, and Mr. Brown did not challenge the trial court's summary of undisputed facts. He argued that his purchase fulfilled the contract, claiming that the phrase "Guaranteed to Pass" misleads consumers and asserting that no product could cover all potential variables. He criticized the small print of the refund and usage instructions as deceptive but did not claim to have used the product per the directions or followed the refund process. His primary assertion was that the product misleadingly implies it works universally, suggesting a straightforward refund request should suffice.
The product packaging includes clear instructions for use, stating that the entire contents of a 12-ounce bottle should be poured into a full gas tank and that the product is not suitable for diesel engines. It outlines specific usage guidelines based on tank size and recommends use every 3000 miles. The instructions are prominently displayed next to a marketing claim about emissions reduction. The trial court found that Mr. Brown did not read or follow these instructions, leading to the conclusion that the truthfulness of the product's claims could not be verified. The court determined that the instructions were clearly presented and not obscured. Consequently, the summary judgment favoring the defendants was upheld, with costs of the appeal assigned to Kim Brown, and the case was remanded for judgment enforcement and cost collection.
