Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, a dispute arose after Lend Lease Trucks, Inc. ordered trucks from Freightliner Corporation and Volvo, with a specific requirement for TRW, Inc.’s TAS-65 steering gears. Following a recall by TRW due to defects, Lend Lease was not compensated for trucks still with manufacturers. Lend Lease sued after the trial court granted summary judgment to TRW and Freightliner, contesting the decision based on procedural improprieties. The court found procedural error in the trial court's reliance on a late affidavit submitted by Freightliner, violating OCGA § 9-11-56 (c) and OCGA § 9-11-6 (d). Additionally, the court addressed Lend Lease's negligence claim against TRW, emphasizing the requirement for damage to property beyond the defective product itself, which was not evidenced. Lend Lease also claimed compensation as a third-party beneficiary of settlement agreements but lacked standing due to not holding legal title to the trucks. The court upheld the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of TRW, affirming in part and reversing in part, ultimately ruling against Lend Lease’s claims.
Legal Issues Addressed
Improper Consideration of Untimely Affidavits under OCGA § 9-11-56 (c) and OCGA § 9-11-6 (d)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court improperly accepted an untimely affidavit submitted by Freightliner's Senior Vice-President, which violated statutory requirements for submission timelines.
Reasoning: Lend Lease argued that the late submission violated OCGA § 9-11-56 (c), which mandates that motions for summary judgment be served at least 30 days prior to the hearing, and OCGA § 9-11-6 (d), which requires affidavits supporting such motions to be filed in advance.
Negligence Claims and Damage to Property Beyond the Defective Productsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: For negligence claims to succeed, damage must be shown to property other than the defective product itself, which was not demonstrated by Lend Lease regarding the TAS-65 steering gears.
Reasoning: The court found that a genuine issue of material fact existed about whether the TAS-65 steering gears caused damage beyond the allegedly defective product.
Standing and Third-Party Beneficiary Claims in Contract Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Lend Lease lacked standing to claim compensation as an intended third-party beneficiary because they did not hold legal title to the trucks and the settlement agreements did not include compensation for noncancellable orders.
Reasoning: The court also addressed Lend Lease's claim as an intended third-party beneficiary of settlement agreements between TRW and truck manufacturers, asserting that Lend Lease did not hold legal title to the trucks until they were completed and thus lacked standing to claim compensation.