General Pump & Well, Inc. v. Miller

Citations: 326 Ga. App. 546; 757 S.E.2d 161; 2014 Fulton County D. Rep. 974; 2014 WL 1227686; 2014 Ga. App. LEXIS 233Docket: A13A2050

Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; March 26, 2014; Georgia; State Appellate Court

Lead Opinion SummaryLead Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The appeal involves a dispute over a failed well-drilling unit purchased by General Pump, which contained a component manufactured by Centerline Manufacturing Company. General Pump has previously litigated this case in various state and federal courts, leading to a prior ruling known as General Pump 1. The current appeal arises from the trial court granting Centerline's motion to dismiss based on a lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, referencing the earlier decision. The appellate court found that General Pump 1 was not applicable in this instance, leading to a reversal and remand of the trial court's decision.

In addressing motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the burden lies with the defendant to demonstrate the absence of jurisdiction. Defendants may present evidence outside of the pleadings, but if the outcome relies on undisputed facts, they must provide supporting affidavits or evidence. The trial court can decide on jurisdictional matters based on written submissions or oral testimony. Here, the trial court resolved the motion solely on written materials, allowing the appellate court to review the case without deference to the trial court's findings.

The facts show that in late 2004, General Pump, located in Georgia, engaged with Laibe Corporation from Indiana to purchase a customized well-drilling unit, which included a duplex mud pump from Centerline and drilling rods from Matrix Drilling Company. This unit was assembled in Indiana and delivered to Georgia in April 2005. After experiencing hydraulic issues, General Pump returned the unit for repairs, where it was discovered that a faulty check valve in the Centerline mud pump was to blame. Following repairs, further issues arose in April 2006 when a hole developed in the mud pump’s main housing, leading General Pump to contact Centerline for assistance.

General Pump's attempts to repair a malfunctioning mud pump proved ineffective, leading to prolonged periods of downtime for the well-drilling unit. Subsequently, General Pump initiated litigation against Laibe, Centerline, and Matrix across various state and federal courts, including specific claims against Laibe and Matrix in Tattnall County. The trial court denied Laibe's motion to dismiss the suit on grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. However, in General Pump 1, the appellate court determined that the trial court should have granted Laibe’s motion, as the sales contract for the well-drilling unit included a forum selection clause applicable to General Pump’s claims against Laibe. Following this ruling, the trial court dismissed the current case against Centerline, citing lack of jurisdiction and improper venue based on the same contract.

General Pump argued that the dismissal was erroneous, and the appellate court agreed. It clarified that General Pump 1 did not establish that the trial court erred in denying Laibe’s motion regarding personal jurisdiction; rather, it focused solely on the enforceability of the forum-selection clause concerning General Pump's claims against Laibe. Additionally, the appellate court noted that the purchase contract excluded liability for components not supplied by Laibe and mandated that claims for defective components be directed against their respective manufacturers or suppliers, none of whom were party to the contract. Thus, the appellate court concluded that General Pump 1 did not govern the current case involving component parts and found the trial court's dismissal to be in error. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Judgment has been reversed and the case remanded, with Judges Barnes and Ray concurring. The appellant is represented by Callaway, Neville, Brinson, William E. Callaway, Jr., and William J. Neville, Jr., while the appellee is represented by Oliver Maner, Patrick T. O’Connor, and Patricia T. Paul. Multiple references to related cases involving Gen. Pump. Well v. Laibe Supply Corp. are provided, detailing various decisions made in the Southern District of Georgia and the Southern District of Indiana from 2007 to 2009.

The contract outlines warranties regarding the Equipment, stating that, except for specific exclusions, there is a warranty of good quality and workmanship free from defects for the original buyer. Exclusions from this warranty include: defects in non-supplied parts, alterations or non-approved parts, damages from negligent repairs, and components not directly supplied by the manufacturer. The warranty does not cover component parts made by other manufacturers, though any warranties from these manufacturers will be passed on to the buyer. In the event of defects in these components, the buyer must pursue claims directly against the original manufacturers or suppliers.

Furthermore, the contract includes a disclaimer of warranties and limits liability, asserting that the exclusive remedy available to the buyer regarding the agreement and Equipment is confined to the limited warranty described in section 3 and any transferable warranties from component manufacturers.