Gentry Homes, Ltd. v. Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. et al.
Filing
93
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS SIMPSON STRONG-TIE CO., INC. AND SIMPSON MANUFACTURING CO., INC.'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON PLAINTIFF'S BREACH OF WARRANTY CLAIM (ECF No. 56 ) and DENYING DE FENDANTS SIMPSON STRONG-TIE CO., INC. AND SIMPSON MANUFACTURING CO., INC.'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S BREACH OF WARRANTY CLAIM (ECF No. 54 ) and DENYING DEFENDANTS SIMPSON STRONG-TIE CO., INC. AND SI MPSON MANUFACTURING CO, INC.'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION CLAIM (ECF No. 52 ) - Signed by JUDGE HELEN GILLMOR on 12/9/2019. Defendants Si mpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. and Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc.'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Statute of Limitations on Plaintiff's Breach of Warranty Claim (ECF No. 56) is GRANTED.   ;Defendants Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. and Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc.'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Plaintiff's Breach of Warranty Claim (ECF No. 54) is DENIED. Defendants S impson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. and Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc.'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Plaintiff's Negligent Misrepresentation Claim (ECF No. 52) is DENIED. Follows oral order of 12/3/2019 Hearing at ECF 90 (jo)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
SIMPSON STRONG-TIE CO., INC.; )
SIMPSON MANUFACTURING CO.,
)
INC.; JOHN DOES 1-20,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
_____________________________________ )
GENTRY HOMES, LTD.,
CIV. NO. 17-00566 HG-RT
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS SIMPSON STRONG-TIE CO., INC. AND
SIMPSON MANUFACTURING CO., INC.’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT REGARDING STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON PLAINTIFF’S BREACH
OF WARRANTY CLAIM (ECF No. 56)
and
DENYING DEFENDANTS SIMPSON STRONG-TIE CO., INC. AND SIMPSON
MANUFACTURING CO., INC.’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S BREACH OF WARRANTY CLAIM (ECF No. 54)
and
DENYING DEFENDANTS SIMPSON STRONG-TIE CO., INC. AND SIMPSON
MANUFACTURING CO, INC.’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION CLAIM (ECF No.
52)
Plaintiff Gentry Homes, Ltd. filed a Complaint against
Defendants Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. and Simpson Manufacturing
Co., Inc. arising out of the construction of more than 2,000
homes in the Ewa Beach community on the island of Oahu.
Gentry Homes, Ltd., the developer of the residential housing
community, claims that it constructed 2,136 homes between July
1
2001 and 2012 using Defendants Simpson Strong-Tie Co. Inc. and
Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc.’s products.
Specifically, the homes were constructed with Defendants’
hold-down straps and mudsill anchors that are designed to prevent
injuries and damage to the homes that may be caused from wind
uplift forces, such as hurricane winds.
The products were
subject to an express warranty provided by Defendants.
Plaintiff claims that it used the hold-down straps and
mudsill anchors in its construction pursuant to Defendants’
specifications.
Plaintiff claims, however, that as early as 2003, Defendants
became aware that Defendants’ products were defective, were
subject to corrosion, and were rusting through the concrete in
some homes in other developments in Hawaii.
Plaintiff asserts that Defendants failed to inform Plaintiff
of the defects in their products and misrepresented the quality
of their products.
On July 30, 2011, both Plaintiff and Defendants were subject
to a class action lawsuit in Hawaii State Court that was brought
by the homeowners of the development constructed by Plaintiff.
The lawsuit claimed that the homes that were designed, developed,
and built by Plaintiff had inadequate high-wind protection and
included defective products designed by the Defendants.
Both Plaintiff and Defendants agreed to toll any claims
against each other during the pendency of the Hawaii State Court
2
class action lawsuit.
Defendants were granted summary judgment
in the state lawsuit and Gentry remained in the suit.
On September 7, 2017, the class action lawsuit against
Gentry was settled.
Under the terms of the settlement, Plaintiff
Gentry Homes, Ltd. agreed to replace all of the hold-down straps
and mudsill anchors that it had installed in its homes that were
designed and manufactured by Defendants.
Plaintiff now has filed suit against Defendants Simpson
Strong-Tie Co., Inc. and Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc., seeking
damages on the grounds that Defendants’ products were defective.
Plaintiff filed this Complaint against Defendants asserting
two claims:
Count I:
Breach of Warranty
Plaintiff brings a claim for breach of warranty based on
alleged defects in the design and manufacturing of the
Defendants’ products, pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statute § 490:2313;
Count II: Negligent Misrepresentation
Plaintiff brings a state law claim for negligent
misrepresentation, alleging Defendants made misrepresentations
and omissions to Plaintiff about the installation means, methods,
and suitability of their products.
Defendants seek summary judgment on both of Plaintiff’s
claims.
There are genuine issues of material fact as to the basis
3
for the purported failure of the hold-down straps and mudsill
anchors.
Plaintiff claims the products were defective, while
Defendants claim that their products are not defective but were
only subject to corrosion in Plaintiff’s homes because of the
improper construction and installation by Plaintiff.
Each party has submitted expert reports in support of their
positions.
The Court is unable to weigh evidence and make
credibility determinations at summary judgment.
Defendants Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. and Simpson
Manufacturing Co., Inc.’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
Regarding Plaintiff’s Breach of Warranty Claim (ECF No. 54) is
DENIED.
Defendants Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. and Simpson
Manufacturing Co., Inc.’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
Regarding Plaintiff’s Negligent Misrepresentation Claim (ECF No.
52) is DENIED.
Statute of Limitations
Defendants also seek partial summary judgment on the statute
of limitations applicable to Plaintiff’s breach of warranty
claim.
Defendants claim that the Hawaii state statute for breach
of warranty prevents Plaintiff from seeking relief for products
that were delivered outside of the statue of limitations.
Plaintiff concedes that the applicable statute of
limitations limits its ability to recover only as to breach of
warranty for specific homes that received Defendants’ products
4
outside the statute of limitations.
Defendants Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. and Simpson
Manufacturing Co., Inc.’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
Regarding Statute of Limitations On Plaintiff’s Breach of
Warranty Claim (ECF No. 56) is GRANTED.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On November 20, 2017, Plaintiff Gentry Homes, Ltd. filed a
Complaint.
(ECF No. 1).
On August 21, 2019, Defendants Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc.
and Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc. filed three separate Motions
for Summary Judgment and Concise Statements of Fact as follows:
MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION CLAIM (ECF No. 52);
CONCISE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
CLAIM (ECF No. 53);
MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING PLAINTIFF”S
BREACH OF WARRANTY CLAIM (ECF No. 54);
CONCISE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S BREACH OF WARRANTY CLAIM (ECF
No. 55);
MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS ON PLAINTIFF’S BREACH OF WARRANTY CLAIM (ECF No.
56);
CONCISE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT REGARDING STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON PLAINTIFF’S
BREACH OF WARRANTY CLAIM (ECF No. 57).
On September 5, 2019, the Court issued a briefing schedule.
(ECF No. 60).
5
On September 11, 2019, the Court granted the Parties’ joint
request to extend the briefing schedule.
(ECF No. 61).
On October 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed its Oppositions to
Defendants’ three Motions for Summary Judgment as follows:
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENT
MISREPRESENTATION CLAIM (ECF No. 64);
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S BREACH OF WARRANTY
CLAIM (ECF No. 65);
CONCISE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S BREACH OF
WARRANTY CLAIM (ECF No. 66);
CONCISE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON NEGLIGENT
MISREPRESENTATION CLAIM (ECF No. 67);
PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT OF POSITION RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON
PLAINTIFF’S BREACH OF WARRANTY CLAIM (ECF NO. 68).
On October 23, 2019, Plaintiff filed ERRATA TO PLAINTIFF’S
RESPONSE TO SEPARATE AND CONCISE STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT OF
SIMPSON’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING NEGLIGENT
MISREPRESENTATION CLAIM.
(ECF No. 69).
On the same date, Plaintiff filed ERRATA TO PLAINTIFF’S
CONCISE STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GENTRY HOMES, LTD’S
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS SIMPSON STRONG-TIE CO.,
INC. AND SIMPSON MANUFACTURING CO., INC.’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S BREACH OF WARRANTY CLAIM.
(ECF No. 70).
On October 29, 2019, Defendants filed their Replies and
6
Concise Statements of Facts in Support of their Replies as
follows:
REPLY REGARDING BREACH OF WARRANTY CLAIM (ECF No. 73);
CONCISE STATEMENT RE: REPLY REGARDING BREACH OF WARRANTY
CLAIM (ECF No. 74);
REPLY REGARDING NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION CLAIM (ECF No.
75);
CONCISE STATEMENT RE: REPLY REGARDING NEGLIGENT
MISREPRESENTATION CLAIM (ECF No. 76).
On October 30, 2019, the Court continued the hearing on
Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment.
(ECF No. 77).
On November 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed SUPPLEMENTAL ERRATA TO
PLAINTIFF’S CONCISE STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GENTRY
HOMES, LTD’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS SIMPSON
STRONG-TIE CO., INC. AND SIMPSON MANUFACTURING CO., INC.’S MOTION
FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING BREACH OF WARRANTY CLAIM.
(ECF No. 84).
On the same date, Plaintiff filed SUPPLEMENTAL ERRATA TO
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO SEPARATE AND CONCISE STATEMENT OF FACTS
IN SUPPORT OF SIMPSON’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
REGARDING NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION CLAIM.
(ECF No. 85).
On November 27, 2019, Defendants filed DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF
ERRATA RE: SEPARATE AND CONCISE STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION CLAIM.
(ECF No. 87).
On the same date, Defendants filed DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF
ERRATA RE: SEPARATE AND CONCISE STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT OF
7
MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S BREACH
OF WARRANTY CLAIM.
(ECF No. 88).
BACKGROUND
Undisputed Facts:
The Parties agree that Defendants Simpson Strong-Tie Co.,
Inc. and Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc. (“Defendants Simpson”)
designed and manufactured hold-down straps and mudsill anchors to
be used to protect homes from high velocity wind forces.
Defendants’ 2002 Wood Connectors Catalog provided an express
warranty for those products stating, as follows:
Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc. warrants catalog
products to be free from defects in material or
manufacturing. Simpson Strong-Tie Co. Inc. products
are further warranted for adequacy of design when used
in accordance with design limits in this catalog, and
properly specified and installed. This warranty does
not apply to uses not in compliance with specific
applications and installation procedures set forth in
this catalog or to non-catalog or modified products, or
to deterioration due to environmental conditions.
Simpson Strong-Tie connectors are designed to enable
structures to resist the movement, stress, and loading
that results from impact events such as earthquakes and
high velocity winds. Properly-installed Simpson Strong
Tie connectors will perform in accordance with the
specifications set forth in the applicable Simpson
catalog. Additional performance limitations for
specific products may be listed on the applicable
catalog pages.
(Limited Warranty in Simpson’s 2002 Wood Connectors Catalog
at p. 3, attached as Ex. 12 to Pla.’s Concise Statement of Facts
(“CSF”) in Opposition, ECF No. 66-15).
The warranty was amended in 2007 to state that “products are
8
further warranted for adequacy of design when used in accordance
with design limits in this catalog and when properly specified,
installed, and maintained....”
(Limited Warranty in Simpson’s
2007 Wood Connectors Catalog at p. 2, attached as Ex. 13 to
Pla.’s CSF in Opposition, ECF No. 66-16) (emphasis added).
The Parties agree that Plaintiff Gentry Homes, Ltd.
(“Plaintiff Gentry”) used Defendants Simpson’s hold-down straps
and mudsill anchor products in its residential development in Ewa
Beach, Oahu, between 2001 and 2012.
The Parties agree that some of Defendants’ hold-down straps
and mudsill anchor products that were used in Plaintiff’s
residential development developed corrosion and deterioration.
The Parties dispute the cause of the corrosion and
deterioration.
Plaintiff claims that design and manufacturing defects in
Defendants’ products caused the corrosion and deterioration.
Defendants dispute Plaintiff’s claim and asserts that
Plaintiff’s improper utilization of their products caused the
corrosion and deterioration.
There are also numerous disputes of material facts
concerning the representations made by Defendants about their
products.
The Parties do not agree about facts concerning the
information Defendants had about the corrosion of their products
in other developments in Hawaii, and the facts surrounding the
communications that Defendants made, or declined to make, about
9
their products to Plaintiff.
On July 30, 2011, a class action lawsuit against both
Plaintiff and Defendants was filed in Hawaii State Court by the
homeowners in Nishimura v. Gentry Homes, Ltd.; Simpson
Manufacturing Co., Inc.; Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc., Civ. No.
11-1-1522-07 RAN, Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of
Hawaii.
The Parties agree that on January 23, 2012, they agreed to
toll any applicable statute of limitations for claims against
each other during the pendency of the class action lawsuit in
state court, which ultimately concluded on October 15, 2018.
Defendants’ Position:
Defendants claim that they never made any misrepresentations
to Plaintiff about their products.
Defendants claim that
Plaintiff Gentry did not properly evaluate the environment where
the straps would be installed and that Plaintiff is at fault for
any defects in the products due to its improper use of the
products in Plaintiff’s construction.
Defendants assert that Plaintiff Gentry’s actions were the
cause of the products’ corrosion and deterioration.
Defendants claim that Plaintiff Gentry’s Engineer of Record,
Clayton Hayes, chose the incorrect products for Plaintiff’s
development and failed to consider Defendants’ corrosion
warnings.
(Arbitration Testimony of Clayton Hayes at pp. 1035-
10
36, attached as Ex. F to Def.’s First Concise Statement of Facts
(“CSF”), ECF No. 53-12).
Defendants submitted a report by their experts Dominic J.
Kelly, P.E. and Matthew R. Sherman.
(Def.’s Expert Report dated
May 1, 2019, attached as Ex. 2 to Def.’s Second CSF and Kelly
Declaration, ECF No. 55-14).
Defendants’ experts state in their
report that Plaintiff Gentry’s inadequate design of its homes and
poor installation created moisture intrusion under the homes,
which subjected Defendants’ products to corrosion.
(Id. at pp.
28-38).
Plaintiff’s Position:
Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ faulty design and
manufacturing defects caused the Defendants’ hold-down straps and
mudsill anchor products to corrode and prematurely deteriorate.
Plaintiff claims that Defendants represented that their
hold-down straps and mudsill anchors were superior alternatives
to anchor bolts.
(Deposition of Clayton Hayes at p. 116,
attached as Ex. 14 to Pla.’s Second CSF in Opp., ECF No. 67-15;
Declaration of Clayton Hayes at ¶¶ 9-10, attached to Pla.’s
Second CSF, ECF No. 67-34).
Plaintiff also claims that Defendants represented their
products to be the most thoroughly tested products in the
industry that were backed by “No Equal” and “Quality” policies.
(Hayes Declaration at ¶¶ 17-18, attached to Pla.’s Second CSF,
11
ECF No. 67-34).
Plaintiff asserts that in 2005, Defendants learned that
their products used in other developers’ homes on Oahu were
corroding and began investigating the causes of corrosion.
(Deposition of Timothy J. Waite at pp. 129, 133-35, attached as
Ex. 4 to Pla.’s Second CSF in Opp., ECF No. 67-5).
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants never informed Plaintiff
of the results of their investigation or informed Plaintiff of
the conditions that Defendants believed contributed to corrosion.
(Id. at pp. 124-25; 137-38).
Plaintiff claims that in 2007, Defendants reviewed and
approved plans by Plaintiff to include Defendants’ hold-down
straps and mudsill anchors in Plaintiff’s construction.
(Deposition of Timothy J. Waite, at pp. 230-232, attached as Ex.
9 to Pla.’s First CSF in Opp., ECF No. 66-12; Exhibit for the
Deposition of Timothy J. Waite, attached as Ex. 17 to Pla.’s
First CSF in Opp., ECF No. 66-20).
Plaintiff asserts that in October 2009, Defendants inspected
Plaintiff’s job site and never notified Plaintiff that Plaintiff
was installing Defendants’ products in a manner that Defendants
believed to be faulty.
(Arbitration Testimony of Timothy J.
Waite, at pp. 1127-28, 1157, attached as Ex. 8 to Pla.’s First
CSF in Opp., ECF No. 66-11).
Plaintiff submitted an expert report by Mark A. Lawrence,
Ph.D., P.E.
(Pla.’s Expert Report for Mark A. Lawrence, dated
12
April 1, 2019, attached as Ex. 6 to Pla.’s CSF in Opp., ECF No.
66-9).
Dr. Lawrence opines that Plaintiff’s installation and
residential design were not responsible for the deterioration or
corrosion of Defendants’ products.
(Id. at p. 2).
Plaintiff also submitted an expert report by David A. Moore,
P.E.
(Pla.’s Expert Report for David A. Moore, P.E., dated April
1, 2019, attached as Ex. 7 to Pla.’s CSF in Opp., ECF No. 66-10).
Mr. Moore opines that Defendants Simpson’s products were not
adequately designed and did not comply with the representations
in Defendants’ warranty.
(Id. at p. 13).
STANDARDS OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
To defeat
summary judgment there must be sufficient evidence that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.
Nidds v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 113 F.3d 912, 916 (9th Cir.
1997).
The moving party has the initial burden of “identifying for
the court the portions of the materials on file that it believes
demonstrate the absence of any genuine issue of material fact.”
T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d
626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 323 (1986)).
The moving party, however, has no burden
13
to negate or disprove matters on which the opponent will have the
burden of proof at trial.
The moving party need not produce any
evidence at all on matters for which it does not have the burden
of proof.
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325.
The moving party must show,
however, that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that
he or she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
That
burden is met by pointing out to the district court that there is
an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.
Id.
If the moving party meets its burden, then the opposing
party may not defeat a motion for summary judgment in the absence
of probative evidence tending to support its legal theory.
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Savage, 611 F.2d 270, 282
(9th Cir. 1979).
The opposing party must present admissible
evidence showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.
Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(e); Brinson v. Linda Rose Joint Venture, 53 F.3d
1044, 1049 (9th Cir. 1995).
“If the evidence is merely
colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment
may be granted.” Nidds, 113 F.3d at 916 (quoting Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986)).
The court views the facts in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party.
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Martin, 872 F.2d
319, 320 (9th Cir. 1989).
Opposition evidence may consist of
declarations, admissions, evidence obtained through discovery,
and matters judicially noticed.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex,
14
477 U.S. at 324.
The opposing party cannot, however, stand on
its pleadings or simply assert that it will be able to discredit
the movant’s evidence at trial.
Elec. Serv., 809 F.2d at 630.
mere allegations or denials.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); T.W.
The opposing party cannot rest on
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Gasaway v.
Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 26 F.3d 957, 959-60 (9th Cir.
1994).
When the nonmoving party relies only on its own
affidavits to oppose summary judgment, it cannot rely on
conclusory allegations unsupported by factual data to create an
issue of material fact.
Hansen v. U.S., 7 F.3d 137, 138 (9th
Cir. 1993); see also Nat’l Steel Corp. v. Golden Eagle Ins. Co.,
121 F.3d 496, 502 (9th Cir. 1997).
ANALYSIS
COUNT I:
A.
Breach of Warranty
Statute of Limitations
Plaintiff brings its breach of warranty claim pursuant to
Hawaii’s Uniform Commercial Code in Haw. Rev. Stat. § 490:2-313.
The Hawaii Uniform Commercial Code provides a statute of
limitations for breach of warranty claims, as follows:
Statute of Limitations In Contracts For Sale.
(1)
An action for breach of any contract for sale
must be commenced within four years after the
cause of action has accrued. By the original
agreement the parties may reduce the period
of limitation to not less than one year but
may not extend it.
(2)
A cause of action accrues when the breach
occurs, regardless of the aggrieved party’s
15
lack of knowledge of the breach. A breach of
warranty occurs when tender of delivery is
made, except that where a warranty explicitly
extends to future performance of the goods
and discovery of the breach must await the
time of such performance the cause of action
accrues when the breach is or should have
been discovered....
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 490:2-725.
The Parties agree that Plaintiff’s breach of warranty claim
is subject to the four-year statute of limitations pursuant to
Section 490:2-725.
On January 23, 2012, the Parties engaged in a tolling
agreement where they agreed to toll any claims against each other
during the pendency of the Hawaii state class action lawsuit.
The Parties agree that pursuant to their tolling agreement
and the four-year statute of limitations for breach of warranty,
Plaintiff may bring breach of warranty claims for products that
were delivered to it between January 23, 2008 and January 23,
2012.
The Parties agree that Defendants’ products were delivered
to the following homes prior to January 23, 2008, and that
Plaintiff may not seek damages for breach of warranty as to these
homes:
Haleakea (Area 36):
Lots 1-13, 15-103;
Haleakea (Area 37):
Lots 40-41;
Cypress Point (Area 36): Lots 104-24, 126-30;
Latitudes (Area 40):
Lots 3-6, 49-67, 89-92, 99102;
16
Montecito (Area 33):
Lots 1-143;
Tuscany (Area 33):
Lots 1-139; and,
Tuscany (Area 39):
Lots 1-22, 100-13, 200-08,
300-13, 400-15, 500-17, and
600-22.
(Pla.’s Opp. at p. 3, ECF No. 68).
Defendants Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. and Simpson
Manufacturing Co., Inc.’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
Regarding Statute of Limitations on Plaintiff’s Breach of
Warranty Claim (ECF No. 56) is GRANTED.
B.
Substantive Breach Of Warranty Claim
Plaintiff Gentry Homes, Ltd. (“Plaintiff Gentry”) claims
that Defendants Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. and Simpson
Manufacturing Co., Inc. (“Defendants Simpson”) made express
warranties that their hold-down straps and mudsill anchor
products were free from defects in material or manufacturing, and
for adequacy of design.
(Complaint at ¶ 42, ECF No. 1).
Plaintiff claims that it was injured as a result of Defendants’
breach of warranties.
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 490:2-313 of Hawaii’s Uniform Commercial
Code defines express warranties, as follows:
(1)
Express warranties by the seller are created as
follows:
(a)
Any affirmation of fact or promise made by the
seller to the buyer which relates to the goods and
becomes part of the basis of the bargain creates
an express warranty that the goods shall conform
to the affirmation or promise.
17
(b)
(c)
(2)
Any description of the goods which is made part of
the basis of the bargain creates an express
warranty that the goods shall conform to the
description.
Any sample or model which is made part of the
basis of the bargain creates an express warranty
that the whole of the goods shall conform to the
sample or model.
It is not necessary to the creation of an express
warranty that the seller use formal words such as
“warrant” or “guarantee” or that he have a specific
intention to make a warranty, but an affirmation merely
of the value of the goods or a statement purporting to
be merely what seller’s opinion or commendation of the
goods does not create a warranty.
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 490:2-313.
To establish a breach of express warranty claim, Plaintiff
must prove:
(1)
Defendants made an affirmation of fact or promise
regarding their products;
(2)
that statement became part of the basis of the bargain;
and,
(3)
the product failed to perform according to the
statement.
Maeda v. Pinnacle Foods Inc., 390 F.Supp.3d 1231, 1254 (D.
Haw. 2019) (citing Neilsen v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 989 P.2d
264, 274-75 (Haw. Ct. App. 1999)).
A seller’s statements to a buyer regarding goods sold or
made during the bargaining process are presumptively part of the
basis of the bargain between the seller and the buyer.
Torres v.
Nw. Eng’g Co., 949 P.2d 1004, 1015 (Haw. Ct. App. 1997).
A breach of express warranty action focuses on what the
seller agreed to sell and whether the product delivered by the
18
seller complied with the statements or description of what the
seller agreed to sell.
Stoebner Motors, Inc. v. Automobili
Lamborghini S.P.A., 459 F.Supp.2d 1028, 1035 (D. Haw. 2006)
(citing Torres, 949 P.2d at 1014)).
Plaintiff claims that Defendants’ hold-down straps and
mudsill anchors did not comply with the Defendants’ statements
and descriptions of the products, because they corroded and
deteriorated in the homes Plaintiff constructed, requiring
Plaintiff to replace them as a result of the settlement of the
state court class action.
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the breach of
warranty claim disputes that their products were faulty.
Defendants request the Court find that their warranty does not
apply in this case because Defendants claim that Plaintiff did
not use their products in compliance with Defendants’
specifications.
Defendants claim their products were subject to corrosion
and deterioration because of Plaintiff’s improper use and
installation of their products.
Defendants have submitted expert
opinions to support their position.
(Def.’s Expert Report dated
May 1, 2019, attached as Ex. 2 to Def.’s CSF and Kelly
Declaration, ECF No. 55-14).
Plaintiff has submitted expert opinions of its own, which
have raised genuine issues of material fact as to the cause of
the corrosion and deterioration of Defendants’ products.
19
Plaintiff’s experts dispute Defendants’ position.1
(Pla.’s
Expert Report for Mark A. Lawrence, dated April 1, 2019, attached
as Ex. 6 to Pla.’s CSF in Opp., ECF No. 66-9; Pla.’s Expert
Report for David A. Moore, P.E., dated April 1, 2019, attached as
Ex. 7 to Pla.’s CSF in Opp., ECF No. 66-10; Pla.’s Rebuttal
Expert Report for Boyd A. Clark, Ph.D., attached as Ex. 28 to
Pla.’s CSF in Opp., ECF No. 66-31; Pla.’s Expert Report for Gary
Chock, S.E., attached as Ex. 10 to Pla.’s 2nd Opp., ECF No. 6711).
Plaintiff also offers testimony from its Engineer of Record
who claims that Defendants’ products were properly utilized
pursuant to Defendants’ representations in its catalogs.
(Hayes
Declaration at ¶¶ 14-24, attached to Pla.’s CSF in Opp., ECF No.
67-34).
When evaluating a motion for summary judgment, the Court
must view the facts and draw reasonable inferences in the light
most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.
1
Scott v.
Defendants claim that Plaintiff did not properly
authenticate its expert reports and failed to timely disclose
their experts’ c.v.’s in support of their Opposition to
Defendants’ Motions. Defendants’ argument is unpersuasive. To
survive summary judgment, a party does not have to produce
evidence in a form that would be admissible at trial, as long as
the content of the evidence is admissible. Block v. City of
L.A., 253 F.3d 410, 418-19 (9th Cir. 2001). The content of
Plaintiff’s expert reports may be admissible at trial through
expert testimony and is considered for purposes of summary
judgment. Fraser v. Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir.
2003); Campos v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 2018 WL 7348846, *2
(C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2018) (considering expert report on summary
judgment despite lack of foundation and hearsay objections
because the contents of the report could be presented at trial).
20
Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007).
The Court may not weigh
conflicting evidence or assess credibility.
In re Barboza, 545
F.3d 702, 707 (9th Cir. 2008).
Defendants Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. and Simpson
Manufacturing Co., Inc.’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
Regarding Plaintiff’s Breach of Warranty Claim (ECF No. 54) is
DENIED.
Count II: Negligent Misrepresentation
Negligent misrepresentation has the following elements: (1)
false information supplied as a result of the failure to exercise
reasonable care or competence in communicating the information;
(2) reliance on that false information, and (3) resulting loss.
Santiago v. Tanaka, 366 P.3d 612, 628-29 (Haw. 2016).
Again, the Parties dispute the material facts regarding
Plaintiff’s cause of action.
Defendants argue that their
statements about their products were not false, that Plaintiff
Gentry did not rely on Defendants’ statements about their
products, and that Plaintiff was not harmed as a result of
Defendants’ statement.
Plaintiff disputes each of Defendants’ claims, asserting
that Defendants provided Plaintiff with false information
regarding the suitability of its hold-down straps and mudsill
anchor products, including its “No Equal Policy,” marketing
materials, and statements by Defendants’ representatives.
21
Plaintiff also claims that Defendants omitted material
information by failing to inform Plaintiff of corrosion of their
products in other Oahu developments.
The Parties each provided expert opinions as to the cause of
the corrosion of the products.
It is inappropriate for the Court to weigh the disputed
evidence before it or to engage in credibility determinations in
ruling on summary judgment.
Bill Darrah Builders, Inc. v. Hall
at Makena Place, LLC, Civ. No. 15-00518 JMS-KSC, 2018 WL 650195,
at *8 (D. Haw. Jan. 31, 2018) (denying summary judgment on a
negligent misrepresentation claim, and explaining that
credibility determinations and the weighing of evidence are
functions for the fact-finder and are not permissible in ruling
on a motion for summary judgment).
Defendants Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. and Simpson
Manufacturing Co., Inc.’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
Regarding Plaintiff’s Negligent Misrepresentation Claim (ECF No.
52) is DENIED.
The Parties’ various factual disputes do not allow for a
finding of summary judgment.
The factual issues in dispute cover
the construction of more than 2,000 homes over a period of
several years.
The analysis requires detailed examination of
numerous aspects of the design and building of the homes.
For
example, factual questions about the appropriateness of the
concrete used, the quality and mix of the various components, and
22
the question of chlorides present in the concrete are a fraction
of the factual issues in dispute.
Such factual disputes require
detailed analyses and credibility evaluations in order to begin
to answer the multi-layered questions that are presented in this
case.
CONCLUSION
Defendants Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. and Simpson
Manufacturing Co., Inc.’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
Regarding Statute of Limitations on Plaintiff’s Breach of
Warranty Claim (ECF No. 56) is GRANTED.
Defendants Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. and Simpson
Manufacturing Co., Inc.’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
Regarding Plaintiff’s Breach of Warranty Claim (ECF No. 54) is
DENIED.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
23
Defendants Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. and Simpson
Manufacturing Co., Inc.’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
Regarding Plaintiff’s Negligent Misrepresentation Claim (ECF No.
52) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
December 9, 2019, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Gentry Homes, Ltd. v. Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc.; Simpson
Manufacturing Co., Inc., Civ. No. 17-00566 HG-RT; ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS SIMPSON STRONG-TIE CO., INC. AND SIMPSON MANUFACTURING
CO., INC.’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING STATUTE
OF LIMITATIONS ON PLAINTIFF’S BREACH OF WARRANTY CLAIM (ECF No.
56) and DENYING DEFENDANTS SIMPSON STRONG-TIE CO., INC. AND
SIMPSON MANUFACTURING CO., INC.’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S BREACH OF WARRANTY CLAIM (ECF No.
54) and DENYING DEFENDANTS SIMPSON STRONG-TIE CO., INC. AND
SIMPSON MANUFACTURING CO, INC.’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION CLAIM
(ECF No. 52)
24
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?