McKamie v. Patterson Dental Supply Inc

Filing 26

ORDER granting 21 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Honorable Robin J. Cauthron on 12/6/13. (lg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
J. ANDREW McKAMIE, DDS, d/b/a
CENTER FOR EXCEPTIONAL
DENTISTRY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
PATTERSON DENTAL SUPPLY, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-13-173-C

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
This case arises from a contractual dispute involving the attempted return of a product
known as the CEREC 3D, a device that allows dentists to manufacture their own dental
crowns. Plaintiff McKamie, a dentist, purchased the CEREC 3D from Defendant Patterson
Dental Supply in late 2007 for his dental practice. Although the Customer Order Plaintiff
initially signed contained Defendant’s standard return policy, which included a monthly
depreciation of a returnable product’s value, Plaintiff also received a letter promising a
“100% Satisfaction Guarantee” (“Satisfaction Guarantee”). The Satisfaction Guarantee
required Plaintiff to satisfy six conditions, including financing his purchase of the CEREC
3D with Patterson Financing, attending two training seminars, and performing between forty
to fifty restorations. The Satisfaction Guarantee then provided: “If at this point, if you
[Plaintiff McKamie] cannot justify incorporating this [CEREC 3D] technology into your
dental practice, Patterson will allow you to return the product and cancel the remainder of

the financing agreement.” (Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Dkt. No. 21, at 3; Pl.’s Resp., Dkt. No.
24, Ex. 2.)
Plaintiff initially attempted to return the CEREC 3D in January 2009 after performing
between 150 and 160 CEREC restoration procedures over the course of fourteen months, but
Defendant refused to accept the return. Several years later, in October 2012, Plaintiff again
contacted Defendant about returning the CEREC 3D. Defendant replied by letter, explaining
that it would not accept a return because Plaintiff had failed to meet all of the conditions in
the Satisfaction Guarantee and arguing that, moreover, the Satisfaction Guarantee’s
protection had expired. (Pl.’s Resp., Ex. 4.) Plaintiff then commenced this action, asserting
claims for breach of contract and fraud. Defendant now moves for summary judgment on
both counts.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is proper if the moving party “shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A fact is material if it affects the disposition of the substantive claim.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986). The party seeking summary
judgment bears the initial burden of demonstrating the basis for its motion, and identifying
those portions of “‘the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on
file, together with the affidavits, if any,’” that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of
material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (citation omitted). If the
movant satisfactorily demonstrates an absence of genuine issue of material fact with respect
2

to a dispositive issue for which the non-moving party will bear the burden of proof at trial,
the non-movant must then “go beyond the pleadings and by her own affidavits, or by the
‘depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,’ designate ‘specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” Id. at 324. A court considering a summary
judgment motion must view the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom in the
light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Kendrick v. Penske Transp. Servs., Inc., 220
F.3d 1220, 1225 (10th Cir. 2000).
II. DISCUSSION
A. Breach of Contract
The parties agree that the contractual language at issue is the Satisfaction Guarantee.
Defendant contends three components of the Satisfaction Guarantee support its Motion for
Summary Judgment: (1) the temporal “at this point” language in the final section of the
Satisfaction Guarantee; (2) the Satisfaction Guarantee’s fifth condition of attending the
Advanced Training; and (3) the Satisfaction Guarantee’s second condition of financing with
Patterson Financing.
1. Duration of the Satisfaction Guarantee
Defendant first argues that the “at this point” language at the end of the Satisfaction
Guarantee established only a limited window for Plaintiff to return the product and receive
the Satisfaction Guarantee’s promised remedy of a cancellation of all remaining financing
payments. According to Defendant, the only reasonable interpretation of that final clause is
to read “this point” as referring to the point in time when Plaintiff had performed between
3

forty to fifty restorations, meaning the guarantee expired after Plaintiff performed his fiftyfirst restoration. Defendant argues that had it intended to offer an unlimited test period, the
Satisfaction Guarantee would have instead read “at any time,” rather than “at this time.”
Although Defendant’s interpretation is certainly a possible reading of the Satisfaction
Guarantee, it is not the only reasonable interpretation. As Plaintiff points out, the “at this
time” language could also reasonably mean that Plaintiff had to have met all six conditions,
including performing at least forty to fifty restorations, in order to give the CERCA 3D a fair
trial.

If contractual language “‘is reasonably susceptible to at least two different

constructions,’” it is ambiguous. Otis Elevator Co. v. Midland Red Oak Realty, Inc., 483
F.3d 1095, 1102 (10th Cir. 2007) (quoting Pitco Prod. Co. v. Chaparral Energy, Inc., 2003
OK 5, ¶ 14, 63 P.3d 541, 546). Thus, a genuine issue of material fact exists as to the proper
interpretation of the “at this time” language and summary judgment is inappropriate on this
basis. See SCO Group, Inc. v. Novell, Inc., 578 F.3d 1201, 1214-15 (10th Cir. 2009).
2. Express Conditions
Defendant also asks for summary judgment because of Plaintiff’s failure to satisfy two
of the six express conditions listed in the Satisfaction Guarantee: financing with Patterson
Financing and attending an Advanced Training seminar. The parties disagree over whether
Plaintiff satisfied the Satisfaction Guarantee’s financing requirement. Although Plaintiff
initially financed with Patterson Financing, selecting the “90-day skip” option mentioned in
the Satisfaction Guarantee, Plaintiff subsequently refinanced with Bank of America for a
longer term and lower payments. Plaintiff contends that his sales representative portrayed
4

the Patterson Financing and the Bank of America financing as both offered by Patterson and
both covered by the Satisfaction Guarantee. The language of the Satisfaction Guarantee,
however, clearly states that the financing must be through Patterson Financing with the 90day skip, not through Bank of America. Additionally, Plaintiff concedes that he never
attended the Advanced Training required by the Satisfaction Guarantee, explaining that his
practice became incredibly busy after losing two of its dentists. Therefore, summary
judgment is appropriate for Defendant on Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim because
Plaintiff failed to satisfy at least one of the Satisfaction Guarantee’s express conditions.
B. Fraud
Plaintiff has also alleged that Defendant committed fraud in offering a Satisfaction
Guarantee that Plaintiff claims Defendant never intended to honor. Fraud claims, however,
are subject to a two-year statute of limitations in Oklahoma, which begins to run after the
discovery of the fraud. 12 Okla. Stat. § 95(A)(3). Even if Defendant’s failure to accept
Plaintiff’s return made its Satisfaction Guarantee fraudulent, the statute of limitations would
bar Plaintiff’s claim. Defendant refused to accept the return of Plaintiff’s CERCA 3D in
early 2009. In January 2009, after deciding to return the CERCA 3D, Plaintiff contacted the
former employee of Defendant who had sold him the device back in 2007. Although that
individual told Plaintiff the Satisfaction Guarantee would not have expired, Plaintiff spoke
shortly thereafter with a representative of Defendant in Defendant’s Oklahoma City office,
who clearly enunciated to Plaintiff that the Defendant would not accept return of the CERCA
3D under the Satisfaction Guarantee. Because Plaintiff filed suit on February 5, 2013, well
5

after the expiration of the two-year statute of limitations period, summary judgment for
Defendant is appropriate on Plaintiff’s fraud claim.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 21) is hereby
GRANTED. A judgment will enter accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of December, 2013.

6