S-20-0579, Nationwide Transportation Inc. and Jasper Leasing, Inc. Cross-Appellants) v. Navistar, Inc. (Appellant)
District Court for Douglas County, Honorable Gary B. Randall
Attorneys: Herbert J. Friedman (Friedman Law Offices, P.C., L.L.O.) and Lawrence R. Lassiter, pro hac vice and Clay Miller, pro hac vice (Miller Weisbrod, LLP)(Appellees/Cross-Appellants) --- Steven D. Davidson and Jennifer D. Tricker (Baird Holm LLP) and Jessica Z. Barger, pro hac vice and Natasha N. Taylor, pro hac vice (Wright Close & Barger, LLP) (Appellant)
Civil: Breach of warranty; fraudulent concealment
Proceedings below: Following a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Appellees for fraudulent concealment and breach of warranty and awarded damages. Upon order to elect a remedy, Appellees elected the fraudulent concealment remedy. The district court entered judgment in favor of Appellees and awarder 227,812.50 to Nationwide and $40,000.00 to Jasper.
Issues: Whether the district court erred by 1) failing to grant judgment to Appellant on Appellees’/Cross-Appellants’ fraudulent nondisclosure claims because the economic loss doctrine and the warranties’ disclaimers bar the claims as a matter of law, 2) failing to grant judgment to Appellant on Appellees’/Cross-Appellants’ failure-of-essential purpose claims because Appellant undisputedly complied with its obligations under its limited warranties and Appellees/Cross-Appellants did not comply with applicable notice provisions, 3) failing to grant judgment to Appellant on Appellees’/Cross-Appellants’ claims because no evidence supports the lost profit damages awarded, and 4) failing to grant a mistrial after it dismissed a juror and substituted that juror with an alternate because the jury had already started its deliberations and because the discharged juror conversed with the district court’s bailiff during deliberations.
Issues on Cross-Appeal: Whether the trial court erred by requiring Cross-Appellants to elect a remedy when the record demonstrates that the jury’s award of damages did not constitute a double recovery, and judgment should be rendered in conformity with the jury’s verdict.