Andre v. Springfield Mack, Inc., 2004 Mass. App. Div. 3 (Mass. App. Div. 1/12/2004)
| Decision Date | 12 January 2004 |
| Citation | 2004 Mass. App. Div. 3 |
| Parties | Timothy Andre<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> <I>v.</I> Springfield Mack, Inc., and another<SMALL><SUP>2</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Massachusetts Appellate Division |
Present: LoConto, P.J., Brennan & Rutberg, JJ.
Contract, Warranty agreement; Breach.
Products Liability, Injection pump.
Opinion affirming trial court judgment. Action heard in Springfield District Court by Herbert H. Hodos, J.
Michael Fenton for the plaintiff.
Dawn D. McDonald for defendant Springfield Mack, Inc.
L. Jeffrey Meehan for defendant Mack Trucks, Inc.
Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court, Mack Trucks, Inc. has appealed this matter in accordance with District/Municipal Courts Rules for Appellate Division Appeal.
Background. The facts necessary for an understanding of this matter are as follows: Timothy Andre (hereinafter, the Plaintiff) was a truck driver employed as an independent owner/operator of a Mack truck, which he had purchased in Rhode Island in 1988. Over the years the plaintiff had his truck serviced by Springfield Mack (Defendant, Plaintiff in Cross Claim and Appellee). In August 1992 Plaintiff ordered a re-manufactured injection pump through Springfield Mack. In December 1992 Plaintiff brought his truck to Springfield Mack for service and at that time they installed the re-manufactured injection pump. After the repairs were concluded the Plaintiff picked up his truck and immediately noticed an excessive amount of smoke emitting from the truck. Plaintiff returned the truck to Springfield Mack where they performed a series of diagnostic tests in order to determine the cause of the smoke. Eventually the re-manufactured pump was removed and the original pump was re-installed, but the truck continued to smoke. In the course of the diagnostic tests metal particles were found in the injection pump, in the bowls of the piston area, in the fuel filters and in the fuel tank. Thereafter, the re-manufactured pump was sent to Northeast Diesel, where they discovered that there were brass particles throughout the pump assembly. It was cleaned and replaced into plaintiff's truck, but the smoking problem persisted. Eventually, through a series of adjustments to the timing on the engine the engine began functioning properly.
Springfield Mack submitted warranty claims to Mack Trucks, Inc. for the work performed on the Plaintiff's vehicle. Springfield Mack submitted a warranty claim for $13,196.00, which was paid by Mack on April 21, 1993. Although Mack Trucks, Inc. paid the warranty claims, two months later they revoked the payment. The reason stated for revoking the payment was Mack's assertion that no fault was found with the re-manufactured pump. Springfield Mack asserts that they were following instructions from Mack Trucks, Inc., in all of their repairs to the Plaintiff's truck. Springfield Mack is an authorized distributor for Mack Trucks, Inc. and Mack provided warranty service for Springfield Mack pursuant to their contractual agreements.
After trial, the Court dismissed plaintiff's case against Mack Trucks, Inc. stating that it had not been proved by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the difficulties with plaintiff's truck were as a result of a defective pump. However, the Court found that
After hearing all the evidence I find that it has not been proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the problems that the plaintiff was experiencing with the pump in his Mack truck was as a result of a defective pump for which Mack would have...
To continue reading
Request your trial