Craftsmen Limousine, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.

Decision Date13 April 2004
Docket NumberNo. 03-1546.,No. 03-1544.,No. 03-1441.,No. 03-1444.,03-1441.,03-1544.,03-1444.,03-1546.
Citation363 F.3d 761
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
PartiesCRAFTSMEN LIMOUSINE, INC., and JMRL Sales & Service, Inc., doing business as Craftsmen Limousine, Appellee, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY and American Custom Coachworks, Appellants. Craftsmen Limousine, Inc., a Missouri corporation, JMRL Sales & Service, doing business as Craftsmen Limousine, Inc., a Missouri corporation, Appellees; v. Ford Motor Company, a Delaware corporation; General Motors Corporation, a Missouri corporation; Cadillac, a division or affiliate of General Motors Corporation; Limo, an association of limousine builders; AHA Automobile Design, a Canadian corporation, Appellants.

Kirk A. Peterson, argued, Prairie Village, KS, for appellant Ford Motor.

Warren E. Harris, argued, Springfield, MO, for appellant American Custom Coachworks.

Keith A. Ward, argued, Tulsa, OK, for appellee.

Before MELLOY, LAY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

MELLOY, Circuit Judge.

Limousine manufacturers, Craftsmen Limousine, Inc. and JMRL Sales & Service, Inc., collectively referred to as "Craftsmen," sued American Custom Coach ("American Coach"), several other limousine manufacturers, and Ford Motor Company ("Ford") for antitrust violations under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1.1 Craftsmen alleged that defendants conspired to prevent it from advertising in the limousine industry's two trade publications and from attending trade shows. At trial, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of Craftsmen in the amount of $2,109,707.00. Craftsmen then filed a motion to treble the verdict and for attorney fees and costs. After denying defendants' post-trial motions, the district court granted Craftsmen's motion for fees and trebled Craftsmen's damage award to $5,941,621.00. Defendants now appeal. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

I. BACKGROUND
A. Craftsmen, Ford, American Coach, & the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Craftsmen is a closely held corporation owned by Robert Haswell and Marc Haswell. Since it began in the late 1980's, Craftsmen has converted many automobiles, including Ford's Lincoln Town Cars, into limousines. Like other coachbuilders, Craftsmen creates limousines by cutting a base vehicle in half and adding structural pieces of varying lengths in the middle. Craftsmen sells from an inventory of pre-built units and also offers conversion services on vehicles already owned by the end-users. American Coach, one of the largest manufacturers of limousines in the United States, is one of Craftsmen's direct competitors.

Ford does not make limousines. Instead, it manufactures base vehicles that are later converted into limousines by independent coachbuilders like American Coach and Craftsmen. During the relevant time period in this case, approximately sixty percent of the six thousand limousines produced each year were converted from Ford's Lincoln Town Cars.

The limousine industry is regulated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration promulgates Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards with which limousine manufacturers must comply. Coachbuilders are responsible for self-certifying that their vehicles meet the federal safety standards. This self-certification can be in the form of engineering analysis, computer analysis, or other valid documentation. If the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration determines that a coachbuilder's limousine fails to comply with federal standards, it has the authority to fine the coachbuilder and recall the limousine.

In 1992, upon the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's request, Craftsmen submitted data identifying its limousine conversion techniques. Craftsmen did not provide engineering analyses to demonstrate compliance with all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards requirements. Instead, it claimed its vehicles were safe based on the construction techniques employed and the fact that none of its customers ever returned a limousine out of a concern for safety.2 At the time, no engineers worked for Craftsmen, and the company had not contracted an independent engineer to test the safety of its vehicles.

After receiving Craftsmen's data, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration conducted an inspection of Craftsmen's limousines. The investigation resulted in the recall of some of Craftsmen's vehicles. One recall required Craftsmen to put a placard in its limousines instructing passengers that they had to "unlock door and pull door latch" to exit the vehicle. Another required Craftsmen to replace tires on approximately twenty of its limousines. Craftsmen complied with the recall orders and was not fined by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

B. The Formation of Ford's QVM Program

On April 3, 1987, a wedding party in New York was killed when its limousine was hit and split in half as it crossed an intersection. National media coverage of this accident, coupled with other reports of limousine fires and tire blowouts, prompted the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to conduct an investigation of the limousine industry. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found that there were approximately fifty to sixty coachbuilders nationwide. A few large coachbuilders converted up to one thousand vehicles per year, but many coachbuilders converted one hundred vehicles or less. Some coachbuilders had engineering backgrounds, others did not; some worked out of dirt floor garages, and others out of modern facilities. At trial, Robert Hellmuth, former director of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Vehicle Safety Performance, testified that there was little uniformity in the conversion techniques being used at the time. Most coachbuilders either disregarded the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards or were unaware they existed.

After the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's investigation, Robert Hellmuth urged Ford, General Motors, and the members of the limousine industry to pool their resources to develop testing to make sure that limousines were in compliance with federal safety standards. At trial, Robert Hellmuth recalled his discussion with Ford and General Motors as follows:

I said, you know, [the coachbuilders] are buying your product, and it would certainly be a wonderful idea for you to help them out, because they certainly don't have the facilities you do, they don't have the technical information you do, and if, if they can't rely on you, you know, they're really not going to be able to build a safe vehicle. (Tr. 1536-37.)

Thereafter, Ford assembled a team of forty-five to fifty engineers to ensure that the 418-Town Car chassis met all federal safety requirements when stretched within certain defined limits. After spending over one year and millions of dollars designing and testing the new 418-Town Car chassis, Ford initially limited 418-conversions to end-products that weighed 7,100 pounds or less and were not longer than 85 inches. Later, Ford determined that 418-Town Cars could be safely stretched to 120 inches.

After conducting this research, Ford formed a vehicle certification program called "Quality Vehicle Modifier" ("QVM"). Through its QVM program, Ford distributed information explaining how to convert Ford 418-Town Cars into limousines that met Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. The manufacturing guidelines, which were available to non-QVM participants and QVM participants alike, set forth conversion techniques, quality control procedures, and continuous improvement practices. As an incentive for complying with its guidelines, Ford paid QVM participants $2,000 to $3,000 for each 418-Town Car properly converted. If a QVM participant stretched a 418-Town Car outside the limits Ford specified, or stretched any other Ford product, the coachbuilder would no longer be eligible for the QVM program incentives unless it provided test data establishing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards compliance.3 Ford engineer, Roy Radokovich, testified that by helping coachbuilders build safer products that met all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Ford hoped to reduce the potential liability it faced from having its name associated with untested limousines. Radokovich further testified that Ford hoped the QVM program would improve its product image and help Ford compete with General Motors in the luxury car market.

Within two years after Ford's introduction of the QVM program, General Motors introduced a similar safety program, the Cadillac Master Coachbuilders program ("CMC"). The vast majority of coachbuilders in the industry participated in the QVM or CMC program or both.

Shortly after unveiling QVM, Roy Radokovich visited Craftsmen's facilities and asked Robert Haswell to enroll Craftsmen in the program. Haswell testified that he declined for the following reasons: (1) Craftsmen had little to gain from joining, as it was already employing the conversion techniques described in the QVM manual; (2) Craftsmen had already safely built and sold a number of limousines that exceeded the QVM's length restrictions, and if it were to stop building these longer limousines, Craftsmen would dissolve;4 and (3) Craftsmen did not want to purchase insurance naming Ford as an insured, which was a requirement of the QVM program. At trial, Radokovich admitted that he was impressed with Craftsmen's building process. He testified that Craftsmen had all the QVM information Ford had disseminated, and that Craftsmen had built conversion parts in accordance with the QVM guidelines. A National Highway Traffic Safety Administration safety compliance engineer who inspected Craftsmen's limousines in the early 1990's agreed that Craftsmen appeared to be following QVM...

To continue reading

Request your trial
41 cases
  • Viamedia, Inc. v. Comcast Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • August 16, 2018
    ...533 (7th Cir. 1994) (expert testimony may not be based on "unsupported assumptions"); see also, e.g. , Craftsmen Limousine, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. , 363 F.3d 761, 777 (8th Cir. 2004) ; Concord Boat Corp. v. Brunswick Corp. , 207 F.3d 1039, 1055–1057 (8th Cir. 2000) ; Rickman v. Deere & Co. ......
  • Pharmacychecker.Com, LLC v. Nat'l Ass'n of Boards of Pharmacy
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • March 30, 2021
    ...Defendants reference decisions that were made after discovery; indeed, both were after trial. See Craftsmen Limousine, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. , 363 F.3d 761, 776 (8th Cir. 2004) (holding after trial that "[b]ecause the alleged restraints were arguably based, at least in part, on safety conc......
  • State v. Safeway Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • July 12, 2011
    ...of law, which we review de novo. United States v. Brown, 936 F.2d 1042, 1045 (9th Cir.1991); see also Craftsmen Limousine, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 363 F.3d 761, 772 (8th Cir.2004); XI Phillip Areeda & Herbert Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law ¶ 1909b, at 279 (2d ed.2005) (hereinafter Areeda & Hovenk......
  • Med. Ctr. At Elizabeth Place, LLC v. Atrium Health Sys.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • April 25, 2019
    ...decision to analyze the conspiracy under a per se theory of liability is a question of law that we review de novo."). In Craftsmen Limousine, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. , the Eighth Circuit likewise found that whether a given restraint falls within the per se category is a question of law, citi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
21 books & journal articles
  • Basic Antitrust Concepts and Principles
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Health Care Handbook, Fourth Edition
    • February 1, 2010
    ...is presumed and the defendant must set forth some competitive justification for the restraints”); Craftsmen Limousine v. Ford Motor Co., 363 F.3d 761, 773 (8th Cir. 2004); Law, 134 F.3d at 1017; N. Tex. Specialty Physicians, 140 F.T.C. 715, 734-36 petition for review granted in part on othe......
  • Commonly Used Experts
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Qualifying & Attacking Expert Witnesses - 2018 Contents
    • August 4, 2018
    ...than the defendant’s conduct may have contributed to the plaintiff’s damages. For example in Craftman Limousine, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 363 F.3d 761, 776-77 (8th Cir. 2004), the Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in admitting a qualified expert who did not consider that other......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Proof of Conspiracy Under Federal Antitrust Laws. Second Edition
    • December 8, 2018
    ...Yarn Antitrust Litig., 505 F.3d 274 (4th Cir. 2007), 68 Craft v. McConoughy, 79 Ill. 346 (1875), 8 Craftsmen Limousine v. Ford Motor Co., 363 F.3d 761 (8th Cir. 2004), 265 Crane & Shovel Sales Corp. v. Bucyrus-Erie Co., 854 F.2d 802 (6th Cir. 1988), 177 In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitru......
  • Commonly Used Experts
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Qualifying & Attacking Expert Witnesses - 2016 Contents
    • August 4, 2016
    ...than the defendant’s conduct may have contributed to the plaintiff’s damages. For example in Craftman Limousine, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 363 F.3d 761, 776-77 (8th Cir. 2004), the Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in admitting a qualified expert who did not consider that other......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT