FieldTurf USA, Inc. v. Pleasant Grove Independent School District

• Decision Date: 04 March 2022
• Docket Number: 20-0507
• Citation: 642 S.W.3d 829
• Parties: FIELDTURF USA, INC. and Altech, Inc., Petitioners, v. PLEASANT GROVE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondent
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

642 S.W.3d 829

FIELDTURF USA, INC. and Altech, Inc., Petitioners,

v.PLEASANT GROVE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondent

No. 20-0507

Supreme Court of Texas.

Argued November 30, 2021

OPINION DELIVERED: March 4, 2022

Joshua James Bennett, Dallas, David R. Montpas, San Antonio, Courtney Perez, E. Leon Carter, Dallas, Oscar Rey Rodriguez, David M. Prichard, San Antonio, J. Robert Arnett II, Dallas, for Petitioner FieldTurf USA Inc.

Valerie Leigh Cantu, Matthew R. Pearson, San Antonio, Brendan K. McBride, McAllen, for Respondent.

Jeffrey C. Elliott, for Petitioner Altech, Inc.

Justice Lehrmann delivered the opinion of the Court.

The primary issue in this case, involving a school district's breach-of-warranty claims against a general contractor and an artificial-field-turf manufacturer, is whether a trial court's on-the-record, oral ruling sustaining an objection to summary judgment evidence suffices to strike the evidence from the summary judgment record when the ruling is not reduced to a written order. We hold that it does. We further hold that the court of appeals both erroneously reversed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the contractor and improperly remanded the claims against the turf manufacturer for a new trial without addressing the merits of the issues on appeal that, if sustained, could result in rendition of judgment for the manufacturer. Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeals’ judgment in part, reinstate the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the contractor, and remand to the court of appeals to consider issues it did not reach.

I. Background

In 2008, Pleasant Grove Independent School District contracted with Altech, Inc. for the construction of a new high-school football stadium. The District independently obtained bids from several synthetic-field-turf manufacturers and, in accordance with its architect's recommendation, selected the Prestige XM-60 turf system—composed of a synthetic fiber known as Duraspine—manufactured by FieldTurf USA, Inc. According to the District, FieldTurf had represented that its product was more durable than its competitors’ and that the field would last ten to twelve years. Altech subcontracted with Sports Constructors, Inc. to install the turf, and Sports Constructors purchased the turf from FieldTurf and installed it. The stadium was substantially completed on October 16, 2009, and the District paid Altech for all work performed and took possession of the field.

FieldTurf provided an eight-year manufacturer's limited warranty stating in pertinent part:

FIELDTURF warrants that if Prestige XM-60 ... synthetic turf proves to be defective in material or workmanship, resulting in a loss of pile height greater than 50%, during normal and ordinary use of the Product ... within 8 years from the date of completion of installation, FIELDTURF will, at FIELDTURF'S option, either repair or replace the affected area without charge, to the extent required to meet the warranty period (but no cash refunds will be made).... This warranty is limited to the remedies of repair or replacement, which shall constitute the exclusive remedies available under this warranty, and all other remedies or recourses which might otherwise be available are hereby waived by the Buyer.

FieldTurf expressly "disclaim[ed] all other warranties of any kind, expressed or implied, in fact or in law, including but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose." (Emphasis removed).

For its part, Altech warranted in its general contract with the District that "the Work will be free from defects not inherent in the quality required or permitted, and that the Work will conform to the requirements of the Contract Documents." One of those documents listed the specifications for the synthetic turf system, which included:

The synthetic turf system shall meet the following shock absorption criteria when combined with the shock absorbency pad beneath the system:

a. G-Max Rating Range (upon installation) 80-120 ASTM F355

b. G-Max Rating Range (Ultimate) 100-140 ASTM F355

c. Field surface shall maintain a G-Max rating within the limits of the Ultimate G-max range listed above throughout the life of the synthetic turf system warranty.1

[Editor's Note: The preceding image contains the reference for footnote¹ ].

According to District personnel, they first noticed issues with field degradation in the spring of 2014. In July, the District notified FieldTurf of those issues, including problems with the field's seams and degradation of the gold fiber lettering in each end zone compared to the adjacent black fiber. FieldTurf representative Ross Whitting inspected the field in August and repaired a loose seam. During the inspection, Whitting reportedly told District representative Steven Shatto that FieldTurf had "multiple fields that are failing" and that it was replacing some but not others. FieldTurf representative Todd Bresee inspected the field on September 22 and prepared an internal evaluation report—which was not shared with the District—in which he concluded that the field was "showing signs of accelerated wear in ... all fiber colors in the area of the field in-between the numbers," as well as "large amounts of broken fiber on the surface." He rated much of the green fiber (the majority of the fiber on the playing field) as being in poor or fair condition, the white fiber (the end-zone boundary lines and markings on the playing field) as being in poor or fair condition, the fiber at the center logo as being in poor or fair condition, and the black fiber (making up the inlaid soccer lines) as being in fair or good condition. According to Shatto, Bresee stated during the inspection that the field was in bad shape and that the District was "on the right track" by insisting the field be replaced.

The day after Bresee's site visit, Shatto emailed FieldTurf representative Julie Paquin, reiterating his concern that the field had significantly degraded and stating his hope "that FieldTurf will look at our field as a total failure and replace it under full warranty[.]" Paquin replied that FieldTurf would communicate a "plan of action" once the report was prepared and reviewed by the senior leadership team. Over the next few months, Shatto sent Paquin monthly emails requesting an update on field replacement.

On January 13, 2015, FieldTurf informed the District via email that, based on the evaluation, FieldTurf had found the field to be in "fair/good" condition. Specifically, FieldTurf concluded that the field was "showing some signs of fiber degradation" but was "not exhibiting any playability or hazardous concerns." FieldTurf proposed conducting a LayMor Scrape, which involved removing a thin top layer of infill² to expose more turf fiber, removing excess infill, and completing "any minor inlaid repairs needed." FieldTurf also proposed revisiting the field in the next nine to twelve months "to monitor if there are any deviations and to discuss the field options moving forward."

The next day, the District's superintendent sent FieldTurf a letter rejecting its proposed action as an inadequate solution to the ongoing degradation of the field. The letter included a demand that FieldTurf replace the field "with a new installed surface meeting specifications equal to or greater than the original specified products."³ FieldTurf responded on February 12, reiterating its conclusion that the field was "not at the point of replacement" and that the observed fiber degradation was "predominately a problem of appearance." FieldTurf again recommended a LayMor Scrape as "the best action at this time."

The District hired a consultant, Roland Kunkel, to assess the field. Kunkel reviewed the District's documents and inspected the field in October 2015, concluding that, based on the field's condition, the only viable solution was to replace it. Ultimately, in May 2016, the District hired another field supplier to replace the field for $348,050.

Meanwhile, in September 2015, the District sued FieldTurf and Altech, bringing claims for breach of contract and breach of warranty against both defendants and a fraud claim against FieldTurf.⁴ The District initially alleged that Altech breached its promise to provide turf materials that were free from defects, and the District subsequently amended its petition to further allege that the field had "exceeded acceptable shock absorption criteria as measured by G-Max testing." As to FieldTurf, the District asserted that FieldTurf had breached both its express warranty that the field would be free from defects in materials and workmanship for eight years and its implied warranty that the field was fit for its intended purpose. The District also complained that FieldTurf failed to replace the field as the warranty required despite several requests that it do so. On the fraud claim, the District alleged that: it relied on FieldTurf's representations regarding the properties, qualities, and performance characteristics of the Duraspine fiber in selecting the Prestige XM-60 turf system; FieldTurf knew or should have known that the representations were false and that the materials were defective and would prematurely wear down; and FieldTurf continued to knowingly misrepresent that the product was defect-free in responding to the District's numerous requests that the field be replaced.

Altech filed a traditional and no-evidence motion for summary judgment, arguing that it played no role in selecting the allegedly defective turf product—the District chose the Prestige XM-60 and approved it as being compliant with the construction specifications—and that Altech made no guarantee or warranty that the product would be free from inherent defects or other defects permitted by the contract documents. The District responded that the contract did not exempt Altech from liability for inherent defects and that the contract expressly held Altech responsible for the acts of any...