Houghton v. Alfa-Laval, Inc.

• Decision Date: 23 August 1990
• Docket Number: Docket No. 112417,ALFA-LAVAL
• Citation: 13 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 412,459 N.W.2d 42,184 Mich.App. 731
• Parties: Charles F. HOUGHTON and Jeanette K. Houghton, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.INC., a foreign corporation, and Howard's Dairy System, Inc., a Michigan corporation, Defendants-Appellees. 184 Mich.App. 731, 459 N.W.2d 42, 13 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 412
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 42

459 N.W.2d 42

Charles F. HOUGHTON and Jeanette K. Houghton Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ALFA-LAVAL INC., a foreign corporation, and Howard's Dairy System, Inc., a Michigan corporation Defendants-Appellees.

Docket No. 112417.

184 Mich.App. 731, 459 N.W.2d 42, 13 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 412

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Dec. 5, 1989.

Decided May 11, 1990.

Released for Publication Aug. 23, 1990.

[184 MICHAPP 732] Reber, Greer, Schuiteman, Stariha & Greer, P.C. by Paul L. Greer, Fremont, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Cholette, Perkins & Buchanan by Bruce M. Bieneman and Robert J. Riley, Grand Rapids, for Alfa-Laval, Inc.

Petersmarck, Callahan, Bauer & Maxwell, P.C. by George E. Petersmarck, Jr., Detroit, for Howard's Dairy System, Inc.

Before MacKENZIE, P.J., and HOLBROOK and WEAVER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs appeal as of right from an order of the Mecosta Circuit Court granting defendants' motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7) on the basis of the running of the four-year limitations period as provided for in the Uniform Commercial Code, M.C.L. Sec. 440.2725; M.S.A. Sec. 19.2725. We affirm.

Plaintiffs, owners and operators of a dairy farm, purchased a milking machine system in July, 1976, from defendant Alfa-Laval, Inc. It was installed according to Alfa-Laval's design and instructions by its agent, defendant Howard's Dairy System, Inc.

Plaintiffs represent that they purchased the system in the hopes of increasing milk production. Milk production, however, did not increase despite numerous service calls from Howard's and advice and inspections from several milk production agencies and nutritionists. The cattle in plaintiffs' herd began to experience severe instances of mastitis, losses of a quarter of their udders and decreased milk production. Some of the herd became so sick that they died or were sold off for beef due to nonproductivity. Another problem plaintiffs discovered following the installation of the new system was an unacceptably high cell and bacteria [184 MICHAPP 733] count in the milk. Plaintiffs also claim that, due to faulty wiring, stray voltage would enter the system and injure the cattle and that there were problems with the system's cooling and vacuum systems.

Plaintiffs allege that it was not until some time in 1984 that they were able to pinpoint their problems as stemming from the improper installation of the machine's washing system. Plaintiffs thereupon filed suit against defendants alleging negligence in design, installation and maintenance of the system and breach of express and implied warranties.

The case before us is factually similar to Neibarger v. Universal Cooperatives, Inc., 181 Mich.App. 794, 450 N.W.2d 88 (1989). In Neibarger, plaintiffs sought recovery for alleged medical and production problems with dairy cattle and loss of profits. In upholding the lower court's grant of summary disposition on the basis of the running of the UCC's four-year period of limitations, this Court stated that the damages claimed were economic and not recoverable in tort and that the contract for the milking system was one for the sale of goods with services incidentally involved, rather than a service contract with goods incidentally involved. Id. at 802, 450 N.W.2d 88.

In the case at bar, plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in finding, on the basis of the economic loss theory, that the suit was subject to the UCC's four-year limitations period. We disagree.

As in Neibarger, supra, plaintiffs at bar assert that the defective milking system...