Rust-Pruf Corp. v. Ford Motor Co.

• Decision Date: 23 November 1988
• Docket Number: RUST-PRUF,Docket No. 103491
• Citation: 172 Mich.App. 58,431 N.W.2d 245
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
• Parties: , 7 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 1058, Prod.Liab.Rep.(CCH)P. 11,993 CORPORATION, a Michigan corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

Page 245

431 N.W.2d 245

172 Mich.App. 58, 7 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 1058,

Prod.Liab.Rep.(CCH)P. 11,993

RUST-PRUF CORPORATION, a Michigan corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 103491.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Aug. 8, 1988.

Decided Oct. 4, 1988.

Released for Publication Nov. 23, 1988.

Sommers, Schwartz, Silver & Schwartz, P.C. by Donald J. Gaslorek and Lionel J. Postic, Southfield, for plaintiff-appellant.

James C. Curtiss, Dearborn, for defendant-appellee.

Before SULLIVAN, P.J., and HOOD and BRUFF, ^* JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court's order granting defendant's motion for summary disposition. We affirm.

Plaintiff, Rust-Pruf Corporation, is in the business of applying certain chemical materials to new automobiles for the purpose of preventing "rust-out." Rust-out apparently is the damage caused by oxidation or rusting which progresses from the inside of the vehicle out, rather than exterior rusting such as would occur when paint chips. Rust-Pruf provided this service to owners of new Ford vehicles. The service is covered by a limited warranty set out in a warranty certificate. Ford also provides the purchasers of new vehicles with a limited warranty which covers "perforation from corrosion." The Rust-Pruf warranty typically extends beyond the lifetime of the Ford warranty.

A rust-out problem apparently developed in certain vehicles which was not covered by Ford's warranty but which was covered by Rust-Pruf's. Rust-Pruf completed the necessary repairs to the vehicles and received assignments of the owners' claims against Ford.

This action was not brought to enforce or challenge the Ford warranty. It was brought as a products liability claim. Plaintiff's theory is that the rust-out was the result of Ford's defective design or manufacture and finish of the vehicles which prevented Rust-Pruf from adequately treating the vehicles. As stated by plaintiff: "The question is whether a manufacturer is liable for damage to a product that results from an inherent defect in that product."

Summary disposition may be granted under MCR 2.116(C)(8) where the pleadings indicate that plaintiff's claim is so clearly unenforceable that no factual development could justify recovery, or under MCR 2.116(C)(10) where review of the evidence indicates it is not possible for the claim to be supported at trial. Sumpter v. Kosinski, 165 Mich.App. 784, 799, 419 N.W.2d 463 (1988).

The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10) on the basis that, under Great American Ins. Co. v. Paty's, Inc., 154 Mich.App. 634, 397 N.W.2d 853 (1986), lv. den. 428 Mich. 874 (1987), there is no cause of action for the economic loss claimed by plaintiff. We agree with the trial court.

Plaintiff in Great American was an insurance company, the subrogee of the purchaser of a combine manufactured by Massey-Ferguson, Inc., and sold by Paty's, Inc., which had caught fire allegedly because of a design defect. The fire occurred after the manufacturer's warranty had expired. Plaintiff sought recovery for damages to the combine caused by defendant Massey-Ferguson's negligent design, manufacture and testing of the combine.

The Great American Court agreed that summary disposition in favor of defendant was appropriate, applying McGhee v. GMC Truck & Coach Division, 98 Mich.App. 495, 296 N.W.2d 286 (1980). As stated in McGhee, supra, p. 505, 296 N.W.2d 286:

"We agree that no cause of action is stated in the complaint, where the foundation of the relationship between the parties is contractual and no personal injury or damage to property other than the subject goods themselves is alleged."

Great American is strikingly similar to the instant case. As in Great American, the plaintiff is the assignee of the purchaser's rights against the manufacturer. The assignors purchased the products from authorized dealers of the manufacturer. The products were subject to limited express warranties provided by the manufacturers which disclaimed any and all other express or implied warranties. Just as in Great American, plaintiff alleges no personal injury or damage to property other than to the product itself, which damage occurred after expiration of the limited express warranty.

As in Great American, Ford's express warranty establishes the contractual relationship between the parties. An express warranty is an "affirmation of fact or...