Tietsworth v. Harley-Davidson, Inc.

Decision Date04 March 2003
Docket NumberNo. 02-1034.,02-1034.
Citation261 Wis.2d 755,661 N.W.2d 450,2003 WI App 75
PartiesSteven C. TIETSWORTH, David Bratz, John W. Myers, Gary Streitenberger and Gary Wegner, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HARLEY-DAVIDSON, INC., and Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Defendants-Respondents.
CourtWisconsin Court of Appeals

On behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants, the cause was submitted on the briefs of Jonathan D. Selbin and Lisa J. Leebove of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, San Francisco, California; David J. Bershad, Michael M. Buchman and Michael R. Reese of Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, LLP, New York, New York; Ted W. Warshafsky and Frank T. Crivello, II of Warshafsky, Rotter, Tarnoff, Reinhardt & Bloch, S.C., Milwaukee; Shpetim Ademi, Guri Ademi and Robert K. O'Reilly of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, Cudahy.

On behalf of the defendants-respondents, the cause was submitted on the brief of W. Stuart Parsons, Patrick W. Schmidt and Kelly H. Twigger of Quarles and Brady LLP, Milwaukee and Robert L. Binder of Foley & Lardner, Milwaukee.

Before Wedemeyer, P.J., Fine and Curley, JJ.

¶ 1. WEDEMEYER, P.J.

Steven C. Tietsworth appeals from an order dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim. Tietsworth originally filed a proposed class action lawsuit against Harley-Davidson (Harley) asserting individual and representative claims for: (1) violation of WIS. STAT. § 100.18 (1999-2000)2, the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("DTPA"); (2) negligence; (3) strict products liability; and (4) common law fraudulent concealment. He now seeks review of the trial court's dismissal of his fraudulent concealment and DTPA claims; he does not appeal the dismissal of his negligence or strict liability claims. Tietsworth argues that his complaint met all of the elements of both a common law fraudulent concealment and a DTPA violation. Because Tietsworth's complaint did state claims for fraudulent concealment and DTPA violations, the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint in its entirety, and we reverse.

I. BACKGROUND

¶ 2. Tietsworth alleged that the 1999 and early-2000 model year Harley motorcycles equipped with TC-88 engines were defectively designed and potentially dangerous due to the TC-88 engines known propensity for premature cam failure, which causes sudden and total engine failure. This failure could result in injuries, including out-of-pocket repair costs, property damage, death, or serious injury.

¶ 3. Further, Tietsworth alleged that Harley uniformly, intentionally, and actively concealed this known defect from him and the proposed class, and failed to disclose this defect despite its duty to do so. Tietsworth claimed that Harley advertised, marketed, and sold the motorcycles and engines as having been extensively researched, meticulously tested, of premium quality, and fit for the road, while uniformly concealing and failing to disclose that the TC-88 engines were poorly designed, insufficiently tested, and defective. According to Tietsworth, Harley's concealment and failure to disclose the defect in motorcycles with TC-88 engines was intentional, and done for the purpose of inducing Tietsworth and the class to purchase the motorcycles at premium prices.

¶ 4. Harley denied that the motorcycles and engines were defective. Tietsworth further alleged that a "cam bearing repair kit" designed by Harley and sold for five hundred dollars was created specifically to fix the defect at issue here. Tietsworth also claims that during the 2000 model production year, Harley changed the TC-88 cam bearing design to correct the inherent defect, and implemented the new cam design into its production.

¶ 5. The cam bearing design in question is uniform to all of the 1999 and early-2000 model TC-88 equipped motorcycles, and Tietsworth claimed it made this entire line of motorcycles highly unreliable and potentially dangerous unless the cam bearing kit was installed to fix the defect. Further, he claimed that the existence of the engine defect was a material fact to him and the class, who reasonably relied, to their detriment, on the material information that Harley concealed from them and the public. Tietsworth alleged that he and the class members either would not have purchased the defective motorcycles, or would have paid less for them, had Harley disclosed the alleged defect.

¶ 6. Tietsworth filed this proposed class action lawsuit against Harley on June 28, 2001, asserting four individual and representative claims. Tietsworth filed a first amended class action complaint (complaint) on September 27, 2001, adding David Bratz, John W. Myers, Gary Streitenberger, and Gary Wegner (collectively, Tietsworth), as individual and representative plaintiffs.

¶ 7. On November 1, 2001, Harley moved to dismiss the complaint and stay discovery pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. Tietsworth opposed both motions. On December 17, 2001, the trial court granted Harley's motion to stay discovery, and took its motion to dismiss under advisement without argument. On February 27, 2002, the trial court issued an order dismissing the complaint in its entirety for failure to state a claim. Although Tietsworth never filed a motion for class certification, in its order, the trial court found that all of the prerequisites for class certification were met, and that the class certification would have been appropriate if Tietsworth was able to establish his claims on the merits. Judgment was entered dismissing the case. Tietsworth now appeals the dismissal of his fraudulent concealment and DTPA claims.

II. DISCUSSION

[1, 2]

¶ 8. Tietsworth contends that the trial court erred in dismissing the fraudulent concealment and DTPA portions of the complaint for failure to state a claim. The question of whether a court erroneously dismissed a complaint for failure to state a claim is a question of law reviewed by this court de novo; this court "accepts the alleged facts and all reasonable inferences [drawn from those facts] as true." Town of Eagle v. Christensen, 191 Wis. 2d 301, 311-12, 529 N.W.2d 245 (Ct. App. 1995). This court will liberally construe the complaint, and reinstate Tietsworth's claims unless "it is quite clear that under no conditions can the plaintiff recover." Id. at 311 (citations omitted).

A. Fraudulent Concealment Claim

¶ 9. Tietsworth argues that the trial court erred in dismissing his fraudulent concealment claim because he properly alleged all the elements of a viable claim and because Wisconsin law does not require him to wait for his engine to fail before he can state a fraudulent concealment claim. We agree.

¶ 10. Tietsworth properly alleged all of the elements of a viable common law fraudulent concealment claim: (1) Harley concealed or failed to disclose a fact; (2) Harley had a duty to disclose such a fact; (3) the fact was material to the transaction; (4) Harley knew, and intended, that its concealment of or failure to disclose the fact would create a false impression in Tietsworth; (5) Tietsworth reasonably relied upon Harley's deceit; and (6) Tietsworth suffered benefit of the bargain damages. Ollerman v. O'Rourke Co., Inc., 94 Wis. 2d 17, 26-27, 42, 52-53, 288 N.W.2d 95 (1980); see WIS JI— CIVIL 2401.

[3-6]

¶ 11. The trial court found that Tietsworth, as a matter of law, was unable to establish the "damage" element of his fraudulent concealment claim.3 The measure of a plaintiff's damages in an action for deceit in connection with the sale of property is expressed as the "benefit of the bargain." Ollerman, 94 Wis. 2d at 52-53. It is a fundamental principle of Wisconsin law that "[a]ctual damage is harm that has already occurred or is reasonably certain to occur in the future." Hennekens v. Hoerl, 160 Wis. 2d 144, 152-53, 465 N.W.2d 812 (1991) (footnote omitted). "Under the benefit of the bargain rule, the measure of the purchaser's damages is typically stated as the difference between the value of the property as represented and its actual value as purchased." Ollerman, 94 Wis. 2d at 52-53; WIS JI— CIVIL 2405. An alternative, equally appropriate measure of damages under the "benefit of the bargain" rule is "the reasonable cost of placing the property received in the condition in which it was represented to be." Ollerman, 94 Wis. 2d at 53. [7]

¶ 12. Tietsworth alleged that what he and the class actually received (motorcycles with defective engines) was of lesser value than what Harley represented (first quality, non-defective motorcycles). Tietsworth alleged that he and the class members have suffered economic loss in the amount of the difference in value between their defective motorcycles and motorcycles with reliable, non-defective engines. Tietsworth further alleged that the "reasonable cost of placing the property received in the condition in which it was represented to be" under the second measure of the test is the five hundred dollar cam bearing repair kit produced by Harley. Id. Thus, Tietsworth properly alleged damages under both measures.

[8]

¶ 13. Tietsworth additionally argues that the trial court's determination that he must await an additional damage element of product failure before he can state a claim of fraud conflicts with the holding of the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Pritzlaff v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 194 Wis. 2d 302, 533 N.W.2d 780 (1995). We agree.

¶ 14. The Pritzlaff court held that a claim accrues:

when there exists a claim capable of enforcement, a suitable party against whom it may be enforced, and a party with a present right to enforce ... a claim when the plaintiff has suffered actual damage, defined as harm that has already occurred or is reasonably certain to occur in the future.

Id. at 315 (citations omitted); see also Hennekens, 160 Wis. 2d at 152-53. ¶ 15. The complaint alleged that the "cam bearing mechanism in the 1999 and early-2000 model year TC-88 engines was and is inherently defective in that it...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • State v. Abbott Labs.
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • June 22, 2012
    ...the DTPA speaks in less antiquated terms, it displays a similar emphasis on attempts to profit through deception. Tietsworth v. Harley–Davidson, Inc., 2003 WI App 75, ¶ 24, 261 Wis.2d 755, 661 N.W.2d 450 (“[T]he DTPA is a broad remedial statute designed to protect the public from all untrue......
  • Tietsworth v. Harley-Davidson, Inc.
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • March 26, 2004
    ...appealed the dismissal of their common-law fraud and DTPA claims only, and the court of appeals reinstated both. Tietsworth v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 2003 WI App 75, ¶ 1, 261 Wis. 2d 755, 661 N.W.2d 450. II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW [1, 2] ¶ 11. A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim t......
  • Tietsworth v. Harley-Davidson, Inc.
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • July 12, 2007
    ...failure. Jones did not appeal. ¶ 12 On March 4, 2003, the court of appeals decided Tietsworth's appeal. Tietsworth v. Harley-Davidson, Inc. (Tietsworth I), 2003 WI App 75, 261 Wis.2d 755, 661 N.W.2d 450. The court of appeals reinstated both the common law fraud and statutory fraudulent misr......
  • Wallis v. Ford Motor Co.
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • May 12, 2005
    ...deceptive practices. While both claims were initially reinstated by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals in Tietsworth v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 261 Wis.2d 755, 661 N.W.2d 450 (2003), the Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed that decision, concluding that "an allegation that a product is diminished i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Plaintiff can't assert new claims, rules Wisconsin Supreme Court.
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Law Journal No. 2007, October 2007
    • July 23, 2007
    ...claims. The trial court dismissed the action, but the court of appeals reversed. Tietsworth v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 2003 WI App 75, 261 Wis. 2d 755, 661 N.W.2d 450 (Tiets-worth I). The Supreme Court granted review, and reversed the court of appeals, holding that the economic loss doctrine......
  • WI Court of Appeals rules plaintiff can add new claims after remand.
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Law Journal No. 2005, October 2005
    • December 21, 2005
    ...concealment claims. The court of appeals reversed, and reinstated the actions. Tietsworth v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 2003 WI App 75, 261 Wis. 2d 755, 661 N.W.2d The Supreme Court granted review, and reversed the court of appeals, holding that the economic loss doctrine bars the tort claims. ......

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