Kossuth Trucking, Inc. v. Caterpillar, Inc.
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-02032-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-07-2006 Opinion Author: SOUTHWICK, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Property damage - Agency relationship Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Dissenting Author : CHANDLER, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PROPERTY DAMAGE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-19-2005 Appealed from: Alcorn County Circuit Court Judge: Thomas J. Gardner Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT Case Number: CV02-399GA |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | KOSSUTH TRUCKING, INC. |
JOHN A. FERRELL |
||
| Appellee: | CATERPILLAR, INC. | ROBERT GLENN KROHN |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Property damage - Agency relationship |
| Summary of the Facts: | Kossuth Trucking, Inc. brought suit against Caterpillar, Inc. alleging that an engine in one of Kossuth’s trucks was negligently repaired by a mechanic for whom Caterpillar was responsible. Caterpillar was granted summary judgment. Kossuth appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Kossuth argues that there was a sufficient connection between Caterpillar and the business that conducted the repairs, MHC Kenworth, to hold that there was an agency relationship. Though Kossuth named only Caterpillar in its suit, the Caterpillar dealer, J.A. Riggs Tractor Co., and the second-level dealer MHC are the entities through which Kossuth must proceed to reach Caterpillar. Caterpillar defines Riggs as a “dealer” of its products and MHC as a “second-level dealer” of its products. Caterpillar has no contracts with second-level dealers. MHC performed the repair work on the Caterpillar engine which ultimately led to this litigation. MHC is an authorized “second-level dealer” for Caterpillar. Riggs entered into a contract with Caterpillar called the “Caterpillar Distribution Agreement for Engines, Parts and Service.” Caterpillar’s only agreement with MHC was to grant restrictive use of the Caterpillar trade and service marks. It is significant that MHC was not holding itself out as “MHC-Caterpillar Truck Repair,” or in some manner analogous to a Shell service station presenting itself as strictly a franchise of a national company. The contract between Caterpillar and Riggs prohibited Riggs from using “Caterpillar” as part of its business name. The agreement on trademarks that Caterpillar entered with MHC made the same prohibition. This case concerns a truck engine that was well passed the terms of its warranty. It was rebuilt by a company other than Caterpillar. The rebuilt engine soon needed additional repairs by another company other than Caterpillar. Kossuth’s expert believed that MHC mechanics were the cause of the damage because of their decision to use faulty parts, and there was no evidence that these were Caterpillar parts. Kossuth’s adequate legal remedy was not against Caterpillar. Therefore, summary judgment was proper. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
