ATCO v. Omega Products
Published: Oct. 19, 2000 | Result Date: Sep. 25, 2000 |Case number: DUM0002037 Arbitration – $0
Facts
Petitioner ATCO is a building material supplier in Nevada and Utah. It acquired substantial amounts of the
respondent OmegaÆs exterior residential wall coatings and sold them to third party contractors.
The petitioner claimed that the product was defective and that numerous building contractors refused to pay
their bills to the petitioner because of the alleged defect in the product. The petitioner in turn refused to pay its
bill for the materials to Omega.
The petitioner claimed breach of contract, breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentation and fraud.
Settlement Discussions
Prior to the arbitration, the petitioner had offered to dismiss its claims in exchange for the respondentÆs release of all amounts due and owing from the petitioner for the materials it had purchased. The respondentÆs demand at that time was for full payment of all of the purchased materials.
Damages
The petitioner claimed multi-million dollar damages.
Result
Respondent's expert Dick Hopkins analyzed the weather conditions under which the product had been applied by Utah contractors and the testimony of those contractors and concluded that the contractors had failed to apply the product in accordance with specifications. Evidence indicated that the product was regularly applied in temperatures below the minimum application temperature and was often applied during adverse weather conditions despite express specifications to the contrary. Hopkins concluded that the manifestations evident on the various residential structure were a direct result of "applicator error," failure to protect the structures from the environment and that there was no reason to suspect that the product had failed in any way to perform in accordance with its specifications.
Other Information
The petitionerÆs claim was denied in its entirety. Arbitrator Stephen Drummy concluded that the petitioners had not proved that the product was defective. The respondent was awarded the full amount of its past due bill, with costs and attorney fees. <E>RespondentÆs expert, Dick Hopkins, analyzed the weather conditions under which the product had been applied by Utah contractors and the testimony of those contractors and concluded that the contractors had failed to apply the product in accordance with specifications. Evidence indicated that the product was regularly applied in temperatures below the minimum application temperature and was often applied during adverse weather conditions, despite express specifications to the contrary. Hopkins concluded that the manifestations evident on the various residential structure were a direct result of "applicator error," failure to protect the structures from the environment and that there was no reason to suspect that the product had failed in any way to perform in accordance with its specifications.</E>
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390