US Hydrodynamics, et al. v. KHD Canada, et al.
Published: May 17, 1997 | Result Date: Feb. 18, 1997 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 738216 – $2,100,000
Judge
Court
Orange Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Michael A. Zuk
(Herzfeld & Rubin LLP)
Experts
Plaintiff
Ronald Reisner
(technical)
TJ Wennberg
(technical)
Rick Baker
(technical)
Randy Kent
(technical)
Defendant
Herbert Kirsch
(technical)
Mike McGlenn
(technical)
Heiner Klier
(technical)
Bruce Angel
(technical)
Facts
On Sept. 7, 1992, plaintiff US Hydrodynamics purchased two diesel engines from defendant KHD Canada and Kl'o'ckner-Humboldt-Deutz, its German parent corporation for their 130-foot custom-built yacht. The defendants warranted the engines for their first 1,000 hours of use, or two-and-a-half years after sea trials, whichever came first. The plaintiff claimed defendant KHD represented the engines as durable and as having a reasonable life of 40,000 hours before overhaul at 50 hours. The yacht underwent sea trials on May 10, 1989. In August 1990, after 50 hours of use, the plaintiffs complained to the defendants about high lube oil consumption on the port engine. The defendants claimed that because they could not substantiate the complaints, they advised the plaintiffs to operate the port engine up to 1,000 hours before any internal work on the engine was performed. In September 1992, after the warranty expired and after 750 hours of use, the starboard engine failed while the yacht was at sea. The plaintiff claimed that one engine failed due to high lube oil consumption and excessive crankshaft overpressure after the first 50 hours of operation and the other engine had a catastrophic failure after the first 50 hours of operation. In October 1992, the defendants agreed to repair the starboard engine at their expense in return for a $15,000 contribution by the plaintiffs toward the labor costs. At the same time, the defendants also made repairs to the port engine in an effort to alleviate the alleged high lube oil consumption problem. The defendants claimed the parties also discussed warranties for the engine subsequent to the repairs, but could not come to an agreement. The plaintiffs brought this action against the defendants based on breach of warranty, breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation theories of recovery.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiffs made a settlement demand for $5,030,000. The defendants made a settlement offer of a warranty.
Damages
The plaintiffs claimed $__________ in damages.
Other Information
The verdict was reached approximately two years and three months after the case was filed. POST TRIAL MOTIONS: The defendant's motions for new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict were denied.
Deliberation
20 hours
Poll
12-0
Length
19 days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390