Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 11-15-2024
Case Style:
Michael Desparios v. Timmons International, LLC
Case Number: 755392
Judge: Richard "Chip" Moore, III
Court: 19th Judicial District Court, East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney: Claude F. Reynaud, Jr., Carroll Devillier, Jr., Danielle L. Borel
Description:
Baton Rouge, Louisiana personal injury lawyer represented the Plaintiff.
On April 4, 2016, Michael DesParois purchased a 2009 Caterpillar International Truck with over 340,000 miles on the odometer, along with a third-party engine warranty, from Timmons International, LLC in Baton Rouge for approximately $34,452.00.[1] At that time, Timmons bought, sold, leased, and rented new and used 18-wheeler trucks. Timmons had purchased the truck from an auction in Tunica, Mississippi, made minor repairs to it, and subsequently sold it to Mr. DesParois. After the purchase, Mr. DesParois parked the truck for a few weeks, during which time he saw no evidence of an oil leak. He then drove the truck to Texas, after which he noticed a "black spot" but was not sure if it was oil or dirt, or whether it even came from his truck. He testified that the truck was driving just fine on that first trip.
Mr. DesParois then drove the truck for three weeks across the country, including to Texas, Minnesota, Illinois, and Iowa. On June 2,2016, Mr. DesParois had his mechanic change the air dryer cartridge on the truck with one he had purchased himself. Mr. DesParois continued to drive the truck through the summer of 2016.
In August of 2016, Mr. DesParois saw heavy oil residue on the air dryer that he had changed out and drove the truck to Pennsylvania, where he had the air compressor replaced at Hunter Truck Sales & Service, Inc. (Hunter) on August 25, 2016. After a road test, Hunter noted that "no blow by" was found and that there were no leaks at the compressor. Mr. DesParois testified that he started to see oil residue two days later. After noticing the oil residue, Mr. DesParois drove back to Baton Rouge and then on to Dallas. On September 22, 2016, Mr. DesParois brought the truck to Lonestar Truck Group (Lonestar) in Shreveport, which replaced the air compressor installed by Hunter. Lonestar checked for excessive blow by at the dipstick tube and found none. Both Hunter and Lonestar told Mr. DesParois that Hunter may have installed a defective air compressor. Hunter told Mr. DesParois that the issue should be addressed with Caterpillar, the manufacturer of the engine. Mr. DesParois did not address the issue with Caterpillar. After this, Mr. DesParois continued to drive the truck.
Five weeks later, on October 31, 2016, Mr. DesParois brought the truck back to Lonestar. In November of 2016, Mr. DesParois notified Timmons that the truck had been dismantled at a repair shop in Shreveport (Lonestar) and needed repairs. At that time, Mr. DesParois had driven the truck as a commercial hauler for seven months, traveling more than 50,000 miles across the United States. Timmons declined to fund the repairs. After partially dismantling the engine, Lonestar parked the truck outside.
Thereafter, on February 15, 2017, Mr. DesParois filed suit for redhibition, breach of contract, and breach of implied warranties, seeking the return of the purchase price, collateral costs, finance charges, preservation costs, damages, penalties, and attorney fees. Timmons answered the suit, denying the allegations and maintaining that Mr. DesParois failed to state a cause of action against it and had failed to mitigate his damages. Timmons asserted that the truck was sold with a disclaimer of warranties, that Mr. DesParois purchased a warranty on the Caterpillar engine from Premium 2000+ Warranties and must include that company as an indispensable party, and that the vehicle did not contain any defects or vices at the time of sale. Alternatively, Timmons asserted that if the truck contained a defect or vice, it had no knowledge of the defect or vice. Further, Timmons stated that it had acted in good faith, the vehicle was reasonably fit for its ordinary use, any alleged defect was the product of wear and tear, and the vehicle was not rendered useless by the alleged defects. Additionally, Timmons asserted that Mr. DesParois waived his right to claim redhibition by failing to tender the vehicle to it for repair. Timmons alternatively asserted that it was entitled to a credit for Mr. DesParois' use of the vehicle and that Mr. DesParois was not entitled to damages, costs, or attorney fees. Lastly, Timmons asserted all affirmative defenses that may apply.
Thereafter, Timmons filed a motion for summary judgment. The motion for summary judgment was denied. The matter proceeded to a bench trial. Thereafter, the trial court ruled in favor of Mr. DesParois and against Timmons. The trial court found that the truck had a redhibitory defect and determined that Timmons had knowledge of a defect at the time of the sale. The trial court awarded Mr. DesParois $35,452.00 for the purchase price of the truck, $28,903.94 for the interest paid for financing one-half of the purchase price of the truck, $14,510.69 for the maintenance and preservation of the truck, $35,000.00 for attorney fees, $362,448.00 for consequential damages, and $500.00 for expert witness fees. Timmons appealed that judgment.
This Court found legal error, conducted a de novo review, and reversed the trial court judgment. DesParois v. Timmons International, LLC, 2022-0736 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/20/23), 2023 WL 8794948 (unpublished). Mr. DesParois filed a writ of certiorari with the Louisiana Supreme Court. The Louisiana Supreme Court granted the writ application, reversed the finding of legal error, and remanded the case with instructions to review the case under the manifest error standard of review. DesParois v. Timmons International, LLC, 2024-00216 (La. 4/9/24), 382 So.3d 815 (per curiam).
Desparois v. Timmons Int'l, 2022 CA 0736R (La. App. Nov 15, 2024)
Outcome: Reversed and remanded.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: