Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Date: 03-24-2022
Case Style:
Case Number: 20-1986
Judge: Barrow
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on appeal from the District of Massachussetts
Plaintiff's Attorney: Stephen Gordon
Defendant's Attorney: Robert N. Meltzer, with whom Mountain States Law Group was on
brief, for appellee.
Description: Boston, Massachusetts consumer law lawyer represented Plaintiff who sued Defendant on a breach of warranty theory.
Bessette purchased the roofing shingles in question for
his home in April and May of 1999 from Howe Lumber ("Howe") in
East Brookfield, Massachusetts. He installed them in June of that
year. Invoices from Howe, which Bessette received when he took
delivery of the shingles, list the shingles as "WEATHERWOOD CHATEAU
30YR."
Years later, on September 21, 2016, Bessette completed
IKO'S "Homeowner's Inquiry Survey" form. In a field marked,
"Describe Concern with Product," Bessette wrote: "shingles are
falling apart . . . pictures tell all!" The form indicates that
IKO's warranty services department received the completed form on
September 27, 2016.
IKO responded with an offer to pay Bessette $473.55. He
replied on February 16, 2017, with a demand letter for $29,000,
the "estimated expense to replace the roof," that he sent "pursuant
to" Massachusetts consumer protection law Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A
("Chapter 93A"). IKO replied a little less than two weeks later
by restating its offer to pay $473.55. IKO asserted in the reply
that "the sole and exclusive contract between the parties" was
IKO's "Limited Warranty."
IKO's Limited Warranty from June 1999 states in part
that "IKO Industries Inc. . . . warrants to the original consumer purchaser
that the shingles listed . . . are free from manufacturing defects
that result in leaks." It lists the
"CHATEAU" model of shingles as having a "Warranty Period" of "30"
years, and it provides that "[a]fter the first five (5) years from
completion of installation, IKO's maximum liability toward repairs
or replacement shall be a prorated amount of the current value of
the shingles only," computed according to a set proration formula.1
In addition, the Limited Warranty states, "NO ACTION FOR BREACH OF
THIS LIMITED WARRANTY SHALL BE BROUGHT LATER THAN ONE (1) YEAR
AFTER ANY CAUSE OF ACTION HAS ACCRUED."
In November 2018, after having replaced the shingles on
the roof of his home at a cost of $20,000, Bessette filed suit
against IKO in Massachusetts state court. The complaint alleged
claims under Massachusetts law in connection with the alleged
premature deterioration of the shingles for (1) breach of the
implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose; (2) breach
of the implied warranty of merchantability on the grounds that
"[t]he shingles were unfit for their ordinary purpose of use, that
is, a roof on a residence functioning without the product being
defective and protecting against leakage for thirty years"; (3)
breach of an express warranty "that the shingles would last and
provide a weatherproof barrier for a minimum period of thirty years
from the date of installation"; and (4) violation of Chapter 93A,
the Massachusetts consumer protection law. The complaint sought
compensation for Bessette's actual damages, which had previously
been estimated at $29,000, as well as treble damages and attorney's
fees under Chapter 93A.
IKO removed the case on January 17, 2019 to the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts based on
diversity jurisdiction. Bessette v. IKO Indus., Inc., No. 4:19-
cv-40017, 2020 WL 6110943, at *1 (D. Mass. Aug. 18, 2020). The
District Court referred the case in late March to a magistrate
judge for a report and recommendations and, on March 27, 2020, IKO
moved for summary judgment.
A little less than a month later, the District Court
referred IKO's motion for summary judgment to the Magistrate Judge
to whom the case had been referred. In a report filed on August
18, 2020, the Magistrate Judge recommended granting IKO's motion
for summary judgment in full. Id. at *1. The District Court
adopted the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendations on
September 14, 2020. Bessette then filed this timely appeal, in
which he challenges the grant of summary judgment on his express
warranty, implied warranty of merchantability, and Chapter 93A
claims. He does not appeal the grant of summary judgment to IKO
on his implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose claim.
See: Bassette v. IKO
Outcome: Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: