Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 93-1841

AMERICAN EAGLE INSURANCE COMPANY
AND MARTINAIRE, INC.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
AND PRATT & WHITNEY-CANADA, LTD., ETC.,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas

ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING
(April 19, 1995)
BEFORE WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA and BENAVIDES, CIRCUIT JUDGES.
BENAVIDES, CIRCUIT JUDGE:
It is ordered that the petition of appellants for rehearing
filed in the above case is denied. However, finding merit in the
petition for rehearing filed by appellee Pratt & Whitney-Canada,
Ltd. ("Pratt & Whitney"), said appellee's petition for rehearing is
granted to the extent and for the reasons set forth herein.
Otherwise, our original panel decision and the language contained
therein is left undisturbed.
-1-

In our original panel opinion we affirmed a summary judgment
granted by the district court in favor of the defendants/appellees,
United Technologies and Pratt & Whitney, except as to
appellants/plaintiffs' alleged cause of action against Pratt &
Whitney for a breach of implied warranty brought under the Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act. As to such claim, we determined
that we could not gauge the effectiveness of appellees' written
disclaimer because the summary judgment evidence was not developed
sufficiently to allow either this court or the district court to
make a decision on the merits of appellees' disclaimer contention.
Believing that the entire document containing the disclaimer was
not before us, we declared, "we are not in a position to evaluate
whether the disclaimer is conspicuous as a matter of law."
Pratt & Whitney's petition for rehearing specifically
points out that not only one entire document, but two entire
documents were properly before the district court as summary
judgment proof, each of which contained disclaimers of implied
warranties made by Pratt & Whitney upon the initial sale and upon
the delivery of the airplane engine to the first purchaser, Cessna
Aircraft Company. Convinced that the record is in fact
sufficiently developed for this court to make a decision on the
merits of Pratt & Whitney's disclaimer defense, we withdraw that
part of our original opinion that declared the record insufficient
for our determination of the issue.
Indeed, the summary judgment evidence before the district
court and in the record on appeal, does contain an original three-
-2-

page Sales Contract between Pratt & Whitney and Cessna Aircraft
Company. Additionally, the record contains an Engine and Parts
Service Policy that was delivered upon the sale of the engine
relating to allowances for an adjustment for engine parts which
might suffer failure in service. Each of the two documents
contains in bold print the following provision:
d)
Exclusive Warranties and Remedies
The foregoing warranties are exclusive and are
given and accepted in lieu of (i) any and all
other
warranties,
express
or
implied,
including without limitation the implied
warranties of merchantability and fitness for
a particular purpose: and (ii) any obligation,
liability, right, claim or remedy in contract
or tort, whether or not arising from Seller's
negligence, actual or imputed. The remedies
of the Buyer shall be limited to those
provided herein to the exclusion of any and
all
other
remedies
including,
without
limitation,
incidental
or
consequential
damages. No agreement varying or extending
the foregoing warranties, remedies or this
limitation will be binding upon the Seller
unless in writing, signed by a duly authorized
officer of Seller.
We have reviewed in their entirety both the Sales Contract and the
Engine and Parts Service Policy and agree with Pratt & Whitney's
contention that the bold faced disclaimer of warranty under the
bold faced capitalized "EXCLUSIVE WARRANTIES AND REMEDIES" is
"attention-calling" and in no way "semi-concealed or obscured". We
conclude that each disclaimer as set forth in bold print in the two
documents is such that attention can reasonably be expected to be
called to the disclaimers contained therein, and that they are
conspicuous under Texas law. See Cate v. Dover Corp., 790 SW2d
559, 560 (Tx. 1990); Texas Business & Commerce Code, � 1.201.
-3-

Because the disclaimers are conspicuous, they are sufficient
to disclaim any implied warranty under the DTPA. We find that the
trial court did not err in dismissing the appellants' claim
pursuant to Pratt & Whitney's motion for summary judgment.
Accordingly, Pratt & Whitney's motion for rehearing is GRANTED and
the summary judgment granted by the district court is in all
respects AFFIRMED.
-4-