## Facts

- Omni USA, Inc. (Omni) manufactured gearboxes used in agricultural irrigation systems and sought to purchase cartridge oil seals from Parker-Hannifin Corporation (Parker) for use in those gearboxes.
- Parker provided quotations for the seals. The quotations included terms and conditions presented in enlarged capital letters and/or bold print.
- The quotation terms included: (1) a one-year limited warranty from delivery that the products would be free from defects in materials and workmanship; (2) a statement that the limited warranty was the exclusive warranty and remedy; (3) disclaimers of implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose; (4) a limitation of Parker’s liability to repair or resupply; (5) an exclusion of incidental and consequential damages; and (6) a requirement that any claim for damaged products be made in writing within 30 days from when the defect was or should have been discovered.
- Omni issued purchase orders and accepted delivery of Parker seals for more than a year.
- Some gearboxes later began leaking oil in the field. Omni attributed the leaks to a design or manufacturing flaw in Parker’s seals.
- Omni sued Parker asserting contract and Texas UCC warranty theories, including breach of express warranty and breach of implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. Omni also initially asserted fraud-based and statutory consumer claims.
- Before the summary-judgment rulings addressed in this opinion, the court had dismissed Omni’s fraud, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, and Deceptive Trade Practices Act claims with prejudice, leaving contract and UCC warranty claims.
- Parker moved for summary judgment, arguing Omni lacked admissible evidence of a defect and causation and that the quotation terms contained enforceable warranty disclaimers and liability limits.
- Omni relied primarily on opinion testimony to prove defect and causation. Parker challenged the reliability and factual basis of that opinion evidence, including whether it connected any problem to the condition of the seals when delivered.
- Parker also pursued a counterclaim for unpaid invoices for seals it supplied to Omni and moved for a spoliation instruction based on Omni’s handling of evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether Omni produced admissible summary-judgment evidence that Parker’s seals were defective and that a defect caused the oil leaks, sufficient to support breach of express warranty and implied warranty of merchantability claims under Texas law.
2. Whether the warranty disclaimers, remedy limitation, damages exclusion, and written-notice requirement in Parker’s quotations were conspicuous and enforceable in this commercial sale of goods.
3. Whether a fact dispute remained on Omni’s implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose claim (including Parker’s reason to know Omni’s particular purpose and Omni’s reliance on Parker’s selection of the seals).
4. Whether Parker was entitled to summary judgment on its counterclaim for unpaid invoices based on Omni’s acceptance of goods and the amounts due.
5. Whether the court should give a spoliation instruction based on the loss, alteration, or unavailability of seal/gearbox evidence.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment for Parker on Omni’s breach of express warranty claim.
- The court granted summary judgment for Parker on Omni’s implied warranty of merchantability claim.
- The court denied summary judgment on Omni’s implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose claim.
- The court granted summary judgment for Parker on its counterclaim for unpaid invoices.
- The court addressed Parker’s request for a spoliation instruction as part of the summary-judgment proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; once the movant shows an absence of evidence on an element the nonmovant must prove, the nonmovant must come forward with competent evidence showing a triable dispute.
- In Texas UCC warranty cases, a buyer generally must prove (a) the existence of a defect and (b) that the defect caused the complained-of failure; proof must connect the defect to the condition of the goods at the time tied to the seller’s performance (not merely later failure in service).
- Opinion testimony used to prove defect and causation must be reliable and grounded in sufficient facts; an unsupported conclusion or an opinion that does not address other plausible causes may be insufficient to create a fact issue at summary judgment.
- Under Texas UCC rules, disclaimers of implied warranties and limitations of remedies or damages are enforceable in commercial transactions when they satisfy statutory requirements, including conspicuousness for certain warranty exclusions.
- A term may be conspicuous when it is presented so a reasonable person ought to notice it, including by the use of capital letters, bold print, or other prominent formatting in the sales documentation.
- An implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose may arise when the seller has reason to know the buyer’s particular purpose and the buyer relies on the seller’s skill or judgment to furnish suitable goods; disputes about knowledge and reliance can prevent summary judgment.
- A seller may recover unpaid invoice amounts for accepted goods when the buyer does not raise a genuine dispute as to delivery, acceptance, and the amount due, subject to any remaining valid offsets or defenses supported by evidence.
- Spoliation remedies depend on a duty to preserve evidence and the circumstances of its loss or alteration; whether an adverse-inference instruction is warranted turns on the facts and procedural posture.

## Conclusion

In this seal-supply dispute, the Southern District of Texas held that Omni failed to present admissible evidence establishing a seal defect and causation sufficient to support its express-warranty and merchantability theories, and it enforced Parker’s prominently stated warranty limits and liability restrictions in the parties’ commercial paperwork. The court nonetheless found fact questions on whether an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose arose from Parker’s knowledge of Omni’s application and Omni’s reliance, so that claim survived. The court also granted Parker summary judgment on its counterclaim for unpaid invoices and addressed Parker’s requested spoliation instruction in the context of the record presented.


Omni USA, Inc. v. Parker-Hannifin Corporation, 964 F. Supp. 2d 805 (2013)