Date: 05-02-2001

Case Style: Mark Adams, et al. v. Richard Wolfe, et al.

Case Number: 00-700

Judge: Josephine Linker Hart

Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas

Plaintiff's Attorney: John R. Elrod and Terri Dell Chadick of Conner & Wintes, P.L.L.C., Fayetteville, Arkansas

Defendant's Attorney: William A. Waddell of Friday, Eldredge & Clark, Little Rock, Arkansas

Description: This case arises out of a lawsuit in which appellants sought damages from appellees for breach of warranty, breach of contract, and fraud. The trial judge granted summary judgment in favor of appellees on the ground thatappellants' claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitation. On appeal, appellants argue that the summary-judgment ruling was erroneous as it pertained to their cause of action for fraud. We agree and reverse and remand.

Appellants are forty individuals and five corporations engaged in the business of growing turkeys. In the 1980s and 1990s, their turkeys were processed at a Huntsville, Arkansas, plant operated by appellee Swift-Eckrich, Inc., a subsidiary of appellee Conagra, Inc. The plant's production manager was appellee Richard Wolf.1 Appellants did not contract directly with Swift during this period but operated through two independent producers, Hugh McClain and Kirk Powell. McClain and Powell had written contracts with Swift whereby they purchased turkey poults from Swift, then resold the grown turkeys back to Swift for processing.

On October 21, 1998, appellants sued appellees, seeking compensatory and punitive damages for breach of warranty, breach of contract, and fraud. On the fraud count, they complained that appellees' improper weighing practices caused appellants to be paid less than they were owed. The thrust of their allegations was thatappellees allowed turkeys arriving at the plant to remain on the trucks too long, causing significant shrinkage and death of turkeys; that appellees charged appellants with all dead-on-arrival turkeys without regard to fault; and that appellees improperly weighed condemned parts and carcasses. Appellants did not state a specific time period during which the abovementioned fraudulent conduct took place. However, they alleged that, beginning in 1983 and ending in March 1992, appellees concealed their misconduct so as to prevent appellants from becoming aware of their cause of action.

* * *

Click the case caption above for the full text of the Court's opinion.

Outcome: Reversed and remanded.

Plaintiff's Experts: Unknown

Defendant's Experts: Unknown

Comments: None