Peerless Division, Lier Siegler, Inc., et al. v. United States Special Hydraulic Cylinders Corp.

Arthur Mann and his
wife, Sandra, commenced a personal injury action against Peerless
and Hunger. Mann had been injured in the course of attempting
to repair a 500 inch hydraulic cylinder that had been sold to
Mann's employer, Wheelabrator. During the repair, "there was an
explosion and fire" that injured Mann. The Manns' claims at trial
were that Peerless and Hunger had negligently provided repair
information and that the accident resulted in significant damages.

The hydraulic cylinder in question was initially
purchased by Hunger from the manufacturer. Hunger then resold the
cylinder to Peerless in 1985. The transaction between Hunger and
Peerless was initiated by a telephone order from Peerless.
Peerless installed the cylinder on a platform designed to unload
trucks carrying wood chips. The unloading platform was then sold
to Wheelabrator. Following the order, Peerless sent Hunger a
purchase order that contained in small print, on its reverse side,
fourteen provisions, two of which purported to require Hunger to
indemnify Peerless for any losses arising from a breach of
warranty or "from the delivery or use" of the equipment purchased.

Prior to trial on the Manns' complaint, Peerless filed a
cross-claim seeking indemnification from Hunger for any losses it
might sustain that were attributable to Hunger's negligence. In
its answer, Hunger admitted that it had agreed to the two
indemnification provisions in the purchase order. It moved for
summary judgment, however, contending that the Manns' allegations
did not trigger either provision. The court denied Hunger's
motion. At approximately the same time, Hunger negotiated a
settlement with the Manns, who executed a Pierringer release and
indemnity agreement in exchange for a $500,000 payment. This
agreement, however, did not apply to "that portion of a
cross-claim . . . filed for contractual indemnity based upon a
purchase order between" Hunger and Peerless. As a result of the
release, the Manns dismissed their action against Hunger.

At trial, Hunger and Peerless agreed that the
cross-claim would be decided by the court, based on findings made
by the jury in the Manns' underlying personal injury action
against Peerless.

The jury found that Arthur Mann's total damages
were $2,885,000 and that Sandra Mann's damages for loss of
consortium were $900,000, for a total of $3,785,000 in damages.
The court entered judgment against Peerless for the entire
verdict. In a special verdict, the jury found both Hunger and
Peerless negligent and apportioned the fault between them at 40%
for Hunger and 60% for Peerless. Peerless moved to amend the
judgment, arguing that the Manns' verdict should be reduced by
Hunger's $500,000 settlement and 40% share of fault, with a
resulting liability for Peerless of $1,771,000. Before the court
acted on that motion, however, Peerless negotiated a settlement
with the Manns, who executed a satisfaction of the judgment
against Peerless in return for payment of $1,770,000.

Unknown

Unknown

The appeal concerns a cross-claim between two defendants
in a personal injury action. The caption reflects the parties in
interest on appeal. The judgment was vacated and remanded with instructions by the Supreme Court of Maine. See: 1999 ME 189, ___ A.2d ___. Note: The above date reflects the appellate court decision date, not the original trial date. Reported by kkm.