G&M Farms v. Funk Irrigation Co.
808 P.2d 851 | Idaho Supreme Court | 1991
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
G&M Farms purchased an irrigation system from Lindsay Manufacturing through distributor Funk Irrigation. A Lindsay representative told the farmer the system was suitable for his property, but it repeatedly malfunctioned during the 1985 season. The Idaho Supreme Court reversed the trial court's dismissal of the misrepresentation claims, ruling that genuine disputes exist about whether Lindsay failed to disclose known design defects and operational limits. This matters to subcontractors because it shows courts will allow cases to proceed when equipment suppliers make suitability claims without disclosing known limitations.
Key Takeaways
- •Don't make suitability or capability claims about equipment or systems unless you've fully disclosed all known limitations and design constraints to the buyer.
- •Site visits and verbal representations about whether something 'will work' create legal liability—document what you actually inspected and tested, and get written agreement on any limitations.
- •Failure to disclose known defects or operational limits can support misrepresentation claims even if the product was installed correctly; silence about problems you know about is actionable.
Lindsay had a duty to disclose that the system was not designed for the length required.
Frequently Asked Question
If I tell a customer equipment will work on their site, am I liable if it doesn't perform as expected?
Yes, if you knew about design limitations or defects and didn't disclose them. Courts treat suitability representations seriously—especially after site inspections. You must either confirm the equipment truly fits the application or clearly document all known constraints in writing before the customer relies on your recommendation.
Related Cases
Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Systems, Inc.
A manufacturer must indemnify an innocent seller for products liability litigation costs under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.002(a), even if the seller did not sell the particular defective product that injured the plaintiff, provided the seller qualifies as a 'seller' under the statute.
Associated Indemnity Corp. v. CAT Contracting, Inc.
A surety does not owe a common law duty of good faith to its principal, but good faith is a contractual condition precedent to indemnification, requiring proof of improper motive or willful ignorance rather than mere negligence.
Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers
A premises owner that contracts for work performance and provides workers' compensation insurance to contractors' employees qualifies as a statutory employer entitled to the exclusive remedy defense under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act.
Gould Electronics Inc., F/k/a Gould Inc. American Premier Underwriters, Inc. v. United States of America Gould Electronics Inc. American Premier Underwriters, Inc.
Under the FTCA, Ohio law governs the jurisdictional inquiry for contribution and indemnity claims arising from a toxic tort settlement, and the United States would be liable for contribution but not indemnity under Ohio law.
Gilbert Texas Construction, L.P. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's London
A CGL policy's contractual liability exclusion bars coverage for breach of contract claims when the insured's only liability arises from contractual obligations assumed in the underlying contract, and the insured-contract exception does not restore coverage.
The Burlington Insurance Company v. NYC Transit Authority
An insurance policy's additional insured endorsement covering injuries "caused, in whole or in part" by the named insured's acts requires proximate causation, not mere "but for" causation, and does not cover injuries caused solely by the additional insured's negligence.