 A jury rejected the claims against Nissan.
PHOTO: DREAMSTIME.COM |
After hours of deliberation, a federal district court jury has unanimously rejected the remaining issue in a forklift dealer's suit involving Nissan's
termination of the firm's dealership agreement.
Lift Truck Lease & Service Inc, doing business as AD Lift Truck (ADL), sued Nissan Forklift Corp, North America over the termination in early 2012.
In January 2010, ADL entered into a two-year dealer agreement with Nissan, authorising ADL to serve as a Nissan dealer in the St. Louis market, according to court filings. The agreement included a renewal option.
In January 2012, prior to expiration of the agreement, Nissan sent a termination letter to ADL. Nissan gave notice of its intent not to renew the agreement. Nissan told ADL that it was in default due to failure to meet its marketshare and parts-purchase requirements.
Under a Missouri law, the notice explained that ADL had 60 days to cure and that any non-renewal or termination would be ineffective if cured. Otherwise, termination would occur in 90 days. ADL responded by filing a federal lawsuit on 27 January, 17 days into the cure period.
ADL's complaint alleged violations of the Missouri franchise act, the Illinois franchise act and the Missouri power equipment dealer act. The Illinois claim was dismissed early in the proceedings. ADL voluntarily withdrew a tortious interference claim, and, before trial, Nissan was granted summary judgment on ADL's claim under the Missouri franchise act and partial summary judgment on ADL's claim of unlawful termination under the Missouri power equipment dealer act.
Remaining for trial was the issue of whether Nissan had "good cause" to terminate, cancel or not renew the dealer agreement.
During the trial, ADL's counsel presented a theory that Nissan never wanted ADL to serve as the dealer in Missouri in the first place and claimed that Nissan wanted to use ADL's dealership as a stop gap until a regional dealer could take responsibility for the St. Louis market.
ADL also claimed the market-penetration requirements were unreasonable, given the hostility in the market, and that Nissan did not treat ADL consistently with other dealers.
Attorneys for Nissan argued that statutory good cause to terminate the agreement existed due to ADL's failure to comply with the essential and reasonable requirements of its agreement and said Nissan did not impose those requirements differently on similar dealers.
A Nissan attorney showed that ADL used an unsupported methodology to calculate its damages. He argued that lost profits would have been the proper measure of ADL's alleged damages, but ADL presented no evidence of lost profits and suffered no harm because it returned to serving as an authorised dealer for TCM, the manufacturer it represented before its tenure as a Nissan dealer.
Senior Judge Charles A Shaw presided in the federal court in St Louis for the eastern district of Missouri.
Rudolph A Dodorico, ADL president, was unavailable for comment.
Jeffrey Patterson and Adrienne Russell with the Dallas-based law firm of Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP defended Nissan.
Nissan is now an operation of Marengo, Illinois-based Americas unit of parent company UniCarriers Holdings Corp of Tokyo. UniCarriers Holdings is integrating and merging the operations of the Nissan, Barrett and TCM forklift brands and moving toward use of a unified UniCarriers forklift identification.