Wednesday, 31 July 2019 20:14

2015 Sherwin-Williams v. JB Collision Receives Court Attention in 2019

Written by


Earlier this year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that evidence existed supporting the $2.88 million verdict awarded to JB Collision in the shop’s lawsuit against Sherwin-Williams.

Originally heard in 2015, the litigation’s jury awarded $3.25 million to the shop, but after the trial, the Court partially granted Sherwin-William’s motion to reduce JB Collision’s damages to $634,357.07. In response to an appeal filed by JB Collision and JJT owner John Tyczki, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that U. S. Southern District Chief Judge Larry Burns erred in his 2016 decision.


After Sherwin-Williams v. JB Collision came before the appeals court on April 25, 2019, three judges unanimously agreed that the 2015 trial record provided evidence of the “reputational” and “emotional” harm Tyczki endured as a result of the unfulfilled promises to fix flawed waterborne paint for which he accused Sherwin-Williams.


The Ninth Circuit Court wrote, “Sherwin-Williams argues that these costs should be excluded from the damages because Tyczki should be judicially estopped from recovering them, and the economic loss rule bars recovery. We agree with the district court. There was sufficient evidence presented at trial to establish that Tyczki suffered damages as a result of re-dos, and that because Sherwin-Williams was on notice of these arguments, Sherwin- Williams was not prejudiced.”


In regards to whether Tyczki demonstrated prospective damages, two judges, Senior Circuit Judge Dorothy Nelson and Circuit Judge Consuela Callahan, ruled that Tyczki had suffered harm, but Circuit Judge John Owens believed the Court had been right in reducing a portion of the verdict against Sherwin-Williams due to insufficient evidence on paint-related redo’s.


In his partial dissent, Judge Owens wrote, “Even if Tyczki proved that some number of vehicles have yet to be repainted, the district court correctly determined that Tyczki failed to ‘introduce any evidence that would allow the jury to determine what portion of the vehicles they had painted in the past would need to be repainted. Thus, I agree with the district court that Tyczki failed to support prospective damages.”

Previous Page Continue reading »