Wednesday, 31 July 2019 20:14

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

Written by



Regarding prospective damages, “The court found that Tyczki failed to prove prospective damages by a ‘reasonable certainty’ and that Tyczki presented ‘no evidence’ to support future harm. We disagree. The testimony of Tyczki, his manager, his employees, and his customers evince that Tyczki painted approximately 10,000 cars with Sherwin-Williams’s AWX System, almost all of them experienced (dye-back), any re-dos were done at no charge to the customer, and Tyczki completed about 100 re-dos. Based on the trial testimony and a common-sense reading of the instructions, a reasonable juror could have found prospective damages for costs to repair customer vehicles that have yet to be fixed,” the Court wrote.


Sherwin-Williams v. JB Collision is not yet over. In 2016, Sherwin-Williams argued that its three fraud verdicts should be capped at no more than $1.25 million, writing “It is an undeniable truth that litigants are not entitled to a double recovery.”


Seeking a new trial or reduced damages, Sherwin-Williams filed a Rule 59 motion which was never heard due to Judge Burns’ decision that cut the money awarded to JB Collision. The Ninth Circuit Court judges delegated the case back to the District Court where Sherwin-Williams’ Rule 59 motion will be heard on Aug. 16.

« Previous Page Continue reading

Read 2191 times