The Courts
Texas Seventh Court of Appeals (Amarillo)
Justices Nullify Jury’s $251,000 Award
To ISD Over Defective Artificial Turf Claim
Ruling: A jury’s verdict that a company failed to honor the “repair or replacement” warranty on a defective ISD artificial turf athletics field is overturned, as is the jury’s award of $251,000 to the district. New Braunfels ISD v. FieldTurf USA Inc., No. 07-20-00308-CV. Issued Nov. 12.
“Repair or Replacement” Warranty
A three-member Seventh Court panel — in this decision — concluded that if NBISD wanted to show that FieldTurf USA failed to honor the eight-year “repair or replacement” warranty on the artificial turf athletic field — that started to deteriorate about three years after it had been installed — then the district should have (but did not) specifically ask the company to repair or replace the field.
The best the district could show, the justices concluded, was that the ISD selected — from among various options presented by FieldTurf — to buy a $5,500 service contract that resulted in extra maintenance being performed on the field a couple of times that did not result in stopping the field’s continuing deterioration.
The justices did uphold other rulings by the jury (and the trial judge) that (among other things) rejected NBISD’s claims that FieldTurf had engaged in fraud and that the company was liable for the district’s legal fees.
Paid $378,507 of its Own Money
During the course of the dispute — between when (in 2014) the district filed suit against FieldTurf and when the jury delivered its verdict in 2017 — the district (in 2016) paid $378,507 of its own money to have the field replaced by the lowest bidder of the seven bidders for the project.
The record also reflects that NBISD had conceded (during the legal proceedings) that FieldTurf would have been entitled to deduct $40,000 from the jury’s judgment of $251,000 — if the judgment had been upheld — due to the ISD receiving a $40,000 settlement from another party (RS Global) that the district had also sued over the defective athletic field.
This decision by the Seventh Court panel resulted from appeals filed by NBISD and FieldTurf.
NBISD was one of numerous entities that complained about, sought remediation for — and/or filed lawsuits —over FieldTurf’s Duraspine sports artificial turf field product, which had been marketed as being longer lasting and more durable than competing products, but often began to deteriorate within a short time beyond what could be expected by normal usage.
Blamed the Problem
FieldTurf blamed the problem on one of the turf fibers (with a brand name of “Evolution”) that was manufactured by another company (TenCate) that was incorporated into FieldTurf’s Duraspine product. FieldTurf accused the Evolution fiber of prematurely deteriorating because of “insufficient UV durability,” which in turn had exposed FieldTurf to potential claims of tens of millions of dollars.
FieldTurf and TenCate wound up suing each other, and the resulting 2014 federal jury trial in Georgia was abruptly halted two weeks after the trial had started when the two parties entered into a settlement agreement, with the terms of the agreement not publicly disclosed.