Feamster v. Gaco Western, LLC

Background

Robert Scott Feamster initially filed a proposed class action against Gaco Western, LLC. He alleged that Gaco’s spray polyurethane foam, also called Gaco OnePass or F1850, was defective after being installed in his home. The court had previously denied class certification. The parties waived a jury trial, and the court held a bench trial on May 19 and 20, 2022. Feamster was representing himself by that point.

Performance Foam Tech installed the foam in November 2015. The court found that at least some of the foam came from lot W15K0382 and that the foam later cracked, pulled away from wood, shrank, and developed splits and gaps. Gaco employees inspected the home, and internal Gaco communications discussed possible batch or mixing problems and possible repairs. The court also found that Performance Foam Tech, rather than Feamster, apparently purchased the foam from Gaco. Feamster did not present evidence that he bought the foam directly from Gaco, signed a contract with Gaco, or was involved in the purchase.

Claims and Findings

Feamster asserted claims under California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law, as well as claims for breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, negligence, strict products liability, unjust enrichment, fraud, fraudulent concealment and failure to disclose, and negligent misrepresentation.

The court found Gaco not liable on the Consumers Legal Remedies Act claim because Feamster did not show that he saw or relied on any Gaco representation before the foam was purchased and installed. The court also found Gaco not liable under the Unfair Competition Law. Feamster had not shown exposure to a representation by Gaco or an unfair or unlawful business practice; proof that the foam was defective alone was insufficient for that claim.

The court found Gaco not liable for breach of express warranty because Feamster did not show that he received a warranty, promise, or factual statement about the foam before the sale. It found Gaco not liable for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability because Feamster did not purchase the foam from Gaco and did not establish an applicable exception to California’s vertical-privity requirement. The court stated that Feamster had established that the foam was defective and that Gaco was in the business of selling foam, but he lacked the required relationship with Gaco for this claim.

The court found Gaco not liable for negligence because Feamster provided no evidence showing the level of care a reasonably careful manufacturer or supplier would have used to prevent or address the defect. It found Gaco not liable on the design- and manufacturing-defect theories of strict products liability because Feamster presented no evidence that the foam’s design was inherently defective or concerning the manufacturing process, even though he established that the foam failed.

The court found Gaco not liable on unjust enrichment because Feamster offered no evidence that Gaco knew, when it sold the foam to Performance Foam Tech, that the batch had a problem. The court found Gaco not liable for fraud because the record did not show that Gaco knew at the time of sale that the foam was defective, and Feamster did not establish reliance. It also found no duty to disclose because there was no fiduciary relationship or evidence that Gaco knew the foam’s quality was lacking when sold. Finally, the court found Gaco not liable for negligent misrepresentation because there was no evidence that Gaco made a representation about the foam’s quality to Feamster without reasonable grounds for believing it was true.

Motion to Amend and Disposition

The court denied Feamster’s motion for leave to amend the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(b)(2). He sought to add a breach-of-contract claim based on communications with Gaco Vice President of Sales Thomas Sojak after the foam was installed. The court found that Gaco had not expressly or impliedly consented to trying that claim. It also found that Feamster’s own summarizing emails were inadmissible hearsay when offered for their truth, that breach of contract had not been directly addressed at trial, and that amendment after trial would prejudice Gaco.

The court concluded that Gaco was not liable to Feamster on any cause of action, denied the motion for leave to amend, directed the clerk to enter judgment for Gaco, and directed the clerk to close the case.