Little Giant Ladder Systems, LLC. v. Tricam Industries, Inc.

Background

Wing Enterprises, Inc., which makes multi-position ladders under the Little Giant brand, sued Tricam Industries, Inc., which makes competing Gorilla Ladders. Wing alleged that Tricam falsely advertised its ladders as complying with ANSI ASC A14.2, a voluntary industry standard for portable metal ladders. Wing brought claims under the federal Lanham Act and the Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The parties had already resolved the patent-related claims, so the remaining claims concerned false advertising.

Wing identified three challenged statements: an oval label stating that the manufacturer certified conformance with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and ANSI A14.2 code; a Home Depot webpage stating “ANSI Certified”; and a Tricam webpage stating “CERTIFICATIONS: ANSI A14.2 OSHA.” Wing’s theory was that the ladders did not satisfy ANSI A14.2’s requirement that the rung step surface be at least one inch deep across the relevant surface.

Expert testimony

The court applied Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which governs whether expert testimony is sufficiently qualified, relevant, and reliable to be presented to a jury.

The court denied Tricam’s motion to exclude Donald S. Bloswick’s testimony. Bloswick had a doctorate in industrial and operations engineering, more than three decades of experience as an ergonomics professor, research experience involving ladder safety and biomechanics, and substantial experience on the ANSI A14 committee. He measured Tricam’s rung design and concluded that the crimped and sloped portions at the rung edges were less than one inch deep and were parts of the rung on which a person might step. The court found that his opinions were not speculative or unsupported. Although Tricam strongly disputed his interpretation, the court said those disputes could be addressed through cross-examination and competing evidence.

The court granted Tricam’s motion to exclude Hal Poret’s testimony. Poret conducted a labeling survey and an importance survey to address whether the challenged statements were material, meaning likely to influence consumers’ purchasing decisions. The labeling survey tested the effect of removing an entire label icon containing both OSHA and ANSI references, rather than testing the effect of the ANSI reference alone. The importance survey asked about “industry safety standards” generally, rather than ANSI compliance specifically. The court concluded that Wing had not shown how either survey addressed the materiality question in this case.

The court also noted that Wing had not adequately explained how the different versions of ANSI A14.2 incorporated into various OSHA regulations related to the 2007 version at issue in the case. Without that explanation, Wing had not shown that failure to satisfy the 2007 ANSI standard necessarily meant that the ladders failed to comply with OSHA requirements. This uncertainty further undermined the relevance of Poret’s survey methods and created concerns about jury confusion and prejudice.

Summary judgment

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. A Lanham Act false-advertising claim required Wing to show, among other things, that Tricam made a false statement, that the statement deceived or tended to deceive consumers, that the deception was material, and that Wing was injured. The Minnesota claim used the same analysis.

The court treated materiality as dispositive. After Poret’s testimony was excluded, Wing relied on other testimony and on cases suggesting that statements about a product’s inherent qualities or safety may establish materiality. The court declined to adopt that approach on the record before it, particularly because Wing had not shown that the alleged technical noncompliance with the 2007 ANSI standard necessarily made the related OSHA and ANSI statements false. The other testimony cited by Wing was speculative and did not establish that the statements were likely to affect purchasing decisions.

Disposition

The court denied Tricam’s motion to exclude Donald S. Bloswick’s expert testimony, granted Tricam’s motion to exclude Hal Poret’s expert testimony, and granted Tricam’s motion for summary judgment. The court dismissed the case with prejudice and directed that judgment be entered.