Judge Awards Shop $2.9M in Case Against Sherwin-Williams
Jan. 29, 2016—A California judge ruled that Sherwin-Williams committed fraud and concealment, intentional misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation in regard to a lawsuit filed last year by JB Collision Services in San Diego.
John Tyczki, owner of JB Collision Services and JJT Inc., which operate three collision repair businesses in the San Diego area, filed a cross-complaint after he was initially sued by the paint company for breach of contract. Tyczki alleged that Sherwin’s AWX product line was defective and that the company was aware of the defects and should be held liable for fraud and concealment, and intentional and negligent misrepresentation about the paint products sold.
In a court document filed Nov. 23, Judge Larry Alan Burns awarded Tyczki’s business a total of $2.875 million, after ruling in favor of complaints from both parties.
The judgement states that JB Collision Services and JJT Inc. did breach supply agreements with Sherwin-Williams and were ordered to pay total damages in the amount of $374,448.70 to Sherwin-Williams.
However, Burns did find a “preponderance of the evidence” that Sherwin-Williams committed fraud and concealment for which Tyczki was awarded $750,000. The judge also ruled in favor of Tyczki on the intentional misrepresentation claims, resulting in $1.25 million in damages, and another $1.25 million for the negligent misrepresentation claims.
In all, Tyczki and his shops were awarded a total of $3.25 million in damages to be paid by Sherwin-Williams. After the $374,448.70 owed to the paint company, the final amount is in excess of $2.875 million.
The judge did throw out claims of breach of contract filed by Tyczki against Sherwin-Williams, and ruled that “Sherwin-Williams’ conduct” did not “constitute malice, oppression or fraud.”
Sherwin-Williams has appealed the ruling and the court granted a temporary stay.
Sherwin-Williams issued the following statement:
We have been in litigation with a collision repair facility in California. We strongly disagree with the California trial Court ruling and intend to avail ourselves of all legal remedies. We are encouraged by the Court’s decision to grant a temporary stay in executing the verdict. We cannot speculate on the eventual resolution of this lawsuit. We are confident that one or more of our arguments are likely to result in a reduced verdict or new trial.
Our history of leadership and ingenuity has provided the automotive refinish industry with quality products and service for 150 years.This legal matter will not impact company operations or our continued future success.