United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 17, 2006
_______________________ Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-60956
Summary Calendar
_______________________
TOM BREAZEALE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DAIMLER-CHRYSLER CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC Case No. 2:03-CV-399
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Tom Breazeale appeals the district court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of Appellee Daimler-Chrysler Corporation
(“Daimler-Chrysler”) on his breach of warranty claim. Breazeale,
whose 2000 Dodge Ram pickup truck suffered extensive engine damage,
originally brought this action in Mississippi state court, but
Daimler-Chrysler removed the case to federal court on the basis of
diversity jurisdiction. Because Breazeale failed to present a
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
genuine issue of material fact as to the causation of his truck’s
engine damage, we AFFIRM.
DISCUSSION
This court reviews a district court’s grant of summary
judgment de novo. Evans v. City of Houston, 246 F.3d 344, 347 (5th
Cir. 2001). Summary judgment is appropriate if “the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,
together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c); see also
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 312-33, 106 S. Ct. 2548,
2552-53 (1986). On a motion for summary judgment, a court must
review the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.
Walker v. Thompson, 214 F.3d 615, 624 (5th Cir. 2000). When
dealing with the breach of an express warranty, “it is the burden
of the plaintiff to prove that the defect in the product or service
caused the damage [at issue].” Mitchell v. Rapid Oil Change, Inc.,
752 So. 2d 466, 470 (Miss. App. 1999)(citing Crocker v. Sears,
Roebuck and Co., 346 So. 2d 921, 923 (Miss. 1977)). A lack of
demonstrated causation is fatal to a breach of warranty claim.
Easley v. Day Motors, Inc., 796 So. 2d 236, 241 (Miss. App. 2001).
In the instant case, Daimler-Chrysler sent a technical
advisor, Bret Byus, to inspect Breazeale’s truck. In support of
the company’s motion for summary judgment, Byus provided an
2
affidavit in which he stated that the cause of damage to the
truck’s engine was “either a missing, misinstalled, or improperly
functioning air filter.” Daimler-Chrysler provided a five-
year/100,000 mile warranty on Breazeale’s truck; the warranty does
not cover damage caused by the use of third-party components.
Breazeale concedes that non-Daimler-Chrysler filters had been
installed in his truck. As such, Byus concluded that the repairs
sought by Breazeale were not covered by the warranty.
In response, Breazeale offered affidavits from two
mechanics, Randy Lewis and Joe Shows. Even assuming arguendo that
Lewis and Shows were competent to offer reliable testimony here,
neither man presented evidence sufficient to create a material fact
issue as to causation. Lewis’s affidavit has no apparent
relevancy; more importantly, he does not offer an opinion as to
what caused the engine damage in Breazeale’s truck. Shows states
that he examined Breazeale’s truck, and that the problems occurring
in the vehicle were consistent with a condition described in a
technical bulletin he obtained on the Internet.1 In sum, one of
Breazeale’s experts had no theory as to what caused the damage to
Breazeale’s truck, while the other expert offered an indefinite and
unsubstantiated explanation for the engine damage. “Conclusional
1
The technical bulletin, obtained from a website not affiliated with
Daimler-Chrysler, describes an engine problem that may occur under extreme
conditions, specifically downhill off-road driving at grades above 37.5 percent
for extended periods of time. As the district court correctly noted, neither
Breazeale nor Shows offered any evidence suggesting that the truck had been
driven under such extreme conditions.
3
allegations and denials, speculation, improbable inferences,
unsubstantiated assertions, and legalistic argumentation do not
adequately substitute for specific facts showing a genuine issue
for trial.” Oliver v. Scott, 276 F.3d 736, 744 (5th Cir. 2002)
(citing SEC v. Recile, 10 F.3d 1093, 1097 (5th Cir. 1993)). As
Breazeale can offer only unsubstantiated assertions and speculation
as to the issue of causation, the district court’s grant of summary
judgment to Daimler-Chrysler is AFFIRMED.
4