ILNews

Andy Mohr target of Volvo Trucks lawsuit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

When Volvo Group North America LLC sought to sell its semi trucks in the Indianapolis area, the company turned to veteran auto dealer Andy Mohr to help it gain a foothold in the market.

Volvo Trucks awarded Mohr a five-year contract to sell its trucks in April 2010. But, just two years into the relationship, the Greensboro, N.C., division of the Swedish automaker is suing Mohr, claiming he fraudulently induced it to enter into the franchise agreement.

The relationship between the two could get even messier, though, as a lawyer for Mohr says he’ll likely file a lawsuit against Volvo Trucks in the next week.

Volvo Trucks is seeking unspecified damages for lost market share and lost profits of more than $100,000, and wants the contract rescinded, according to the federal suit filed April 5.

The company claims Mohr, who has auto dealerships in Indianapolis, Avon, Fishers and Plainfield, enticed it to enter into the agreement by making several promises Mohr has been unable to fulfill.

Volvo Trucks said in its suit that Mohr has failed to sell 500 trucks per year, build a new sales facility, place an initial order of $1 million in parts, and purchase five new parts-delivery vans, all of which Volvo says he guaranteed.

“Despite receiving the dealer agreement for no money, and despite its many specific promises and commitments, Mohr Truck failed to fulfill its promises and commitments,” Volvo Trucks said in its complaint.

The Andy Mohr Truck Center is located at 1301 S. Holt Road on the southwest side of Indianapolis.

Mohr’s attorney, Robert MacGill of Barnes & Thornburg, said Volvo Trucks is to blame for the broken relationship, not his client.

“Andy Mohr Truck Center has notified Volvo of its claim for damages arising from Volvo’s conduct in inducing the sale of the franchise,” MacGill said.   

MacGill declined to elaborate but said details of Mohr’s argument will be provided in the suit he expects to file. This article originally ran in the April 11, 2012, issue of IBJ Daily. The Indianapolis Business Journal is a sister publication to IL.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • auto Transport Company auto Shipping transport Vehicle
    Ample knowledge about auto transport.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT