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is seeking unspecified damages for lost market share and lost profits of more than $100,000, and wants the contract rescinded, according to the federal suit filed April 5.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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT