Dealership gets court to dismiss claims made by Volvo

Jennifer Nelson
October 12, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge in Indianapolis has ruled in favor of Andy Mohr Truck Center in two lawsuits stemming from a broken business relationship between the dealer and Volvo Trucks North America.

Volvo Trucks awarded auto dealer Andy Mohr’s Truck Center a contract to sell its trucks in 2010. When the business relationship soured, both parties filed lawsuits in the Southern District of Indiana, claiming among other things, breach of contract.

Mohr claims that his award of the Volvo franchise was dependent on the dealer being able to house it and the Mack Truck franchise under one dealership. He said Volvo Trucks and Mack Trucks agreed to it, but that the transactions would have to occur separately. Once he was awarded the Volvo Truck franchise, the Volvo Group then failed to award Mohr the Mack Truck franchise.

Volvo’s suit claims that Mohr and the dealership haven’t fulfilled the “promises, representations and unqualified guarantees” they made, including moving into a new facility and sales goals.

Mohr and Volvo – as defendants in the other’s suit – filed motions to dismiss certain claims. Judge William Lawrence denied Volvo’s motion to dismiss Mohr’s claims of theft under the Indiana Crime Victims’ Act, breach of written contract and breach of oral contract. The judge granted Mohr’s motion to dismiss claims of fraudulent inducement, promissory estoppel and equitable estoppel in Volvo’s action.

Lawrence also ordered Tuesday the Mohr plaintiffs to show cause within 14 days as to why these to cases shouldn’t be consolidated since they may share common questions of law and fact.

The cases are Volvo Trucks North America, a division of Volvo Group North America LLC v. Andy Mohr Truck Center and Andrew F. Mohr, 1:12-CV-448; and Andy Mohr Truck Center Inc. v. Volvo Trucks North America, a division of Volvo Group North America LLC, 1:12-CV-701.



Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?