United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Western Division
NANETTE K. LAUGHREY, United States District Judge
Rigdon, Inc. seeks summary judgment on the Murphys'
claims under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA).
The Motion is granted as to the claim alleging concealment or
omissions by Rigdon of the condition of its equipment. It is
denied in all other respects.
2016, Defendant Rigdon washed William and Jeri Murphy's
windows at their home in the Village of Lock Lloyd, Missouri.
Following the window washing, the Murphys observed numerous
scratches on the windows. They have stated under oath that
the scratches were not there before Rigdon's employees
washed the windows. (Deposition of Jeri Murphy, p. 52:14-19,
Exhibit G). Also, at the time of the window washing, Jeri
Murphy noticed that one of the Rigdon employees washing the
windows had a big ring on, probably the size of a silver
dollar. (Deposition of Jeri Murphy pp 42:10 to 44:4, Exhibit
and Jeri Murphy mutually hired Rigdon to wash the windows, in
part because Rigdon had washed their windows on several prior
occasions and they had had no problems. Doc. 21-1, p. 1. Jeri
Murphy also based her decision on a coupon she had from
Rigdon. The coupon offered a 100% guarantee, but she did not
use the coupon because Mr. Rigdon offered her a better deal
based on their prior work for the Murphys. Mr. Rigdon had
also previously told Jeri Murphy his work was 100%
guaranteed. (Deposition of Jeri Murphy pp 22:24 to 24:11,
Exhibit G). On one prior occasion, Mr. Rigdon made good on
his guarantee when there was a problem with the window
washing at the Murphy's home. (Deposition of Jeri Murphy
pp 27:1 to 28:13, Exhibit G).
her deposition, Jeri Murphy did not explicitly say that she
did or did not rely on a guarantee, although she was asked
several times what led her to hire Mr. Rigdon. However, her
affidavit was attached to the Plaintiffs' Opposition to
Summary Judgment, and in that affidavit, she said that:
6. The decision William Murphy and I made to hire Rigdon Inc.
to clean our windows in 2016 was the result of several
factors, which included our long-standing, mostly positive
prior relationship with Kerry Rigdon and his company Rigdon,
Inc., satisfactory work done by Rigdon before 2016, the
reputation of Kerry Rigdon and Rigdon Inc., and Kerry Rigdon
and Rigdon Inc.'s guarantees.
7. Defendant's guarantee was the genesis of the many-year
business relationship between the Murphys and Rigdon, Inc.; I
knew of Kerry Rigdon's guarantee of his company's
work; and I relied on his representation that he guaranteed
his work in deciding with William Murphy to continue to use
Rigdon's window-washing services over the years,
including in 2016.
8. Had Kerry Rigdon or Rigdon Inc. (hereinafter
''Rigdon") at any time disavowed Rigdon's
guarantee, or told either me or William Murphy that Rigdon
did not guarantee its work, William Murphy and I would not
have employed Rigdon for our window-washing needs on those
occasions in 2016 without additional or different
consideration or a written contract, if at all.
9. Neither Kerry Rigdon nor any other employee of Rigdon ever
told me or my William [sic] that Rigdon's guarantee was
no longer in effect prior to washing our windows on July 5,
2016, or at any time before that.
Doc. 21-1, p. 1.
21, 2016, Rigdon refused to pay for any of the damage on the
Summary Judgment Standards
judgment is appropriate when the evidence, viewed in a light
most favorable to the nonmoving party, shows no genuine issue
of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” Wierman v.
Casey's Gen. Stores, 638 F.3d 984, 999 (8th Cir.
2011). The moving party bears the burden of establishing a
lack of genuine issue of fact. Brunsting v. Lutsen
Mountains Corp., 601 F.3d 813, 820 (8th Cir. 2010). The
rule requires summary judgment to be entered “against a
party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the
existence of an element essential to that party's case,
and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at
trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 322 (1986). “Summary judgment is to be granted
only where the evidence is such that no reasonable jury could
return a verdict for the non-moving party.” Smith
v. Basin Park Hotel, ...