American Home Assurance Co. v. Greater Omaha Packing Co., No. 15-1313 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseCargill and American Home filed suit against Greater Omaha, alleging breach of contract and warranties based on allegations that Greater Omaha sold raw beef trim tainted with E.coli O157:H7. Greater Omaha counterclaimed for tortious interference with business relationships and expectancies. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Cargill on Greater Omaha’s counterclaim. A jury returned a verdict for Cargill, awarding $9 million in damages. Greater Omaha appealed. The court concluded that there was no error in the admission of expert testimony from Dr. Harrison and Dr. Singer where the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the expert evidence met the standard for admissibility and that the evidence of the Ohio cases was best used for impeachment and cross-examination; the district court did not err in admitting the original and revised December 2007 Notice of Intended Enforcement (NOIE) and Greater Omaha’s response thereto, and there was no clear and prejudicial abuse of discretion; the court rejected Greater Omaha's challenge to the district court's jury charge and instruction; there was no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to forego instructing the jury on exclusion or modification of implied warranties; the jury did not reach an impermissible compromise verdict; and the district court did not apply the wrong standard of proof or otherwise err in granting Cargill’s motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Wollman, Author, with Beam and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Contracts. The district court did not err in denying defendant Greater Omaha's motion to exclude plaintiff's expert witness testimony regarding the source of an E. coli outbreak; the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting a Food Safety Inspection Service Notice of Intended Enforcement concerning defendant's failure to meet sanitation standards as it covered the relevant time period and its probative value outweighed any prejudice to defendant; challenges to jury instructions on contracts and warranties rejected; defendant's argument that the jury reached an improper compromise verdict rejected; no error in granting plaintiff summary judgment on defendant's counterclaim for tortious interference based on a claim plaintiff provided information for a New York Times article as the claim was not supported by any admissible evidence.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.