QUALITY CAR & TRUCK LEASING VS. PONDEROSA HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS, INC. , ET AL.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: OCTOBER 16, 2009; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2008-CA-000406-MR
AND
NO. 2008-CA-000407-MR
QUALITY CAR & TRUCK
LEASING
v.
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM CARTER CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE LEWIS D. NICHOLLS, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 02-CI-00313
AND NO. 03-CI-00103
PONDEROSA HEAVY DUTY
TRUCKS, INC,; AND JAMES
GIBSON
APPELLEES
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: COMBS, CHIEF JUDGE; VANMETER, JUDGE; LAMBERT,1
SENIOR JUDGE.
1
Senior Judge Joseph E. Lambert sitting as Special Judge by assignment of the Chief Justice
pursuant to Section 110(5)(b) of the Kentucky Constitution and Kentucky Revised Statutes
(KRS) 21.580.
LAMBERT, SENIOR JUDGE: Appellant, Quality Car & Truck Leasing (Quality
Leasing), appeals from the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of Appellee,
Ponderosa Heavy Duty Trucks. Appellant argues that there were genuine issues of
material fact sufficient to preclude summary judgment. As we have concluded
otherwise, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
James Gibson approached Ponderosa seeking to purchase a used
Peterbilt semi-tractor. When a suitable vehicle was found, Ponderosa suggested
that Gibson contact Quality Leasing to arrange financing or leasing. Ponderosa
and Quality Leasing regularly engaged in similar business activities.
Although Gibson testified that he was informed by Ponderosa that the
truck in question had never been wrecked, Ponderosa produced testimony that it
told Gibson the truck was recently returned from the body shop where a fender and
door had been repaired and the truck painted. Quality Leasing produced testimony
that in the past, it had discussed salvaged vehicles with Ponderosa and informed
Ponderosa it would not buy salvaged trucks for leasing. The Quality Leasing
witness testified that she was told by a Ponderosa representative that the truck
selected by Gibson was not salvaged. However, it was later revealed that
previously the vehicle had been sold as scrap after being damaged in a hurricane
and that it was, indeed, a salvaged vehicle.
Prior to the purchase, Quality Leasing sent a representative to view
and inspect the truck. Quality Leasing then contacted Ponderosa and advised that
-2-
Gibson would deliver its check for the purchase price and return the paperwork to
Quality Leasing. When Gibson delivered the check, he signed, in his name only,
the invoices and a disclosure furnished by Ponderosa that the vehicle had been
salvaged and was sold “as is” without any warranty. A salvage title was made out
to Quality Leasing reflecting its purchase of the vehicle for $68,500.00 on August
22, 2000. That same day, Quality Leasing leased the truck to Gibson. Gibson
commenced use of the truck and used it for 150,000 miles before becoming unable
to make the payments to Quality Leasing.
Quality Leasing brought this action in September 2002. Ponderosa
filed its motion for summary judgment shortly before the date of a scheduled jury
trial. The trial court granted summary judgment by order entered November 20,
2007 and this appeal followed.
There are factual differences between the Quality Leasing version and
the Ponderosa version of the transaction history. The disputed facts, however, are
not material to resolution of the case. The undisputed facts are that Quality
Leasing delivered to James Gibson a check for the purchase price and sent him to
Ponderosa to conclude the transaction. As a part of the closing, Gibson signed
documents that stated in the strongest possible terms that the truck was being sold
“as is” and that there was no warranty of any kind. Gibson also signed a disclosure
instrument that stated “Buyer is aware that the unit has or had a salvage title. The
truck is sold as is where is.” From the foregoing it is abundantly clear that Gibson
was invested with actual or apparent authority to act on behalf of Quality Leasing
-3-
and that his waiver of rights and acknowledgement of information are attributable
to Quality Leasing. Appropriate to these facts is American Nat. Red Cross v.
Brandeis Machinery & Supply Co., 286 Ky. 665, 151 S.W.2d 445, 451 (1941):
No doctrine is better settled than that a principal is bound
by the act of his appointed or recognized agent when it is
within that sphere. Concretely, if the principal has held
out that an agent is authorized to buy goods for him he is
bound by the purchases made which are fairly and
reasonably within the class specifically authorized and
within the apparent scope of the authority where the
seller is ignorant of any limitations upon the character of
goods to be bought or the scope of authority.
With respect to the trial court’s summary judgment, “[t]he standard of
review on appeal of a summary judgment is whether the trial court correctly found
that there were no genuine issues as to any material fact and that the moving party
was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Scifres v. Kraft, 916 S.W.2d 779,
781 (Ky. App. 1996). Summary judgment is “proper where the movant shows that
the adverse party could not prevail under any circumstances.” Steelvest, Inc. v.
Scansteel Service Center, Inc., 807 S.W.2d 476, 480 (Ky. 1991).
As Ponderosa provided Gibson, an actual or apparent agent of Quality
Leasing, with documents showing a salvage title and that the truck was sold “as is”
without a warranty, a complete defense to Quality Leasing’s claim was established.
Summary judgment is thus appropriate as “it appears impossible for the
nonmoving party to produce evidence at trial warranting a judgment in his favor.”
Huddleston v. Hughes, 843 S.W.2d 901, 903 (Ky. App. 1992).
The judgment of the Carter Circuit Court is affirmed.
-4-
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
Paul E. Craft
Greenup, Kentucky
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE,
PONDEROSA HEAVY DUTY
TRUCKS, INC.:
W. Jeffrey Scott
Grayson, Kentucky
-5-
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.
