02-1034 Tietsworth et al. v. Harley-Davidson, Inc.

Listen to this article

“Tietsworth argues that the trial court erred in dismissing his fraudulent concealment claim because he properly alleged all the elements of a viable claim and because Wisconsin law does not require him to wait for his engine to fail before he can state a fraudulent concealment claim. We agree. …

“Tietsworth alleged that what he and the class actually received (motorcycles with defective engines) was of lesser value than what Harley represented (first quality, non-defective motorcycles). Tietsworth alleged that he and the class members have suffered economic loss in the amount of the difference in value between their defective motorcycles and motorcycles with reliable, non-defective engines. Tietsworth further alleged that the ‘reasonable cost of placing the property received in the condition in which it was represented to be’ under the second measure of the test is the five hundred dollar cam bearing repair kit produced by Harley. Id. Thus, Tietsworth properly alleged damages under both measures.”

In addition, we agree with plaintiff that the trial court erred in dismissing his claim under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA).

Order reversed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist I, Milwaukee County, Haese, J., Wedemeyer, P.J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: David J. Bershad, New York, NY; Michael M. Buchman, New York, NY; J. Douglas Richards, New York, NY, et al.

For Respondent: W. Stuart Parsons, Milwaukee; Patrick W. Schmidt, Milwaukee; Kelly H. Twigger, Milwaukee