Alcan Aluminum Corp. v. BASF Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• acknowledging that the defendant-supplied spray foam constituted a \structural component\ of the plaintiff-manufactured aluminum panels
• finding that damage to panels was foreseeable and, as sophisticated entities, parties could have protected themselves through contractual provisions
• finding that under Texas law, plaintiff's completed product, sold to consumers and damaged by defective component part supplied by defendant, is not \other property\ for purposes of the ELR
• concluding damage to aluminum panels caused by defective spray foam, supplied under contract between plaintiff and defendant and used as a structural component in the panels, did not constitute damage to \other property\ and thus the ELR barred any tort claims
• finding a DTPA claim was groundless because the court relied on undisputed facts and the explicit terms of the statute in concluding that the plaintiff lacked standing
• a DTPA claim that the plaintiff \was explicitly excluded from bringing\ was groundless

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).