ZZ LLC v. Ford Motor Company, Appellee-Defendant (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] ZZ Diesel, LLC (“ZZ Diesel”), installed allegedly defective parts manufactured by Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) in two vehicles and filed a complaint against Ford asserting warranty and negligence claims. Ford filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. On appeal, ZZ Diesel argues that this ruling is erroneous. We disagree and therefore affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] ZZ Diesel is an Indiana limited liability company owned by Jacob Zody that repairs light-duty diesel pickup trucks in a Miami County shop. In July 2022, Nakia Ordille brought his 2010 Ford F-350 pickup truck (“the 2010 Truck”) to ZZ Diesel because “[i]t was running rough and didn't have any power because it had low compression on one cylinder.” Appellant's App. Vol. 3 at 19. ZZ Diesel determined that the engine needed to be replaced, so it ordered and paid for a replacement engine manufactured by DFC. ZZ Diesel also purchased new fuel system components from Sharp Parts, a Ford parts distributor in Indianapolis, including fuel injectors manufactured by Ford. Ordille paid “the majority” of the cost of the parts up front. Id. at 29. ZZ Diesel installed the replacement engine and fuel injectors in the 2010 Truck and took it for a test drive. Within half a mile, the engine locked up and failed, allegedly because the fuel injector nozzles were “enlarged basically way past specification[.]” Id. at 37.

[3] Also in July 2022, one of ZZ Diesel's long-time customers, the Miami County Highway Department (“the Department”), brought a 2015 Ford F-350 pickup truck (“the 2015 Truck”) to ZZ Diesel to diagnose an oil leak. ZZ Diesel determined that the upper engine oil pan needed to be replaced and purchased a Ford oil pan from Sharp Parts. ZZ Diesel installed the oil pan in the 2015 Truck and started the engine. The engine seized due to lack of oil, allegedly because the oil pan had not been properly “machined through to allow oil to flow and lubricate engine components.” Id. at 7. ZZ Diesel recommended that the engine be replaced, and the Department consented to a replacement. Because of supply-chain issues, it took a year for ZZ Diesel to obtain a replacement engine. ZZ Diesel installed the replacement engine in the 2015 Truck, and the Department paid in full for the parts and labor. Id. at 11. According to Zody, ZZ Diesel lost the Department's “future business over this whole thing[.]” Id. at 57.

[4] Regarding the 2010 Truck, Zody considered “filling out any warranty paperwork that Ford had to offer, trying to get a claim initiated that way. That's when [he was] told that there's nothing that Ford is gonna do, they're not gonna cover the engine through that route[.]” Id. at 38. Zody contacted a Ford field service engineer about the 2015 Truck. The engineer ultimately told him, “There's nothing I can do for you. I'm not your person[,]” id. at 33, apparently because ZZ Diesel is “an independent repair facility and not a Ford-authorized dealership[.]” Id. at 32. Zody also contacted Ford's Powertrain Assistance Center and was told the same thing. Sharp provided Zody with an over-the-counter warranty form to submit to Ford, but that warranty applies only to a defective part and is “not designed to claim a whole engine.” Id. at 54.

[5] In July 2023, ZZ Diesel filed a two-count complaint against Ford. The first count related to the 2010 Truck, and the second count related to the 2015 Truck. Both counts alleged in pertinent part that “Ford had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the manufacture of its component parts”; that Ford breached that duty and was negligent, “proximately resulting in damage to” ZZ Diesel; that “Ford breached its implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, resulting in damage to” ZZ Diesel; and that ZZ Diesel had “been damaged by [Ford's] negligence, defective product[s], and breach of warranties.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 16-19. Ford filed an answer to the complaint.

[6] In April 2025, Ford filed a motion for summary judgment and designated ZZ Diesel's complaint and Zody's October 2024 deposition in support of its motion. In its supporting memorandum, Ford argued that ZZ Diesel's claims failed as a matter of law for several reasons, including ZZ Diesel's lack of standing. ZZ Diesel filed a response and a supporting memorandum, in which ZZ Diesel argued, based on Zody's deposition, that it had suffered losses including “loss of revenue, lost business, and other specific costs and expenses.” Id. at 54. In support of its motion, ZZ Diesel designated its complaint, Zody's deposition, and Zody's May 2025 affidavit. In the affidavit, Zody stated that he had kept both trucks in ZZ Diesel's service bays “to preserve evidence” until a Ford representative came to take photographs and video, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost income. Appellant's Vol. 3 at 128, 130. Ford filed a reply to ZZ Diesel's response.

[7] After a hearing, the trial court issued a final and appealable order summarily granting Ford's summary judgment motion as to all of ZZ Diesel's claims. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[8] ZZ Diesel argues that the trial court erred in granting Ford's motion for summary judgment. “The purpose of summary judgment is to terminate litigation about which there can be no factual dispute and which can be determined as a matter of law.” Lamb v. Mid Ind. Serv. Co., 19 N.E.3d 792, 793 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). “We review an order granting summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard as the trial court.” Ind. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Weaver, 120 N.E.3d 280, 283 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).

[9] “Summary judgment is appropriate where the designated evidence demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. (citing Ind. Trial Rule 56(C)). “A fact is ‘material’ if its resolution would affect the outcome of the case, and an issue is ‘genuine’ if a trier of fact is required to resolve the parties’ differing accounts of the truth, or if the undisputed material facts support conflicting reasonable inferences[.]” Williams v. Tharp, 914 N.E.2d 756, 761 (Ind. 2009) (citations omitted). “The moving party bears the initial burden of making a prima facie case that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Ind. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 120 N.E.3d at 283. “If the moving party fails to make a prima facie case, summary judgment is improper; however, if it succeeds, then the nonmoving party must present evidence establishing a genuine issue of material fact.” Id.

[10] “Our review is limited to the designated evidence that was before the trial court[.]” Id. We construe all factual inferences in the nonmoving party's favor and resolve all doubts as to the existence of a material issue against the moving party. Est. of Ecker v. Est. of Samson, 59 N.E.3d 282, 284 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). We “will affirm if the trial court's entry of summary judgment can be sustained on any theory or basis in the record.” Isgrig v. Trs. of Ind. Univ., 256 N.E.3d 1238, 1244 (Ind. 2025). “A trial court's grant of summary judgment on appeal to this Court is ‘clothed with a presumption of validity,’ and an appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the grant of summary judgment was erroneous.” Est. of Ecker, 59 N.E.3d at 284 (quoting Williams, 914 N.E.2d at 762).

[11] ZZ Diesel seeks reversal of the trial court's summary judgment ruling on several grounds, which are based on the arguments raised in Ford's summary judgment memorandum. Because it is dispositive, we need address only the issue of standing.

[12] “Standing is a threshold issue: if it is lacking, the court cannot consider the merits of the claim.” Solarize, Ind., Inc. v. S. Ind. Gas & Elec. Co., 182 N.E.3d 212, 215 (Ind. 2022). “The judicial doctrine of standing focuses on whether the complaining party is the proper person to invoke the court's power. It is designed to assure that litigation will be actively and vigorously contested.” Schloss v. City of Indianapolis, 553 N.E.2d 1204, 1206 (Ind. 1990). “Under our general rule of standing, only those persons who have a personal stake in the outcome of the litigation and who show that they have suffered or were in immediate danger of suffering a direct injury as a result of the complained-of conduct will be found to have standing.” State ex rel. Cittadine v. Ind. Dep't of Transp., 790 N.E.2d 978, 979 (Ind. 2003). “Absent this showing, complainants may not invoke the jurisdiction of the court.” Id. “[T]he question of standing generally is one of law, not fact.” St. Mary's Med. Ctr., Inc. v. McCarthy, 829 N.E.2d 1068, 1072 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).

[13] ZZ Diesel states that “Zody testified in his deposition that ZZ Diesel purchased the defective Ford parts, and suffered considerable monetary losses as a direct result of its use of the defective products[,]” including “loss of revenue, lost business, and other specific costs and expenses.” Appellant's Br. at 17. ZZ Diesel contends, “This undisputed evidence establishes at the very least the existence of a genuine issue of material fact as to whether ZZ Diesel suffered an injury in this case.” Id.¹

[14] In response, Ford observes that

[t]he only money that ZZ Diesel claims to actually be out of pocket is money Ordille owes but never paid: $8,186.48 for the initial engine replacement services rendered and $2,044.88 that ZZ Diesel paid to a third party to diagnose why Ordille's 2010 Truck failed after the engine (and fuel injector) replacement. ZZ Diesel admits it never requested that Ordille pay these amounts.

Appellee's Br. at 14 (citing Appellant's App. Vol. 3 at 130). Ford argues, and we agree, that “ZZ Diesel's choice to allow its customer to forego payment does not constitute a direct injury caused by Ford.” Id.²

[15] We also agree with Ford's argument that ZZ Diesel is not entitled to “recover based on damages and inconveniences allegedly suffered by its customers, the Department and Ordille.” Id. at 13.³ Nor is ZZ Diesel entitled to recover for lost revenues resulting from the trucks’ occupation of its shop bays. The losses were not directly caused by Ford, but rather by Zody's unilateral decision to store the vehicles in the shop instead of another location that would not have impacted ZZ Diesel's business.

[16] Finally, we conclude that ZZ Diesel is not entitled to recover for the loss of the Department's future business. In his deposition, Zody stated only that ZZ Diesel had lost the Department's “future business over this whole thing[.]” Appellant's App. Vol. 3 at 57. Zody did not state or otherwise establish that the loss of future business was directly caused by Ford, as opposed to the lengthy wait for a replacement engine caused by supply-chain issues or some other factor. “While our summary-judgment standard requires us to make inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, those inferences must be ‘reasonable,’ not mere ‘conjecture or speculation.’ ” Staat v. Ind. Dep't of Transp., 177 N.E.3d 427, 432 (Ind. 2021) (quoting Owens Corning Fiberglass Corp. v. Cobb, 754 N.E.2d 905, 910 (Ind. 2001)).

[17] Based on the foregoing, we conclude that ZZ Diesel has failed to carry its burden to establish that the trial court erred in granting Ford's summary judgment motion. Therefore, we affirm.

[18] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The substantive portion of ZZ Diesel's standing argument is three sentences long and contains no citations to supporting authority. We caution ZZ Diesel that an appellant's argument is insufficient if it “simply recites facts and makes conclusory statements without analysis or authoritative support.” Kishpaugh v. Odegard, 17 N.E.3d 363, 373 n.3 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). Several of ZZ Diesel's remaining arguments suffer from the same flaw, including its assertion that “a contractual relationship existed between ZZ Diesel and Ford[.]” Appellant's Br. at 24.

2.   In his affidavit, Zody stated that the Department had “not paid ZZ Diesel for the original work to remove the old upper engine oil pan and to install the new one. This has resulted in a further monetary injury to ZZ Diesel.” Appellant's App. Vol. 3 at 129. But in his deposition, Zody explained that ZZ Diesel had not charged the Department for that work. Id. at 12.

3.   In his deposition, Zody testified,If you want my honest, my personal sole plan and opinion with this, just to be straightforward, was to get reimbursed for our downtime and the repairs and do what I can for the customer to give them the money back that I can. Now, do I believe that they have their own cases? Yes, but that's not me.Id. at 61. We note that the trial court allowed Ordille to be joined as a plaintiff in this case in May 2025. Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 8.

Bailey, Judge.

Vaidik, J., and Scheele, J., concur.