A federal court in Ohio denied both sides’ summary judgment motions after finding genuine factual disputes over whether Overhead Door, a manufacturer of Wayne-Dalton doors, reasonably attempted to cure allegedly defective doors installed by McKee at two fire stations. McKee Door Sales of Columbus, Inc. v. Overhead Door Corp., 2026 WL 757317 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 18, 2026).
McKee, a longtime Wayne-Dalton dealer, alleged the doors leaked and retained water and that McKee’s customers rejected Overhead Door’s proposed cap-beading repair and demanded replacement. McKee originally sought approximately $189,000 in materials and labor it spent on resolving the customer complaints across four projects, but by summary judgment only two disputes remained. McKee asserted (1) a declaratory judgment claim that Overhead Door’s invoice terms did not govern the parties’ relationship, or alternatively had been waived or failed of their essential purpose, and (2) a breach-of-contract claim alleging Overhead Door failed within a reasonable time to repair or replace defective doors and was therefore liable for McKee’s cover costs, withheld payments, and labor charges. Overhead Door counterclaimed for breach of contract alleging McKee failed to pay a separate invoice for unrelated doors and parts.
On the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, the court held that it did not need to decide whether the parties’ course of dealing/performance or Overhead Door’s invoice terms controlled, because, for purposes of the core breach issue, Overhead Door’s obligation was to repair or replace defective goods, and a failure to do so within a reasonable time could make UCC remedies available if a contractual limitation failed of its essential purpose. The court further held that the real question was whether Overhead Door’s repeated field fixes and later cap-beading proposal were reasonable attempts to cure the defects. On that record, the court held that a jury could find either that Overhead Door diligently pursued a workable solution or that months of unsuccessful efforts, conflicting evidence about the seriousness of the leaks, and concerns about ongoing caulk maintenance justified rejecting further repairs. Those fact-bound issues were for the jury to decide and, therefore, the court denied the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment.