IBJNews

Andy Mohr target of Volvo Trucks lawsuit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

When Volvo Group North America LLC sought to sell its semi trucks in the Indianapolis area, the company turned to veteran auto dealer Andy Mohr to help it gain a foothold in the market.

Volvo Trucks awarded Mohr a five-year contract to sell its trucks in April 2010. But, just two years into the relationship, the Greensboro, N.C., division of the Swedish automaker is suing Mohr, claiming he fraudulently induced it to enter into the franchise agreement.

The relationship between the two could get even messier, though, as a lawyer for Mohr says he’ll likely file a lawsuit against Volvo Trucks in the next week.

Volvo Trucks is seeking unspecified damages for lost market share and lost profits of more than $100,000, and wants the contract rescinded, according to the federal suit filed April 5.

The company claims Mohr, who has auto dealerships in Indianapolis, Avon, Fishers and Plainfield, enticed it to enter into the agreement by making several promises Mohr has been unable to fulfill.

Volvo Trucks said in its suit that Mohr has failed to sell 500 trucks per year, build a new sales facility, place an initial order of $1 million in parts, and purchase five new parts-delivery vans, all of which Volvo says he guaranteed.

“Despite receiving the dealer agreement for no money, and despite its many specific promises and commitments, Mohr Truck failed to fulfill its promises and commitments,” Volvo Trucks said in its complaint.

The Andy Mohr Truck Center is located at 1301 S. Holt Road on the southwest side of Indianapolis.

Mohr’s attorney, Robert MacGill of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, said Volvo Trucks is to blame for the broken relationship, not his client.

“Andy Mohr Truck Center has notified Volvo of its claim for damages arising from Volvo’s conduct in inducing the sale of the franchise,” MacGill said.   

MacGill declined to elaborate but said details of Mohr’s argument will be provided in the suit he expects to file.
 
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Of what value is selling alcoholic beverages to State Fair patrons when there are many families with children attending. Is this the message we want to give children attending and participating in the Fair, another venue with alooholic consumption onsite. Is this to promote beer and wine production in the state which are great for the breweries and wineries, but where does this end up 10-15 years from now, lots more drinkers for the alcoholic contents. If these drinks are so important, why not remove the alcohol content and the flavor and drink itself similar to soft drinks would be the novelty, not the alcoholic content and its affects on the drinker. There is no social or material benefit from drinking alcoholic beverages, mostly people want to get slightly or highly drunk.

  2. I did;nt know anyone in Indiana could count- WHY did they NOT SAY just HOW this would be enforced? Because it WON;T! NOW- with that said- BIG BROTHER is ALIVE in this Article-why take any comment if it won't appease YOU PEOPLE- that's NOT American- with EVERYTHING you indicated is NOT said-I can see WHY it say's o Comments- YOU are COMMIES- BIG BROTHER and most likely- voted for Obama!

  3. In Europe there are schools for hairdressing but you don't get a license afterwards but you are required to assist in turkey and Italy its 7 years in japan it's 10 years England 2 so these people who assist know how to do hair their not just anybody and if your an owner and you hire someone with no experience then ur an idiot I've known stylist from different countries with no license but they are professional clean and safe they have no license but they have experience a license doesn't mean anything look at all the bad hairdressers in the world that have fried peoples hair okay but they have a license doesn't make them a professional at their job I think they should get rid of it because stateboard robs stylist and owners and they fine you for the dumbest f***ing things oh ur license isn't displayed 100$ oh ur wearing open toe shoes fine, oh there's ONE HAIR IN UR BRUSH that's a fine it's like really? So I think they need to go or ease up on their regulations because their too strict

  4. Exciting times in Carmel.

  5. Twenty years ago when we moved to Indy I was a stay at home mom and knew not very many people.WIBC was my family and friends for the most part. It was informative, civil, and humerous with Dave the KING. Terri, Jeff, Stever, Big Joe, Matt, Pat and Crumie. I loved them all, and they seemed to love each other. I didn't mind Greg Garrison, but I was not a Rush fan. NOW I can't stand Chicks and all their giggly opinions. Tony Katz is to abrasive that early in the morning(or really any time). I will tune in on Saturday morning for the usual fun and priceless information from Pat and Crumie, mornings it will be 90.1

ADVERTISEMENT