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is seeking unspecified damages for lost market share and lost profits of more than $100,000, and wants the contract rescinded, according to the federal suit filed April 5.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. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

ADVERTISEMENT