D began marketing polyurethane foam insulation products under the brand name 'Coro-foam.' D sold 'Coro-foam 340' insulation to Thomas Kreis, who was in the business of selling and installing insulation. Kreis contracted with P to apply the Coro-foam insulation with a spray applicator to the inside walls and ceiling of the vehicle repair shop owned by P. Kreis gave P a brochure from Cook describing the properties of Coro-foam insulation. Kreis conducted a demonstration to show the flame-retardant characteristics of the insulation. A fire destroyed P's building when sparks or a hot metal slag from a welder used in their vehicle repair shop ignited the Coro-foam insulation. The building was destroyed in a matter of minutes. P sued D. P testified at trial that the brochure P got described Coro-foam as flame-retardant. D objected. P got the verdict. D appealed in that P’s testimony was not the best evidence because P had identified a brochure similar to the one destroyed in the fire it was incumbent upon P to introduce that brochure as a duplicate.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.