f Labor v. Gilley, 290 F.3d 827, 829 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus.

Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)). The nonmoving party cannot create a

genuine dispute of material fact through “mere speculation, conjecture, or fantasy.” Lewis v.

Philip Morris Inc., 355 F.3d 515, 533 (6th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks

omitted).

III.    ANALYSIS

A.      Breach of Contract and Breach of Warranty

        The district court held that Thompson submitted insufficient evidence to show that the

Super Spacers outgassed or that any outgassing caused the damages detailed in the warranty

report. Thompson contends that its circumstantial evidence creates genuine disputes of material

fact on the issues of breach and causation. Edgetech responds that Thompson’s evidence is

insufficient in this regard.

        The district court applied Ohio law to Thompson’s breach of contract and warranty

claims. The Parties agree that Ohio law applies to these claims. Unless otherwise indicated, we

treat these claims in tandem as they present overlapping issues.

        Under the Ohio version of the Uniform Commercial Code, to prevail on a breach of

express warranty claim, the plaintiff must show that: (1) an express warranty exists; (2) the

product under warranty is defective; (3) the plaintiff provided the defendant with reasonable

notice of the defect; and (4) the plaintiff suffered an injury as a result of the defect. See Litehouse

Prods., Inc. v. A.M.I. Int’l, Ltd., No. 46834, 1984 WL 4539, at * 3 (Ohio Ct. App. Mar. 8, 1984);

McKinney v. Bayer Corp., 744 F. Supp. 2d 733, 753 (N.D. Ohio 2010) (citations omitted); cf.


                                                 -8-
Case No. 13-2652
Thompson I.G., LLC v. Edgetech I.G., Inc.

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1302.27 cmt. 13 (LexisNexis 2012) (“In an action based on breach of

warranty, it is of course necessary to show not only the existence of the warranty but the fact that

the warranty was broken and that the b