PCL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., a Colorado corporation, Plaintiff,
B&H CONTRACTORS OF SOUTH DAKOTA, INC., a South Dakota corporation, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff,
GEORGE FISCHER, INC.; GEORGE FISCHER SLOANE, INC.; CENTRAL STATES INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY, INC.; and CPI SALES, INC., collectively d/b/a Central States Group, Third-Party Defendants. B&H CONTRACTORS OF SOUTH Civ. 10-4076 DAKOTA, INC., a South Dakota corporation, Plaintiff,
GEORGE FISCHER, INC.; GEORGE FISCHER SLOANE, INC.; CENTRAL STATES INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY, INC.; and CPI SALES, INC., collectively d/b/a Central States Group, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
KAREN E. SCHREIER, District Judge.
Third-party defendants George Fischer, Inc. and George Fischer Sloane, Inc., move for summary judgment on all claims made by third-party plaintiff B&H Contractors of South Dakota, Inc. Third-party defendants Central States Industrial Supply, Inc. and CPI Sales, Inc. separately move for summary judgment on all claims made by B&H. B&H resists the motions. For the following reasons, third-party defendants' motions for summary judgment are granted.
B&H is a South Dakota corporation that does plumbing installation work. PCL Construction Services, Inc., a general contractor, entered into a subcontract with B&H that required B&H to install a piping system at 3M Company's manufacturing plant in Brookings, South Dakota.
B&H ordered and installed PPro Seal piping materials (the "GF product", which were manufactured by George Fischer and supplied by Central States. Before installing the GF product, B&H's lead installer received over-the-phone training from George Fischer personnel. After receiving the instructions, B&H began installing the GF product. PCL was present while B&H installed the piping. There were at least a dozen leaks that occurred throughout the installation process. Upon completion of the installation work, the piping system was inspected and air tested. PCL participated in and monitored both the inspection and testing of the system. The piping system passed the air test, indicating 100 percent joint integrity.
Leaks began to form following B&H's completion of the installation. The first leak that formed in a completed portion of the piping system occurred in October of 2007, while B&H was still working on a different section of the piping system. B&H repaired this leak. B&H completed the entire installation in February of 2008. A second leak was found in September of 2008. B&H again repaired the leak, and B&H's insurance carrier paid for most of the damage caused by the leak. A third leak was discovered in March of 2010. PCL notified B&H of the leak and demanded that B&H repair the leak and pay for the same. B&H refused to repair the leak or reimburse PCL for any costs caused by the leak.
Because of these leaks, 3M informed PCL that it wanted an entirely new piping system installed to avoid any future problems. PCL demanded that B&H replace the piping system. In the meantime, a fourth leak was discovered in January of 2011. PCL then contracted with Redlinger Bros. Plumbing and Heating to remove and replace the entire piping system. A fifth leak was discovered during the demolition process that took place in preparation for Redlinger's installation.
PCL incurred costs totaling $171, 445.50 as a result of these events. PCL seeks damages from B&H, claiming that the piping system was installed improperly. B&H then brought third-party claims alleging that George Fischer and Central States are liable for selling defective GF product. In its third-party complaint, B&H brings claims against George Fischer for negligence and product liability and claims against Central States for negligence, product liability, breach of contract, breach of express warranties, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is appropriate if the movant "shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a. The moving party can meet this burden by presenting evidence that there is no dispute of material fact or that the nonmoving party has not presented evidence to support an element of her case on which she bears the ultimate burden of proof. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986. "The nonmoving party may not rest on mere allegations or denials, but must demonstrate on the record the existence of specific facts which create a genuine issue for trial.'" Mosley v. City of Northwoods, Mo., 415 F.3d 908, 910 (8th Cir. 2005 (quoting Krenik v. County of Le Sueur, 47 F.3d 953, 957 (8th Cir. 1995.
Summary judgment is precluded if there is a dispute in facts that could affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986. For purposes of a summary judgment motion, the court views the facts and the inferences drawn from such facts "in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 588 (1986.
The parties agree that B&H's claims are governed by the substantive law of South Dakota. See Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Kamrath, 475 F.3d 920, 924 (8th Cir. 2007 (noting that a federal district court whose jurisdiction is premised on diversity applies the law of the state in which it sits.
I. Negligence and Product ...