Reamer Industries, Inc. v. McQuay, Inc.

• Decision Date: 04 November 1971
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 70-600.
• Citation: 344 F. Supp. 540
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
• Parties: REAMER INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. McQUAY, INC., Defendant.

344 F. Supp. 540

REAMER INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. McQUAY, INC., Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 70-600.

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division.

November 4, 1971.

E. W. Laney, III, Columbia, S.C., for plaintiff.

W. Ray Berry, Columbia, S.C., for defendant.

ORDER

CHAPMAN, District Judge.

This matter was tried before the Court in Columbia, South Carolina, without a jury on September 15 and 16, 1971. Lafaye-Tarrant Construction Company was prime contractor for the construction of the Orangeburg-Calhoun Technical Education Center and subcontracted to the plaintiff, Reamer Industries, Inc., the furnishing of labor, material and equipment to install the heating and air conditioning required by the plans and specifications prepared by the architect, Lyles, Bissett, Carlisle & Wolff. This subcontract included the installation of some 97 heating and air conditioning units. These are known as "fan coil units", and were purchased by the plaintiff from McQuay, Inc., through its representative Hoffman & Hoffman. The plaintiff subcontracted the furnishing and installation of controls on these heating units to Barber-Coleman Company.

The work was completed and the air conditioning and heating was put into operation in late August or early September 1968. On November 22, 1968, at approximately 3:00 a.m., a fire occurred in the lecture room of the educational center causing damage to the room and its contents. This occurrence took place before the owner had accepted the construction. The general contractor after making repairs for damages caused by the fire demanded payment from the plaintiff, contending that the fire was caused by a defective fan coil unit. The plaintiff paid the general contractor and this action seeks indemnification from the defendant, the supplier and manufacturer of such units on the theory of negligent design and construction and also for breach of implied warranty of fitness for the particular purpose of the equipment.

Plaintiff's position is that the fan coil units were negligently designed and manufactured in that McQuay violated good engineering practices and principles by using two inadequate thermal relays wired in parallel as a contactor to open and close the electrical power circuit to the heat element in the fan coil unit, and that on the occasion in question the relays failed to break the circuit when required allowing the fan coil unit to be continuously energized until it overheated to the point that it burned the cabinet around the unit, destroyed the unit and caused damage to the contents of the lecture room.

The defendant McQuay contended that the relays were adequate to perform the task required and that it was impossible for the unit to overheat to the point that it could cause a fire, regardless of the alleged failure of the relays to break the contact with the power circuit. The defendant contended that the fire could have been caused by improper wiring, fluctuation in the voltage, a careless cigarette or some cause other than negligent design by the defendant.

The unit in question was a McQuay model SB-124, which contained a 7.5 kilowatt electric strip heater that was supplied by a 277 volt circuit. The normal line current for a 7.5 kilowatt, 277 volt single phase electric heater under normal operating conditions is 27 amperes.

In the construction of this heater the defendant used two Klixon thermal relays wired in parallel to make and break contact between the 277 volt power source and the heat element, when called for by the control system which was on a 120 volt circuit. The purpose of using two relays wired in parallel was to attempt to split the load between the two relays. The operation of the relay is dependent upon the heating and cooling of an element within the relay. Due to the nature of this thermal type operation, there is a time delay between the command from the thermostat controls and the actual break in the contact. This time delay varies and when two relays are wired in parallel they do not open and close simultaneously. Therefore, one relay, rather than both relays, carries the full load for a period of time.

Prior to the fire, there were complaints of overheating in these units and a number of the relays were removed and replaced. Upon testing the relays were found to be erratic and some of the relays removed showed evidence of damage. John Graves, electrical engineer for the architect, testified that the relays were checked to determine the length of the time delay. He testified that some would take one, two or three minutes to break contact and some would not break at all. Prior to the fire, Graves recommended that the relays be replaced with magnetic contactors which are electrically held contactors and which break contact instantly on command, with no time lag or delay.

Plaintiff's witnesses testified that the use of thermal relays as a contactor for this type unit and installation was poor engineering. Mr. Stevens, service manager of the defendant, admitted that wiring the relays in parallel was a mistake and not a good engineering practice.

The plaintiff's witnesses supported plaintiff's contention that on the night of the fire the outside temperature was unseasonably cool. As a result of this the night low limit thermostat called for heat in the system, and after the inside temperature had raised to the point...