Consumers Power v. MISS. VAL. STRUCTURAL STEEL
Decision Date | 25 June 1986 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 82CV-60296-AA. |
Citation | 636 F. Supp. 1100 |
Parties | CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY, a Michigan corporation, and Bechtel Power Corporation, a Nevada corporation, Plaintiffs, v. MISSISSIPPI VALLEY STRUCTURAL STEEL COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; which prior to January 1, 1979 was named Debron Corporation, a Delaware corporation; and which since January 1, 1982 has been named Bristol Steel Corporation, a Delaware corporation; Bristol Steel & Iron Works, Inc., a Virginia corporation; J.W. Rex Company, a Pennsylvania corporation; which since March 18, 1979 has been named Rexmet Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation; and Southern Bolt & Fastener Corporation, a Louisiana corporation, Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. BABCOCK AND WILCOX COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Third-Party Defendant, and SOUTHERN BOLT & FASTENER CORP., a Louisiana corporation, v. SUPERIOR HEAT TREATING COMPANY, a Texas corporation, Third-Party Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Michael A. Thoists, Plunkett, Cooney, Rutt, Watters, Stanczyk & Pedersen, Detroit, Mich., for Consumers and Bechtel.
Richard C. Marsh, Clark, Klein & Beaumont, Detroit, Mich., for Bechtel also.
Daniel L. Garan, Thomas F. Myers, Garan, Lucow, Miller, Seward, Cooper & Becker, P.C., Detroit, Mich., for Mississippi Valley.
Roger F. Wardle, Edward D. Plato, Kohl, Secrest, Wardle, Lynch, Clark & Hampton, Farmington Hills, Mich., for Rex.
Consumers Power Company (Consumers) and Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel) (plaintiffs), have brought this action against Mississippi Valley Structural Steel Company/Debron Corporation/Bristol Steel Corporation/Bristol Steel & Iron Works, Inc. (MVSS), J.W. Rex Company/Rexmet Corporation (Rex), and Southern Bolt & Fastener Corporation (Southern Bolt) (defendants), alleging that the defendants supplied them defective reactor vessel anchor bolts for use at the Midland nuclear power plant. The plaintiffs' first amended complaint (complaint) claims that several of the bolts cracked, while some of the others were excessively hard and not in conformance with the procurement documents. Plaintiffs bring suit for these claimed defects under contract and tort theories; the latter claims being for negligence and breach of implied warranty in tort.
Consumers is the owner of the two-unit nuclear power plant located in Midland, Michigan. It contracted with Bechtel to design and construct this plant. In 1974, Bechtel entered into a contract with MVSS for the purchase of the reactor vessel anchor bolts and other materials for both units of the plant. Bechtel issued a purchase order for the goods to be provided. To meet the terms of its contract with Bechtel, MVSS subcontracted with Southern Bolt for the manufacture and heat treating of the reactor vessel anchor bolts. Southern Bolt manufactured the bolts but subcontracted for their heat treatment with Rex (Unit # 1 bolts) and Superior Heat Treating Company (Superior) (Unit # 2 bolts).
The reactor vessel anchor bolts were manufactured and heat treated by the above-named parties. After delivery to Bechtel, the bolts were embedded into concrete as part of the reactor vessel support system. The reactor vessels were placed into position and the bolts placed under tension to hold the vessels in place. In September, 1979, one of the anchor bolts in Unit # 1 was discovered to have separated. An investigation of the other bolts revealed some others had separated, while still more were excessively hardened. The excessive hardness of these bolts made them unacceptable for the purpose of holding the reactor vessel secure.
There are several motions now before the court. MVSS, Southern Bolt, and Rex have moved for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' tort claims of negligence and breach of implied warranty in tort. Rex has also filed a second motion for summary judgment on the tort claims. Finally, MVSS, Southern Bolt, and Rex have filed motions for partial summary judgment alleging that Bechtel is not a real party in interest.
For the reasons stated below, MVSS, Southern Bolt, and Rex's motions for summary judgment on the negligence and breach of implied warranty in tort claims are granted. This renders Rex's second motion for summary judgment moot because it dismisses all claims against them in this action. Finally, MVSS, Southern Bolt, and Rex's motions for partial summary judgment to dismiss Bechtel are denied.
The principal issue in these motions is whether in a commercial transaction, where all of the parties are businesses, the goods are specially manufactured items, and the only damages pleaded are commercial economic losses resulting from defects in goods themselves, does the UCC govern the transaction to the exclusion of all tort remedies? The court answers this question affirmatively, as have all other Michigan courts when faced with this issue.
Commercial law, such as the UCC, has developed so that commercial problems can be solved by businesses with predictable consequences. Noncommercial losses, which are not pleaded in this case, can result in tort liability. If plaintiffs had alleged that the defective anchor bolts caused personal injury or damage to other property, they could have sued for tort damages.
The legal basis for this court's decision may be found in McGhee v. General Motors Corp., 98 Mich.App. 495, 296 N.W.2d 286 (1980). In McGhee, the plaintiff purchased a used truck tractor from the defendant. While the plaintiff was working on the tractor's transmission, the cab fell from the frame to the ground and sustained substantial damage.
Plaintiff brought an action for damages and included a count of negligence. The negligence count was dismissed by the trial court and the dismissal affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals outlined the "economic loss" theory in its opinion:
Applying McGhee to the facts before it, the court finds Dean Keeton's distinction between types of dangerous conditions equally applicable here. Tort law seeks only to protect against harms to other property and persons; not damage to the goods themselves. The former is part of the accident problem and tort law seeks to allocate these risks. However, as Dean Keeton concludes, "if a defect causes damage limited solely to property, recovery should be available, if at all, on a contract-warranty theory."
While McGhee involved a suit by a consumer plaintiff against a manufacturer, the Michigan Court of Appeals has applied the same theory to suits between commercial parties. A.C. Hoyle v. Sperry Rand Corp., 128 Mich.App. 557, 340 N.W.2d 326 (1983). Hoyle involved a suit by the plaintiff company against a manufacturer contractor who supplied defective hydraulically powered motors. Plaintiff did not allege that the motors themselves were damaged by the defect, nor that the motors caused physical injury to persons or other...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Neibarger v. Universal Cooperatives, Inc.
...law concerns with economic expectations must govern." A similar result was achieved in Consumers Power Co. v. Mississippi Valley Structural Steel Co., 636 F.Supp. 1100, 1105 (E.D.Mich.1986), where Judge Joiner "[T]he tort doctrine of products liability is based on the policy of allocating t......
-
Stanton v. Bayliner Marine Corp.
...law); Richard O'Brien Cos. v. Challenge-Cook Bros., Inc., 672 F.Supp. 466, 472 (D.Colo.1987); Consumers Power Co. v. Mississippi Vly. Structural Steel Co., 636 F.Supp. 1100, 1112 (E.D.Mich.1986); Owen, Recovery for Economic Loss Under U.S. Maritime Law: Sixty Years Under Robins Dry Dock, 18......
-
Citizens Ins. Co. of America v. Proctor & Schwartz
...in tort. Neibarger cites both opinions with approval. This distinction was observed as well in Consumers Power Co. v. Mississippi Valley Structural Steel Co., 636 F.Supp. 1100 (E.D.Mich.1986), where the court quoted the following analysis of the United States Supreme ... When a product inju......
-
Michels v. Monaco Coach Corp.
...in negligence and not contract. Id. This Court disagrees with this conclusion. 7. In Consumers Power Company v. Mississippi Valley Structural Steel Co., 636 F.Supp. 1100, 1108-09 (E.D.Mich.1986), the court held that N. Feldman & Son, Ltd v. Checker Motors Corp. was "of no persuasive value b......
-
The Economic Loss Rule in Construction Law
...Seal Glass Co., Inc., 480 N.W.2d 623, 628–29 (Mich. App. 1991), citing Consumer Power Co. v. Mississippi valley Structural Steel Co., 636 F. Supp. 1100, 1106–08 (E.D. Mich. 1986). 64. Palmetto Linen Serv., Inc., 205 F.3d at 126, 129 (“sophisticated parties” in privity should have contemplat......
-
The Economic Loss Rule in Construction Law
...Seal Glass Co., Inc., 480 N.W.2d 623, 628–29 (Mich. App. 1991), citing Consumer Power Co. v. Mississippi valley Structural Steel Co., 636 F. Supp. 1100, 1106–08 (E.D. Mich. 1986). 64. Palmetto Linen Serv., Inc., 205 F.3d at 126, 129 (“sophisticated parties” in privity should have contemplat......