A Del. Corp.. v. Sargent Electric Co.
| Decision Date | 06 August 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 45A04-0909-CV-524.,45A04-0909-CV-524. |
| Citation | 932 N.E.2d 691 |
| Parties | RAYTHEON ENGINEERS & CONSTRUCTORS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Appellant, v. SARGENT ELECTRIC COMPANY, Ryerson Tull, Inc., a Delaware corporation, formerly Inland Steel Industries, Inc., and Ispat Inland, Inc., a corporation, formerly Inland Steel Company, Appellees. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Edward W. Hearn, John R. Terpstra, Johnson & Bell, Ltd., Merrillville, IN, Attorneys for Appellant.
Robert Marc Chemers, Pretzel & Stouffer, Chartered, Chicago, IL, Attorney for Appellee Sargent Electric Company.
Raytheon Engineers and Constructors, Inc. (“Raytheon”), the third-party plaintiff in the trial court, appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the third-party defendant, Sargent Electric Company (“Sargent”). 1 Raytheon raises two issues for our review, which we consolidate and restate as whether the trial court erred when it granted Sargent's motion for summary judgment. We hold that Sargent did not breach its duty of care to Raytheon and that Raytheon is not entitled to indemnification from Sargent. Thus, we affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment.
On October 27, 1996, Raytheon entered into a contract with Indiana Harbor Coke Company (“Indiana Harbor”) to engineer, procure, and construct a coke battery plant (“the construction project”). The plant was to be built on property owned by Inland Steel Company (“Inland Steel”), which Inland Steel leased to Indiana Harbor. At the time, Inland Steel was wholly owned by Inland Steel Industries, Inc. (“ISI”), but, in 1998, ISI sold Inland Steel and it was renamed Ispat Inland, Inc. (“Ispat Inland”). In early 1999, ISI merged with Ryerson Tull, Inc. (“Ryerson”).
On March 17, 1997, Raytheon, the engineer and general contractor for the construction project, issued a requisition for four 225 kVA transformers. Those transformers were to have a “Wye Primary” and a “Wye Secondary” configuration (referred to as a “Wye-Wye” configuration). Appellant's App. at 767. The requisition for those transformers did not mention a “Delta” configuration. Among other differences, a Delta-configured transformer is not grounded while a Wye-configured transformer is grounded to a neutral. The requisitioned transformers were to be used “for temporary construction power.” Id. (capitalization removed). At the time Raytheon issued its requisition, Inland Steel had technical engineering guidelines (“TEGs”) in place “to provide the engineer with information to use when requisitioning products.” Id. at 501. Here, the relevant TEG required the primary winding for transformers to be in the Delta configuration. See id. at 717.
On May 7, 1997, Raytheon hired Sargent as a subcontractor for electrical installation. Raytheon and Sargent entered into a written subcontract for Sargent to provide “the materials, equipment and labor” required to install temporary construction and start-up power for the construction project, which included installing the four requisitioned transformers. Id. at 788. Sargent “represent[ed] that it ha[d] independently examined the site of the Work, ha[d] investigated and considered all of the conditions affecting the execution of the Work, [and wa]s fully capable of performing the Work under said conditions....” Id. at 789. Sargent also represented that it had “full knowledge, ... experience and resources requisite for the timely and practical design, construction, and/or operation of the Work and agree[d] to apply such knowledge and experience in the execution of the Work.” Id.
Although the subcontract was executed in May, Sargent had begun its work the preceding March. By April or May, Sargent had the 225 kVA transformers connected and energized. Sargent completed all of its work for the subcontract in July of 1997. At no point did Inland Steel or Raytheon inform Sargent of the TEG requirement that the transformers be Delta-Wye configured rather than Wye-Wye configured. Indeed, “Sargent was not involved in preparing any of the specifications for the transformers that were used” in the construction project. Id. at 834. To the contrary, Sargent merely “hooked in” the transformers “[p]ursuant to the drawings and the requirements of the specification” that Raytheon provided to Sargent. Id. at 431.
Immediately after the completion of Sargent's work, Raytheon hired 200-300 electricians to maintain the temporary transformers installed by Sargent. That work included moving, relocating, and retiring those start-up transformers. In mid-March of 1998, Raytheon's electricians disconnected one of the 225 kVA transformers and stored it in an open field northwest of Raytheon's nearby offices.
On April 26, 1998, a 500 kVA transformer that was Delta-Wye configured failed at the site. Raytheon moved the disconnected 225 kVA transformer from its storage field to the location of the failed transformer. There, Raytheon connected the 225 kVA transformer in the same manner in which Sargent had originally connected that transformer. On July 3, an electrical power loss occurred at the site due to the improper installation of the Wye-Wye configured transformer at the location of the failed Delta-Wye configured transformer. That power loss caused a blast furnace to lose power and spill molten steel onto the property, which resulted in damages to Inland Steel in excess of $25,000,000.
Thereafter, Ryerson and Ispat Inland filed suit against Raytheon, alleging, in relevant part, that Raytheon had negligently connected the subject transformer. Raytheon filed a third-party complaint against Sargent, seeking contractual and common-law indemnification. Ryerson and Ispat Inland subsequently amended their complaint to include Sargent as a defendant.
On January 2, 2007, Sargent moved for summary judgment. On April 4, the trial court granted Sargent's motion with respect to both Raytheon's claims and Ryerson and Ispat Inland's claims. In May of 2009, Ryerson and Ispat Inland settled their claims against Raytheon. The trial court accepted their joint motion for dismissal with prejudice on August 14. Raytheon then timely appealed the trial court's entry of summary judgment for Sargent.
Raytheon appeals the trial court's summary judgment for Sargent. Our standard of review for summary judgment appeals is well established:
When reviewing a grant of summary judgment, our standard of review is the same as that of the trial court. Considering only those facts that the parties designated to the trial court, we must determine whether there is a “genuine issue as to any material fact” and whether “the moving party is entitled to a judgment a matter of law.” In answering these questions, the reviewing court construes all factual inferences in the non-moving party's favor and resolves all doubts as to the existence of a material issue against the moving party. The moving party bears the burden of making a prima facie showing that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and once the movant satisfies the burden, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party to designate and produce evidence of facts showing the existence of a genuine issue of material fact.
Dreaded. Inc. v. St. Paul Guardian Ins. Co., 904 N.E.2d 1267, 1269-70 (Ind.2009) (citations omitted). The party appealing from a summary judgment decision has the burden of persuading this court that the grant or denial of summary judgment was erroneous. Knoebel v. Clark County Superior Court No. 1, 901 N.E.2d 529, 531-32 (Ind.Ct.App.2009). We will affirm a grant of summary judgment if sustainable on any theory found in the evidence designated to the trial court. O'Brien v. 1st Source Bank, 868 N.E.2d 903, 906 (Ind.Ct.App.2007).
Here, after Ryerson and Ispat Inland sued Raytheon, Raytheon filed a third-party complaint against Sargent alleging that any liability Raytheon may have to the plaintiffs was directly attributable to Sargent's negligent installation of the subject transformer. That is, Raytheon contended that because it had installed the 225 kVA transformer in the same manner in which Sargent had originally installed it, Sargent was the party ultimately responsible for the transformer's failure. In their subcontract, Raytheon and Sargent agreed that Sargent
shall protect, hold free and harmless, defend and indemnify [Raytheon] and [Inland Steel] ... for all liability, penalties, costs, losses, damages, expenses, causes of action, claims or judgments ... resulting from ... damage to property of any kind, which ... damage arises out of or is in any way connected with the performance of the work under this Contract....: except that said agreement shall not be applicable to ... damage to property arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of [Raytheon], [Inland Steel] ... or independent contractors (other than [Sargent]) who are directly responsible to[Raytheon] or [Inland Steel].
Appellant's App. at 763 (emphasis added). In its motion for summary judgment, Sargent asserted that it did not act negligently in performing its contractual obligations to Raytheon and that any negligence in the use of the subject transformer was solely attributable to Raytheon.
Thus, on appeal the parties dispute whether a genuine issue of material fact precludes the entry of summary judgment for Sargent on the question of Sargent's purportedly negligent installation of the subject transformer. 2 Raytheon's burden of proving that Sargent acted with negligence is well settled:
To prevail on a claim of negligence a plaintiff is required to prove: (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff; (2) a breach of that duty by the defendant; and (3) an injury to the plaintiff proximately caused by the breach. A negligent act is the proximate cause of an injury if the injury is a natural and probable consequence, which in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Nes Rentals Holdings, Inc. v. Steine Cold Storage, Inc.
- Komyatti v. Consol. City of Indianapolis-Marion Cnty.
- Mazurkiewicz v. Hodakowski
- Ind. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Everhart