Hosp. Computer Systems v. Staten Island Hosp.
Decision Date | 01 April 1992 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 89-2305. |
Citation | 788 F. Supp. 1351 |
Parties | HOSPITAL COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff, v. The STATEN ISLAND HOSPITAL, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Joseph R. McDonough, Ribis, Graham & Curtin, Morristown, N.J., Barry R. Ostrager, Brian G. Snover, Nina J. Spiegel, Jennifer L. Klein, Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett, New York City, for plaintiff.
James B. Daniels, Friedman Siegelbaum, Roseland, N.J., for defendant.
This action arises from a contract entered into between Hospital Computer Systems, Inc. ("HCS") and Staten Island Hospital ("SIH") on September 26, 1985 ("the Agreement"). Under the Agreement, HCS agreed for a fee to provide SIH with computer software development and management services to create for SIH a custom computerized billing and accounting software system. HCS filed the complaint in this action in 1989, alleging that SIH breached the Agreement. SIH has asserted six counterclaims, three of which sound in breach of warranty and three of which sound in tort. Before the Court is HSC's motion for summary judgment as to all of those counterclaims.1 For the reasons that follow, HCS's motion will be granted as to the tort counterclaims and granted in part and denied in part as to the breach of contract counterclaims.
Sometime during the period 1982-83, SIH hired a computer consultant, Libra Health Technologies, Inc. ("Libra"), to assist in SIH's search for a computerized patient accounting and billing system to replace its existing computer system. Libra helped SIH to create a "request for proposals" that was distributed to a number of computer system vendors to solicit bids for a new computer system.
After all bids had been received, SIH narrowed its consideration to three vendors, one of which was HCS. In a report dated November 30, 1983, Libra advised SIH that, of the three vendors under consideration, HCS's was least suited to the needs of SIH. SIH attempted, but failed, to negotiate and execute a contract with one of the other two vendors.
Two years later, in 1985, SIH again contacted HCS. During negotiations, HCS represented to SIH that its system could meet the reporting requirements of New York state regulators and health care insurers, and could be customized to meet SIH's other needs. Ultimately, the parties entered into the Agreement on September 26, 1985. Under the Agreement, in consideration of services to be provided by HCS to develop and implement the system, SIH was to pay in excess of $20,000 per month as a "management fee".
On January 1, 1986, SIH "went live" with the HCS system. The system, which processed and stored data offsite through telecommunications lines, had many problems which HCS continually endeavored to correct. Over the next eighteen months, SIH paid in full the monthly management fee due under the contract. Apparently, the system continued to suffer from numerous defects during this entire period. Weekly meetings were held between SIH and HCS to discuss the ongoing problems. Problems with the system were compounded by changes in New York regulatory requirements imposed on SIH, which had to be incorporated into the HCS system on an ongoing basis. Not satisfied with the system's or HCS's performance, SIH hired an independent computer consultant, L.H. Titterton, Inc. ("Titterton") in late 1986 or early 1987 to evaluate the HCS system. After it completed a study of the system, Titterton concluded that the system's problems could not be fully remedied.
A luncheon meeting between SIH and HCS was arranged for May 22, 1987 by SIH's senior vice president Edward Messier. That meeting was attended by Messier, Gerald Ferlisi (SIH's vice president of finance), Lewis Titterton, and Joseph Fahey (HCS's president). At the meeting, the parties discussed: (1) SIH's dissatisfaction with the performance of the HCS system; (2) SIH's decision to merge with Richmond Memorial Hospital and its consequent need to consolidate the two hospitals' computer systems; (3) SIH's decision to try to obtain another computer system rather than to continue trying to make the HCS system work properly; (4) SIH's desire that SIH and HCS attempt to part ways amicably and that HCS assist in the transition to a new system; and (5) SIH's offer to consider a proposal by HCS for a "wind-down fee".2
Messier confirmed the contents of the meeting discussions in a letter to Fahey dated June 2, 1987. Part of that letter stated:
(Exhibit A, Fahey Affidavit).
(Exhibit C, Fahey Affidavit).
SIH did not respond to either the June 11 or July 2 letter. Instead, it continued to make payment in full each month under the contract for the next eighteen months. Unbeknown to HCS, during those eighteen months, SIH sought out, procured, and implemented a new computer system from Travenol Healthcare Information Services ("the Baxter system").
When the Baxter system became operational on February 1, 1989, SIH terminated its use of the HCS system, without prior notice to HCS, by disconnecting the telecommunications access line between the hospital and HCS's offsite data processing equipment. SIH also suspended all further payments of the monthly management fee and offered to return to HCS equipment located on site at the hospital. HCS commenced this breach of contract action in May 1989.
Summary judgment shall be granted if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see Hersh v. Allen Products Co., 789 F.2d 230, 232 (3d Cir. 1986). In making this determination, a court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-movant. Meyer v. Riegel Prods. Corp., 720 F.2d 303, 307 n. 2 (3d Cir.1983), cert. dismissed, 465 U.S. 1091, 104 S.Ct. 2144, 79 L.Ed.2d 910 (1984). Whether a fact is "material" is determined by the substantive law defining the claims. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); United States v. 225 Cartons, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Batchelar v. Interactive Brokers, LLC
...negligence claim under Texas law for negligent installation and design of computer software); Hosp. Computer Sys., Inc. v. Staten Island Hosp., 788 F. Supp. 1351, 1361 (D.N.J. 1992) (noting that duties "under ordinary tort principles" are imposed on software designers under New York law).4 ......
-
Dortz v. City of New York
... ... See also Lambert v. Genesee Hosp., 10 F.3d 46, 55 (2d Cir.1993), cert. denied, ... ...
-
Schweizer v. Mulvehill
...therefor — precludes a later action by a party to the contract for defects in performance. See Hospital Computer Systems, Inc. v. Staten Island Hosp., 788 F.Supp. 1351, 1357 (D.N.J.1992) (citing Village of Endicott v. Parlor City Contracting Co., Inc., 51 A.D.2d 370, 372, 381 N.Y.S.2d 548, ......
-
Aceves v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...455 (1984) ("detrimental reliance is not a necessary element of waiver, only of estoppel"). See also Hospital Computer Systems v. Staten Island Hosp., 788 F.Supp. 1351, 1357 (D.N.J.1992) (interpreting New York law, court held that a "party need not prove detrimental reliance to establish Eq......
-
Who pays the price of computer software failure?
...negligence claim did not directly relate to the quality of the product). (64.) See Hospital Computer Sys., Inc. v. Staten Island Hosp., 788 F. Supp. 1351 (D.N.J. 1992) (holding that a contract for the development of custom software, with data management to be handled off-site and under a mo......
-
Jay Alix, Mckinsey, and a Lack of Clarity
...note 28, at 218 n.87. 31. Id. at 218-19.32. Polelle, supra note 28, at 219.33. Id.34. Hosp. Computer Sys., Inc. v. Staten Island Hosp., 788 F. Supp. 1351, 1361 (D.N.J. 1992) (citing In re Estate of Freeman (Lincoln Rochester Trust Co. v. Freeman), 311 N.E.2d 480, 483 (1974)).35. Garden v. F......