Mountain West Helicopter, LLC v. Kaman Aerospace Corp.
Decision Date | 09 March 2004 |
Docket Number | No. CIV.3:01 CV 1746(AVC).,CIV.3:01 CV 1746(AVC). |
Citation | 310 F.Supp.2d 459 |
Parties | MOUNTAIN WEST HELICOPTER, LLC, Long-Line Leasing, LLC, Helog AG and Heli-Air Zagel Lufttransport AG, Plaintiffs, v. KAMAN AEROSPACE CORP. and John Does I Through V, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
Robert S. Young, Robert S. Young, LC, Salt Lake City, UT, Timothy A. Bishop, Bishop & Jackson, Stratford, CT, for Plaintiffs.
Shaun S. Sullivan, Wiggin & Dana, New Haven, CT, Timothy Andrew Diemand, Wiggin & Dana, Hartford, CT, for Defendants.
RULING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
This is an action for damages in which the plaintiffs, Mountain West Helicopter, LLC ("Mountain West"), Long-Line Leasing, LLC ("Long Line"), Helog AG ("Helog"), and Heli-Air Zagel Lufttransport AG ("Heli-Air"), (collectively the "logging companies"), allege that a defendant, Kaman Aerospace Corporation ("Kaman"), designed, manufactured and sold a defective helicopter clutch to the Logging companies that caused two helicopters to crash. It is brought pursuant to the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practice Act, Conn. Gen.Stat. § 42-110b ("CUTPA"), and common law tenets concerning strict liability, negligence, breach of warranty, and misrepresentation.1 Kaman has filed the within motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), contending that the logging companies have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The issues presented are: (1) whether the causes of action brought pursuant to CUTPA, strict liability, negligence, breach of warranty, and misrepresentation are governed by the Connecticut Product Liability Act, Conn. Gen.Stat. § 52-572m ("CPLA"); (2) if so, whether the CPLA's provision that commercial parties may not seek recovery for commercial losses requires that the complaint be dismissed; (3) to the extent that the logging companies allege common law tort causes of action, whether those causes of action are barred under the so-called economic loss rule; and (4) does the language of the respective contracts under which the clutches were sold bar the logging companies' cause of action for breach of warranty.
For the reasons hereinafter set forth, the court concludes that: (1) the causes of action brought pursuant to CUTPA, strict liability, negligence, breach of warranty, and misrepresentation complaint are governed by the Connecticut Product Liability Act ("CPLA"); (2) the CPLA's prohibition against recovering commercial losses does not require that the complaint be dismissed; (3) to the extent that the logging companies have alleged common law tort causes of action, those causes of action are not barred under the so-called economic loss rule; and (4) because there is a dispute as to the contents of the contracts under which the clutches were sold, the court cannot dismiss the cause of action for breach of warranty. Accordingly, Kaman's motion to dismiss (document no. 26) is DENIED.
The complaint alleges the following relevant facts. On May 2, 1997, the defendant, Kaman Aerospace Corporation ("Kaman"), sold a model K-1200 helicopter ("Heli-Air helicopter") to Helog AG, ("Helog"). Heli-Air Zagel Lufttransport AG ("Heli-Air") operated this helicopter. On or about July 24, 1999, at the urging of Kaman, Heli-Air removed the free-wheeling sprag clutch assembly in the Heli-Air helicopter and replaced it with a new free-wheeling sprag clutch assembly ("Heli-Air clutch"), that was designed and manufactured by Kaman.
On September 13, 1999, during logging operations near Flirsch, Austria, the Heli-Air helicopter suffered a complete loss of power due to torsion overstress of the drive train resulting from the malfunction of the Heli-Air clutch. Following the power failure, the Heli-Air helicopter entered a steep descent and crashed. The crash resulted in minor personal injuries to the pilot and a total loss of the Heli-Air helicopter.
On or about May 20, 1997, Kaman sold a helicopter ("Mountain West helicopter") to Long Line Leasing, LLC ("Long Line"). Mountain West Helicopter, LLC ("Mountain West") operated this helicopter. On or about September 24, 1999, at the urging of Kaman, Mountain West removed the free-wheeling sprag clutch assembly in the Mountain West helicopter and replaced it with a new free-wheeling sprag clutch assembly ("Mountain West clutch"), that was designed and manufactured by Kaman.
On November 4, 1999, during logging operations near Emida, Idaho, the Mountain West helicopter suffered a complete loss of power due to torsion overstress of the drive train resulting from the malfunction of the Mountain West clutch. Following the power failure, the Mountain West helicopter entered a steep descent and crashed. The crash resulted in minor personal injuries to the pilot and substantial damages to the Mountain West helicopter requiring repairs of approximately $1,500,000.
On September 11, 2001, the logging companies filed this complaint. The complaint alleges that, in addition to the "total loss of or substantial damage" to the Heli-Air and Mountain West helicopters, the crash caused plaintiffs to: (1) "lose revenues and profits form their logging operations"; (2) "incur ongoing expense in the form of excess salaried personnel unable to generate revenue in the absence of the Helicopters"; (3) "lose the benefit of pilot training expense paid by plaintiff to Kaman for pilots trained in the Helicopters and unable to generate revenue in the absence thereof"; (4) "lose the benefit of a portion of the annual premium paid to insure the Helicopters"; (5) "incur increased hull and liabilities and/or workers compensation insurance premiums during the years following the crashes"; (6) "incur the expense of a deductible for the portion of the insurance risk assumed by plaintiffs"; (7) "incur the expense of ongoing interest charged, with no corresponding revenue generated, during the period between the crashes and settlement of the hull claims"; (8) "incur the expense associated with investigating the crashes"; and (9) "in the case of Helog and/or Heli-Air, incur the expense associated with replacing the Helicopter at the exchange rate that had significantly worsened and cost Helog and/or Heli-Air approximately $1,000,000 more than originally paid for the Heli-Air Helicopter." On May 30, 2003, Kaman filed the within motion to dismiss.
A motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) involves a determination as to whether the plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. Fischman v. Blue Cross Blue Shield, 755 F.Supp. 528 (D.Conn.1990). The motion must be decided solely on the facts alleged. Goldman v. Belden, 754 F.2d 1059, 1065 (2d Cir.1985). A court must assume all factual allegations in the complaint to be true and must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974). Such a motion should be granted only when no set of facts consistent with the allegations could be proven which would entitle the plaintiff to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). The issue is not whether the plaintiff will prevail, but whether he should have the opportunity to prove his claims. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957).
Kaman's central argument for dismissal requires a two-step analysis. First, Kaman contends that, although the complaint does not invoke the CPLA, it is, in fact, a CPLA cause of action and therefore is governed by the CPLA. Second, Kaman contends that, to the extent that the CPLA governs, the cause of action is barred under the commercial loss rule contained within the CPLA.
Kaman first contends that the causes of action for strict liability, negligence, breach of warranty, misrepresentation and unfair trade practices, "undisputably seek recovery under the Connecticut Product Liability Act." Therefore, the "complaint must be deemed to allege a single cause of action under the" CPLA. The logging companies do not respond to this argument.
"A product liability claim as provided [for in the CPLA] ... may be asserted and shall be in lieu of all other claims against product sellers, including actions of negligence, strict liability and warranty, for harm caused by a product."2 Conn. Gen.Stat. § 52-572n(a) (emphasis added). According to the Connecticut supreme court, this statutory language, generally referred to as the "exclusivity provision," "makes the CPLA the exclusive means by which a party may secure a remedy for an injury caused by a defective product." Gerrity v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 263 Conn. 120, 126, 818 A.2d 769 (2003) (emphasis added). In other words, "[t]he legislature clearly intended to make our products liability act an exclusive remedy for claims falling within its scope." Winslow v. Lewis-Shepard, Inc., 212 Conn. 462, 471, 562 A.2d 517 (1989).
Claims falling within the CPLA's scope include "all claims or actions brought for personal injury, death or property damage caused by the manufacture, construction, design, formula, preparation, assembly, installation, testing, warnings, instructions, marketing, packaging or labeling of any product." Conn. Gen.Stat. § 52-572m(b). More specifically:
`Product liability claim' shall include, but is not limited to, all actions based on the following theories: Strict liability in tort; negligence; breach of warranty, express or implied; breach of or failure to discharge a duty to warn or instruct, whether negligent or innocent; misrepresentation or nondisclosure, whether negligent or innocent.
In Gerrity v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 263 Conn. 120, 126, 818 A.2d 769 (2003), the Connecticut supreme court held that, in determining whether a specific cause of action falls within the scope of the CPLA, a court must...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Albers v. Deere & Co.
...of the French manufacturer of the helicopter since the American affiliate was a separate company); Mountain West Helicopter, LLC v. Kaman Aerospace Corp., 310 F.Supp.2d 459, 466 (D.Conn.2004) (tort recovery allowed for damage to a helicopter caused by a defective clutch assembly that waw re......
-
Raspberry Junction Holding, LLC v. Se. Conn. Water Auth.
...legislature [is] mindful of a distinction between property damage and commercial losses"); see Mountain West Helicopter, LLC v. Kaman Aerospace Corp ., 310 F. Supp. 2d 459, 465 (D. Conn. 2004) ("Connecticut [S]upreme [C]ourt has, in the context of other statutes, recognized a categorical di......
-
ALIKI FOODS LLC. v. OTTER VALLEY FOODS INC., 3:08cv626 (MRK).
...East River, 476 U.S. at 871-72, 106 S.Ct. 2295 (citations and quotation marks omitted); see also Mountain West Helicopter, LLC v. Kaman Aerospace, 310 F.Supp.2d 459, 465-66 (D.Conn.2004) (“[E]conomic losses resulting from a product failure are barred because they do not implicate the safety......
-
Grizzly Mountain Aviation, Inc. v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc.
...its argument that Connecticut law differed in this respect, Grizzly cited to the trial court Mountain West Helicopter, LLC v. Kaman Aerospace Corporation, 310 F. Supp. 2d 459, 467 (D. Conn. 2004). Grizzly claimed that in Mountain West, the court determined that when a component part alleged......