Nitrin, Inc. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.
Decision Date | 23 January 1976 |
Docket Number | No. 60934,60934 |
Citation | 35 Ill.App.3d 577,342 N.E.2d 65 |
Parties | , 18 UCC Rep.Serv. 629 NITRIN, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION, Defendant, and Foster Wheeler Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Richard J. Phelan, Matthew J. Iverson and Paul F. Hanzlik, Chicago, (Isham, Lincoln & Beale, Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant Nitrin, Inc.
Hackbert, Rooks, Pitts, Fullagar & Poust, and Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon, Chicago (Max Wildman, Harold W. Huff and Kay L. Schichtel, Chicago, of counsel), for defendant-appellant, Bethlehem Steel Corp.
Norman J. Barry and John J. Coffey, III, Chicago (Rothschild, Barry & Myers, Chicago, of counsel), for defendant-appellee, Foster Wheeler Corp.
Defendant, Foster Wheeler Corporation, a general contractor, entered into a contract with plaintiff for the construction of an anhydrous ammonia plant in Cordova, Illinois. Defendant retained Bethlehem Steel Corporation to fabricate the key component of the plant, a large pressure vessel known as a converter. The converter built by Bethlehem failed on two occasions and was replaced by plaintiff. This action was brought by plaintiff against defendant and Bethlehem to recover its damages. At the close of plaintiff's case the trial court granted defendant's motion for a directed verdict. The action against Bethlehem was submitted to the jury which returned a verdict in the amount of $4,769,907.50 in plaintiff's behalf. 1 This appeal is taken from the order granting defendant's motion for directed verdict.
Plaintiff contends that (1) the trial court erred in granting defendant's motion for a directed verdict since sufficient evidence, as measured by the standard enunciated in Pedrick v. Peoria & Eastern Railroad Co., 37 Ill.2d 494, 229 N.E.2d 504, was introduced to establish a breach of contgractual guarantees by defendant, (2) the trial court erred in denying its motion in limine to exclude all mention of its insurance coverage, and (3) the trial court erred in striking a count of plaintiff's amended complaint which was predicated on an alleged breach of the implied warranties imposed by the Uniform Commercial Code.
Plaintiff is a joint venture of International Minerals and Chemical Corporation and Northern Natural Gas Company. In August 1962 it contracted for the design and construction of an anhydrous ammonia plant which was to be part of an integrated chemical facility being developed in Cordova, Illinois. The contract price for the ammonia plant was $5,304,000. The anhydrous ammonia (anhydrous means without water) would be used in a variety of products, most importantly fertilizer.
Ammonia is a chemical compound consisting of hydrogen and nitrogen. In the Cordova plant the Casale process was the method used to synthesize this compound. Defendant was the exclusive licensee of the Casale process in the United States. The process is initiated by feeding hydrogen, derived from natural gas, and nitrogen, derived from compressed air, into compressors where the gases are subjected to pressures of up to 9,000 to 10,000 pounds per square inch. The compressors are located adjacent to the converter. The gases are then piped under this high pressure to the converter. They enter the vessel through a horizontal inlet bore in the bottom closure. The horizontal bore joins a vertical 'uptake' bore which directs the gases to the 'internals' of the converter. It is here, in the presence of a catalyst, that the gases react to produce ammonia. A catalyst is a substance which facilitates a chemical reaction but which does not enter into that reaction. In the next stage of the process, the ammonia gas is piped to a unit designed to condense it into anhydrous ammonia liquid, the final product. The production of ammonia is a continuous process. The plant, while in production, was in operation 24 hours a day.
Defendant retained Bethlehem Steel Company (hereinafter Bethlehem) to fabricate the converter used in plaintiff's plant. The vessel built by Bethlehem was six feet in diameter, 70 feet in height and 270 tons in weight. It was delivered to the plant site in August 1963. On October 1, 1963, plaintiff took over care, custody and control of the plant. The next several months were a shakedown period for the facility. Production tests were conducted and completed in July 1964 following which plaintiff formally accepted the plant. At the conclusion of these production tests the facility was producing 415 to 420 tons of ammonia per day; the contract guaranteed a production rate of 400 tons per day.
On October 3, 1964, a crack developed in the inlet bore in the bottom of the converter, and the plant was shut down. An inspection of the bottom closure revealed that the junction of the horizontal and vertical portions of the inlet bore formed a 'sharp corner.' Substantial 'rough machining' was found in the immediate vicinity of the sharp corner in the bore. Representatives of plaintiff, plaintiff's insurer, defendant and Bethlehem met at the Cordova plant to discuss means of putting the facility back in operation. At the conclusion of these meetings, at the urging of, among others, its insurer, plaintiff decided to repair the vessel by 'field welding.' The portion of the vessel containing the crack was cut away, and the void was filled by welding. The plant was placed back in operation on January 16, 1965. Contemporaneously with the completion of repairs, a replacement converter was ordered from the Chicago Bridge & Iron Company (hereinafter Chicago Bridge & Iron). The original vessel failed a second time in October 1966 and was scrapped. The replacement converter was placed in operation in December 1966.
Plaintiff brought suit in contract and tort against defendant and Bethlehem to reocver damages caused by the failure of the pressure vessel. The suit was originally filed in 1967 as cause No. 67 L 12356. It was refiled in 1972 as cause No. 72 L 8456. In cause No. 72 L 8456 three amended complaints were filed. Count V of the first amended complaint alleged that defendant impliedly warranted, pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code, that the pressure vessel would be fit for the purpose intended and would meeet an implied warranty of merchantability. Defendant moved that this count be stricken, arguing that its contract with plaintiff was not a contract for the sale of goods and therefore was not within the purview of the Uniform Commercial Code. The court granted defendant's motion.
Plaintiff's third amended complaint directed three counts against defendant. All three counts prayed that a judgment in the amount of $1,640,351 be entered against defendant for direct damages incurred by plaintiff. Counts IV and VI alleged negligence and willful and wanton misconduct, respectively, by defendant in the design of the converter. Plaintiff dropped these two counts prior to trial following the denial of its motion in limine to prohibit the intorduction of evidence regarding its insurance coverage.
Count V contained the allegation that defendant had breached its guarantees in Section 5.3 of the contract, which provides:
2
Defendant asserted two affirmative defenses, (1) that after the crack in the converter was first discovered, plaintiff had the option of having it repaired in the field or having it shipped to Bethlehem's mill in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, for replacement of its 'bottom head'; that defendant advised plaintiff that the success of field repair was doubtful; that notwithstanding this advice, at the urging of its insurance carrier, plaintiff elected to proceed with field repairs, and that in so doing plaintiff waived any claim to recover for damages caused by the failure of the repaired converter, and (2) that plaintiff had obtained insurance to cover the losses which were the subject of the complaint; that the suit was in reality a subrogation action; that under Section 8.9 of the contract plaintiff agreed to waive subrogation and that, therefore, the contract barred plaintiff's claim. Section 8.9 provides:
'When the plant is ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Quake Const., Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc.
...matter of law (see Interway, Inc. v. Alagna (1980), 85 Ill.App.3d 1094, 41 Ill.Dec. 117, 407 N.E.2d 615; Nitrin, Inc. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. (1976), 35 Ill.App.3d 577, 342 N.E.2d 65), and absent ambiguity, the parties' intent cannot be discerned from parol evidence beyond the four corners......
-
Stevenson v. ITT Harper, Inc., 76-1296
...The agreement is clear and unambiguous so that construction thereof is neither necessary nor proper. (Nitrin, Inc. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. (1976), 35 Ill.App.3d 577, 594, 342 N.E.2d 65, leave to appeal denied, 63 Ill.2d 552. See also the cases cited in Terracom Dev. Group, Inc. v. Coleman ......
-
Terracom Development Group, Inc. v. Coleman Cable & Wire Co.
...from ambiguity then the intention of the parties must be determined solely from the language used. (Nitrin, Inc. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. (1976), 35 Ill.App.3d 577, 594, 342 N.E.2d 65, leave to appeal denied, 63 Ill.2d 552, citing Schek v. Chicago Transit Auth. (1969), 42 Ill.2d 362, 364, 2......
-
Weber v. Weber
...determined from the instrument itself and the use of parol evidence is neither necessary nor proper. Nitrin, Inc. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. (1976), 35 Ill.App.3d 577, 594, 342 N.E.2d 65, Appeal denied, 63 Ill.2d 552, citing Schek v. Chicago Transit Authority (1969), 42 Ill.2d 362, 364, 247 N......