Precision Trenchless, LLC v. Saertex Multicom LP

Decision Date28 February 2022
Docket NumberCIVIL 3:19-CV-0054 (JCH)
PartiesPRECISION TRENCHLESS, LLC, ET AL., Plaintiff, v. SAERTEX MULTICOM LP, ET AL., Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Connecticut

RULING ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. NOS 246, 253, 254, 255, & 256) AND MOTION TO FILE A SUR-REPLY (DOC. NO. 309)

Janet C. Hall, United States District Judge

INDEX

I. Introduction 2

II. Background 3

III. Legal Standard 5

IV. Discussion 6

A. Granite's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 246) as to Precision's Complaint (Doc. No. 1) .............................................................................. 6
B. Saertex's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 256) as to Precision's Complaint (Doc. No. 1) ............................................................................ 13
C. Precision's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 253) as to the Insurance Companies' Intervenor Complaint (Doc. No. 67) ..................... 42
D. Precision's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment against MDC as to Personal Property Damages (Doc. No. 254) ............................................ 56
E. Ludlow's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 255) as to MDC's First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 92) ...................................... 62

V. Conclusion ............................................................................................... 87

I. INTRODUCTION

This consolidated action arises out of property damage caused by the failure of a newly installed pipe liner that was supposed to rehabilitate and reinforce an existing sewer pipe in West Hartford, Connecticut. The parties to this action are: (1) the Metropolitan District Commission (“MDC”), the specially chartered Connecticut municipal corporation that commissioned the pipe repair project; (2) Ludlow Construction Company, Inc. (“Ludlow”), MDC's general contractor; (3) The Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company (“Charter Oak”) and Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (“TPCCA”) (collectively, “the Insurance Companies”), [1] Ludlow's insurers; (4) Precision Trenchless, LLC (Precision), Ludlow's subcontractor; and (5) Saertex multiCom LP (Saertex) and Granite Inliner, LLP (“Granite”), the manufacturers of the failed liner. The parties have filed various multi-count Complaints and counterclaims against each other, as well as several Motions to preclude expert testimony. The court has addressed seven pending Motions to Preclude in a separate Ruling. See Feb. 28, 2022 Ruling on Motions to Preclude (Doc. No. 320).

Now before the court are: (1) Granite's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 246) as to Counts Two, Five, and Six of Precision's Complaint against Granite (Doc. No. 1) sounding in product liability, indemnification, and negligence; (2) Saertex's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 256) as to Counts One, Two, Three, Four, Five and Six of Precision's Complaint (Doc. No. 1) against Saertex sounding in breach of contract, product liability, breach of the warranty of merchantability, breach of the implied warranty of fitness, common law indemnification, and negligence; (3) Precision's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 253) as to all ten Counts of the Insurance Companies' Intervenor Complaint (Doc. No. 67) sounding in failure to indemnify, failure to defend, failure in performance, negligence, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, common law indemnification, failure to procure or provide third-party insurance coverage, and equitable subrogation; (4) Precision's Motion for Summary Judgment against MDC as to personal property damages (Doc. No. 254); and (5) Ludlow's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 255) as to Counts One, Eight, and Ten of MDC's First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 92) sounding in failure of performance, equitable subrogation, and common-law indemnification. The court also addresses (6) the Insurance Companies' Motion to File a Sur-Reply (Doc. No. 309).

II. BACKGROUND

The factual and procedural background relevant to this Ruling have largely been laid out in the court's September 22, 2021 Ruling on the Insurance Companies' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Precision (Doc. No. 102), MDC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Ludlow (Doc. No. 122), and MDC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Precision (Doc. No. 129). See Sept. 22, 2021 Ruling on Mots. for Summary J. at 2-10 (Doc. No. 310). Assuming the parties' familiarity with the facts and posture of this case, the court will provide only a short overview here.

A. Factual Background

On September 27, 2016, MDC, a specially chartered Connecticut municipal corporation, hired Ludlow, a Massachusetts construction company, as its general contractor to perform sanitary sewer rehabilitation on certain sewer lines within MDC's system. Ludlow subcontracted with Precision, a New York company specializing in the trenchless rehabilitation of pipes, to perform water and sanitary sewer main replacement on MDC's behalf. Precision, in turn, contracted with Saertex, a North Carolina company, to manufacture a liner to be used in the pipe repair. Saertex made the liner, then shipped it to Granite, [2] a manufacturer in Indiana, to complete the manufacturing process by infusing the liner with resin-a process referred to as “wetting out.” Precision installed the Type-S Saertex UV-liner with infused resin inside the existing sewer pipe on May 14, 2018. Less than five months later, on October 3, 2018, the liner collapsed, resulting in sewer blockages and sewer water backup into nearby homes and yards, causing property damage.

B. Procedural Background

Because the procedural history of this matter is detailed in the court's prior Ruling the court provides only a short list of its prior Rulings. See Sept. 22, 2021 Ruling on Mots. for Summary J. at 2-10. To date, the court has issued three Rulings on various parties' Motions for Summary Judgment and Reconsideration. First, on March 12, 2020, the court issued a Ruling on Ludlow's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Precision. Mar. 12, 2020 Ruling on Ludlow's Mot. for Partial Summary J. as to Precision (Doc. No. 89). Precision filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the court denied in a March 31, 2020 Ruling. See Mar. 31, 2021 Ruling on Precision's Mot. for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 99). Lastly, the court issued its September 22, 2021 Ruling on the Insurance Companies' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Precision, MDC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Ludlow, and MDC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Precision. See Sept. 22, 2021 Ruling on Mots. for Summary J.

Now, the court considers five Motions or Cross Motions for Summary Judgment.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

A motion for summary judgment may be granted only where the moving party can establish that “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986); Wright v. N.Y. State Dep't of Corr., 831 F.3d 64, 71-72 (2d Cir. 2016). If the moving party satisfies this burden, the nonmoving party must set forth specific facts demonstrating that there is indeed “a genuine issue for trial.” Wright v. Goord, 554 F.3d 255, 266 (2d Cir. 2009). A genuine issue exists where “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Cross Commerce Media, Inc. v. Collective, Inc., 841 F.3d 155, 162 (2d Cir. 2016). Unsupported allegations do not create a material issue of fact and cannot overcome a properly supported motion for summary judgment. See Weinstock v. Columbia Univ., 224 F.3d 33, 41 (2d Cir. 2000). In assessing the record to determine whether there are disputed issues of material fact, the trial court must “resolve all ambiguities and draw all inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.” LaFond v. Gen. Physics Servs. Corp., 50 F.3d 165, 175 (2d Cir. 1995).

[A] motion for summary judgment may be granted in a contract dispute only when the contractual language on which the moving party's case rests is found to be wholly unambiguous and to convey a definite meaning.” Topps Co., Inc. v. Cadbury Stani S.A.I.C., 526 F.3d 63, 68 (2d Cir. 2008). Under Connecticut law, “a contract is ambiguous if the intent of the parties is not clear and certain from the language of the contract itself. . . . Accordingly, any ambiguity in a contract must emanate from the language used in the contract rather than from one party's subjective perception of the terms.” Valente v. Securitas Security Servs., USA, 152 Conn.App. 196, 209 (2014); see also Cruz v. Visual Perceptions, LLC, 311 Conn. 93, 101 (2014) (“When the language of a contract is ambiguous, the determination of the parties' intent is a question of fact. Where there is definitive contract language, however[, ] the determination of what the parties intended by their contractual commitments is a question of law.” (citation and brackets omitted)).

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Granite's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 246) as to Precision's Complaint (Doc. No. 1)

Granite seeks summary judgment as to Counts Two, Five, and Six of Precision's Complaint (Doc. No. 1) sounding in product liability, indemnification, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT