Pulte Home Corp., Inc. v. Ply Gem Industries, Inc.

• Decision Date: 22 September 1992
• Docket Number: No. 89-205-CIV-T-17A.,89-205-CIV-T-17A.
• Citation: Pulte Home Corp., Inc. v. Ply Gem Industries, Inc., 804 F.Supp. 1471 (M.D. Fla. 1992)
• Parties: PULTE HOME CORPORATION, INC., Plaintiff, v. PLY GEM INDUSTRIES, INC., Hoover Treated Wood Products, Inc., Johnson Controls, Inc., Georgia Pacific Corporation, Lowe's Companies, Inc., and its subsidiaries, including Lowe's of Florida, Inc., Lowe's of Georgia, Inc. and Lowe's Investment Corporation, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida

804 F. Supp. 1471

PULTE HOME CORPORATION, INC., Plaintiff, v. PLY GEM INDUSTRIES, INC., Hoover Treated Wood Products, Inc., Johnson Controls, Inc., Georgia Pacific Corporation, Lowe's Companies, Inc., and its subsidiaries, including Lowe's of Florida, Inc., Lowe's of Georgia, Inc. and Lowe's Investment Corporation, Defendants.

No. 89-205-CIV-T-17A.

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division.

September 22, 1992.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

M. Elizabeth Wall, Robert W. Boos, Stephen Wasinger, E. Powell Miller, E. Norma McKenna, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz & Cohn, Tampa, Fla., for Pulte Home Corporation.

Clifford L. Somers, Somers & Associates, James Robinson Lyle, Jr., Lyle & Skipper, P.A., Tampa, Fla., Jonathan I. Blackman, Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton, New York City for Ply Gem Industries.

John Eamon Johnson, Keith Eugene Rounsaville, Trenam, Simmons, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin, Frye & O'Neill, P.A., Tampa, Fla., Richard Kenneth Wray, Keck, Mahin & Cate, Chicago, Ill., for Johnson Controls Inc.

Raymond A. Haas, Boehm, Brown, Rigdon, Seacrest & Fischer, P.A., Tampa, Fla., for Lowe's Companies, Inc.

Barbara Wrubel, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, New York City, Debra M. Kubicsek, Langford, Hill, Mitchell, Trybus & Whalen, P.A., Tampa, Fla., for Georgia Pacific Corp.

John D. Shofi, Shofi, Smith, Hennen, Jenkins, Stanley & Gramovot, P.A., Tampa, Fla., Stephen W. Beik, Raymond Edwin Watts, Jr., Hannah, Marsee, Beik & Voght, P.A., Orlando, Fla., Gita F. Rothschild, Michael A. Tanenbaum, McCarter & English, Newark, N.J., for Hoover Treated Wood Products.

Michael Kent Houtz, Harris, Barrett, Mann & Dew, Tampa, Fla., Read K. McCaffrey, Patton, Boggs & Blow, Baltimore, Md., T. Gregory Slother, T. Gregory Slother, P.C., Griffin, Ga., for Osmose Wood Preservi.

Steven E. Siff, McDermott, Will & Emery, Miami, Fla., for Kaiser Agr.

Thomas John Roehn, Annis, Mitchell, Cockey, Edwards & Roehn, P.A., Tampa, Fla., Robert Dale Klein, Debra S. Block, Wharton, Levin, Ehrmantraut & Klein, Annapolis, Md., for Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp.

Thomas John Roehn, Annis, Mitchell, Cockey, Edwards & Roehn, P.A., Tampa, Fla., for Kaiser Aluminum Properties, Inc.

Steven E. Siff, Martha V. Sackley, McDermott, Will & Emery, Chicago, Ill., for Kaiser-Estech, Maxxam, Inc., Kaiser Agr. Chemicals, Inc., Vigoro Industries and S & P Investments Corp.

Raymond A. Haas, Boehm, Brown, Rigdon, Seacrest & Fischer, P.A., Tampa, Fla., for Lowe's Companies, Inc.

ORDER

KOVACHEVICH, District Judge.

This cause is before the Court on all pending motions, including the following:

  DKT. 756   Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment Lowe
                  DKT. 757   Memorandum in support of Summary Judgment Lowe
                  DKT. 758   Appendix to Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment Lowe
                  DKT. 768   Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Hoover Treated Wood
                  DKT. 769   Memorandum in support of Partial Summary Judgment Hoover Treated
                             Wood
                  DKT. 770   Appendix
                  DKT. 771   Motion for Summary Judgment Georgia Pacific
                  DKT. 772   Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum
                             Georgia Pacific
                  DKT. 773   Motion for Summary Judgment Georgia Pacific
                  DKT. 774   Motion for Summary Judgment Georgia Pacific
                  DKT. 775   Appendix
                  DKT. 776   Notice of Filing Motion for Summary Judgment Johnson Controls
                  DKT. 777   Motion for Summary Judgment Johnson Controls
                  DKT. 778   Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment Johnson Controls
                  DKT. 781   Motion
                  DKT. 782   Memorandum in support of Alternative Summary Judgment Johnson
                             Controls
                  DKT. 783   Notice of Filing Motion and Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment
                             Johnson Controls
                  DKT. 784   Appendix
                  DKT. 785   Appendix
                  DKT. 786   Motion
                  DKT. 787   Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment Pulte
                  DKT. 788   Motion
                  DKT. 789   Memorandum in support of Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment
                             Pulte
                  DKT. 790   Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment Pulte
                  DKT. 791   Memorandum in support of Motion for Summary Judgment Pulte
                  DKT. 792   Motion for Summary Judgment Pulte
                  DKT. 793   Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment Pulte
                  DKT. 794   Motion
                  DKT. 796   Motion
                  DKT. 797   Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum Lowe
                  DKT. 798   Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum Lowe
                  DKT. 799   Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum
                             Lowe
                  DKT. 800   Affidavit to support Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
                  DKT. 801   Notice of filing exhibits to Motion for Summary Judgment Pulte
                  DKT. 802   Notice of Appendix
                  DKT. 803   Appendix
                  DKT. 804   Notice of Appendix
                  DKT. 805   Appendix
                  DKT. 812   Notice of filing cases cited
                  DKT. 813   Response to Motion for Summary Judgment Pulte
                  DKT. 817   Memorandum opposing Summary Judgment Pulte
                  DKT. 827   Motion to file Summary Judgment Johnson Controls
                  DKT. 828   Exhibits
                  DKT. 832   Response to Motion for Summary Judgment Pulte
                  DKT. 833   Memorandum in Opposition to Summary Judgment Ply Gem
                  DKT. 834   Notice of Index
                  DKT. 856   Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment
                             Johnson Controls
                  DKT. 857   Memorandum in support of Motion to Leave to File Supplemental Motion
                             for Summary Judgment Johnson Controls
                

  DKT. 866   Supplement to Motion for Summary Judgment Johnson Controls
                  DKT. 880   Memorandum opposing Motion for Summary Judgment Pulte
                  DKT. 884   Memorandum opposing Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment Hoover
                             Treated Wood
                  DKT. 888   Memorandum opposing Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Pulte
                  DKT. 879   Settlement Agreement between Pulte and Lowe's
                  DKT. 919   Motion to Strike Johnson Controls
                  DKT. 962   Memorandum opposing Motion to Strike Pulte
                  DKT. 1016  Corrected Response Pulte
                  DKT. 1017  Memorandum in response to Motion for Summary Judgment Pulte
                

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1. Plaintiff Pulte Home Corporation, Inc. ("PULTE") is a builder of multi-family residential housing units. Pulte is a Michigan corporation with its principal place of business in Michigan.

2. Defendant Hoover Treated Wood Products, Inc., a subsidiary of Ply Gem, is the manufacturer of a chemical used to treat plywood in order to make it fire retardant. ("FRT plywood"). Defendant Hoover is a Delaware corporation.

3. Defendant Ply Gem is a New York corporation. It has one operating division and ten principal operating subsidiaries. On September 23, 1983, Ply Gem established Hoover as a wholly-owned subsidiary and entered into an Assets Purchase Agreement to purchase all the assets of the Wood Preserving Division of Hoover Universal.

4. On March 2, 1985, Hoover Universal entered into a formal agreement under which HVU Acquisition Corp., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Johnson Controls, acquired the stock of Hoover Universal.

5. On May 12, 1985, the original Hoover Universal was merged into HVU Acquisition Corp., which then changed its name to Hoover Universal, Inc. By merger, the new Hoover Universal assumed or succeeded to the liabilities of its predecessor, the original Hoover Universal. Since May 12, 1985, Hoover Universal has been a wholly-owned subsidiary of Johnson Controls, Inc. Hoover Universal has never distributed or manufactured FRT plywood while its stock has been owned by Johnson Controls.

6. Hoover Universal sold its FRT business to Hoover Treated Wood Products pursuant to an Assets Purchase Agreement dated September 28, 1983. Hoover Universal sold substantially all assets of its Wood Preserving Division but retained liability for all claims regarding products shipped before October 1, 1983. Liability for products shipped after September 30, 1983 is the responsibility of Hoover Treated Wood Products.

7. Pulte concedes that Johnson Controls, Inc. is not directly liable to Pulte. Johnson Controls, Inc. is a Wisconsin corporation.

8. Defendant Georgia Pacific was a vendor of FRT plywood. Georgia Pacific is a Georgia corporation.

9. Pulte has installed the FRT plywood for the use of roof sheathing in the roofs of over 1,000 residential homes. In its amended complaint, Pulte avers that the product, FRT plywood, is defective due to the fact it has deteriorated or will prematurely begin to deteriorate, resulting in a compromise of the structural integrity of Pulte constructed homes.

10. Pulte, having discovered the nature of the degradation of the roof sheathing, commenced an ongoing remedial effort to repair and replace the deteriorating roof sheathing.

11. Plaintiff has filed a multi-count Amended Complaint (Dkt. 15) alleging: 1) Breach of Express and Implied Warranties; 2) Breach of Warranties of Future Performance; 3) Breach of Express Warranties and Misrepresentation; 4) Negligence; 5) Strict Liability; and 6) Fraud.

STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This circuit clearly holds that summary judgment should only be entered when the moving party has sustained its burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact when all the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Sweat v. The Miller Brewing Co., 708 F.2d 655 (11th Cir.1983). All doubt as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party. Hayden v. First National Bank of Mt. Pleasant, 595 F.2d 994, 996-97 (5th Cir. 1979), quoting Gross v. Southern Railroad Co., 414 F.2d 292 (5th Cir.1969). Factual disputes preclude summary judgment.

The Supreme Court of the United States held, in Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986), "In our view the plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the...