R & R Insulation Serv. Inc. v. Royal Indem. Co. R & R Insulation Serv. Inc. v. Royal Indem. Co. Crane Co. v. Royal Indem. Co. Royal Indem. Co. v. R & R Insulation Serv. Inc.
| Citation | 705 S.E.2d 223,307 Ga.App. 419 |
| Decision Date | 15 December 2010 |
| Docket Number | Nos. A10A1537,A10A1540.,A10A1539,A10A1538,s. A10A1537 |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
| Parties | R & R INSULATION SERVICES, INC.v.ROYAL INDEMNITY COMPANY et al.R & R Insulation Services, Inc. et al.v.Royal Indemnity Company et al.Crane Companyv.Royal Indemnity Company et al.Royal Indemnity Company et al.v.R & R Insulation Services, Inc. et al. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Thompson & Hine, Seth Adam Litman, Leslie Joy Suson, Smith, Moore & Leatherwood, Edward M. Newsom, Atlanta, for Appellant.King & Spalding, Michael M. Raeber, William Lloyd Durham II, Jessica Eileen Sabbath, Cozon & O'Connor, Michael A. McKenzie, Jefferson C. McConnaughey, Atlanta, Baker, Donelson, Bearman & Berkowitz, Steven G. Hall, Karen D. Fultz, M. Yusef Mohamed, for Appellee.DOYLE, Judge.
On May 19, 2003, a fire occurred in an oven at a chicken processing plant located in Oakwood, Georgia, and owned by Wayne Farms, LLC. After the fire, Wayne Farms and its various subrogors, including Royal Indemnity Company (collectively “Wayne Farms”), filed suit against R & R Insulation Services, Inc., a company owned by Richard Robinson (“R & R”), and Crane Company (“Crane”), doing business as Crane Composites, Sequentia Incorporate, and Lasco Composites, LP, seeking $260,000,000 in damages resulting from the fire. In its amended complaint, Wayne Farms alleged that Crane manufactured Class–C–rated fiberglass reinforced plastic panels (“Class C FRP”), which were interior finish materials used in the Oakwood facility. Wayne Farms alleged that Crane failed to appropriately test the FRP in foreseeable end-use configurations specifically, installation using nylon rivets which resulted in the misrepresentation of the actual combustibility and flame spread properties and mislabeling of the product as a Class C interior finish. Wayne Farms contended that it relied on this incorrect labeling when installing the product in its Oakwood facility, resulting in the extensive spread of the 2003 fire.
Wayne Farms also alleged that R & R, which was contracted to install FRP in the Oakwood facility, failed to sufficiently warn Wayne Farms about the combustibility of the Class C product or adequately select and install appropriate material for the area in a proper configuration. Wayne Farms alleged that R & R should have selected and installed Class A FRP or installed Class C FRP using metal fasteners rather than nylon rivets, which negligence resulted in the extensive spread of the fire at the Oakwood facility. Wayne Farms also contended that both Crane and R & R violated the Life Safety Code by manufacturing and installing Class C FRP without appropriate testing to ensure that the product met that classification in foreseeable end-use configurations.
In Case No. A10A1537, this Court granted R & R's application for interlocutory appeal of the trial court's denial of R & R's motion for summary judgment. In Case No. A10A1538, this Court granted R & R's and Crane's applications for interlocutory appeal of the trial court's order denying the parties' joint motion for sanctions for spoliation of evidence. In Case No. A10A1539, this Court granted Crane's application for interlocutory appeal of the trial court's denial of its motion for summary judgment. Finally, in Case No. A10A1540, Wayne Farms cross-appeals from the trial court's denial of its motion for partial summary judgment on R & R's and Crane's affirmative defenses of comparative and contributory negligence and intervening or superceding cause. For the following reasons, we affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court's orders.
To prevail at summary judgment under OCGA § 9–11–56, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9–11–56(c). A defendant may do this by showing the court that the documents, affidavits, depositions and other evidence in the record reveal that there is no evidence sufficient to create a jury issue on at least one essential element of [a] plaintiff's case. If there is no evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue as to any essential element of [a] plaintiff's claim, that claim tumbles like a house of cards. All of the other disputes of fact are rendered immaterial. A defendant who will not bear the burden of proof at trial need not affirmatively disprove the nonmoving party's case; instead, the burden on the [party moving for summary judgment] may be discharged by pointing out by reference to the affidavits, depositions and other documents in the record that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case. If the moving party discharges this burden, the nonmoving party cannot rest on its pleadings, but rather must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue.1
Viewed in this light, the record reveals the following. Wayne Farms's Oakwood Facility was a “further process facility,” at which poultry was cooked, marinated, or otherwise processed and then frozen for consumer packaging. In 2002, the Oakwood facility had three indoor cooking lines known as Lines One, Three, and Five; the facility was experiencing issues with discoloration and paint flaking off the wall and ceiling finishes of Line Three, which potentially could have led to a plant shutdown for food contamination, so Wayne Farms began replacing the old interior finish materials on Line Three. Specifically at issue here is the replacement of the interior finish materials in the Line Three oven room. Wayne Farms's employees replaced the wall coverings in that room, utilizing Crane's Sequentia Class C FRP affixed with nylon rivets, but R & R was contracted to replace the ceiling of the room. Richard Robinson, the owner of R & R, visited the Line Three oven room when Wayne Farms sought bids for the ceiling replacement, and he deposed that the room was very hot, leading him to initially quote Wayne Farms a price for installing stainless steel on the ceiling in order to prevent discoloration of the product over time. This bid was rejected, and Robinson was instructed by Wayne Farms employees to rebid using FRP as the finish material rather than stainless steel. Crane manufactured the particular Class C FRP eventually installed by R & R and marketed it under the name-brand Lasco.
Randy Horwitz and Robert Carrodus oversaw the replacement of the wall and ceiling finishes in 2002. Horwitz was the operations manager and the senior employee at Wayne Farms's Oakwood facility, and Robert Carrodus was the maintenance manager at Oakwood; however, both men left their employment shortly before the fire occurred in May 2003. Horwitz deposed that he and Carrodus discussed using stainless steel as the replacement material for the walls and ceilings; however, because of time constraints and budget year concerns, plant management determined that stainless steel was not an option for the Line Three ceiling. Horwitz also deposed that during the process, he reviewed the technical data for FRP, which in addition to providing technical points for flame development and smoke point, contained a boxed warning that provided a statement similar to the following:
The numerical flame spread and smoke development ratings are not intended to reflect hazards presented by these products or any other material under actual fire conditions. These ratings are determined by small-scale tests conducted by Underwriters Laboratories and other independent testing facilities using the American Society for Testing and Materials E–84 test standard (commonly referred to as the “Tunnel Test”). THESE RATINGS ARE PROVIDED FOR MATERIAL COMPARISON PURPOSES ONLY.
Like other organic building materials (e.g., wood), panels made of fiberglass reinforced plastic resins will burn. When ignited, [FRP] may produce dense smoke very rapidly. All smoke is toxic. Fire safety requires proper design of facilities and fire suppression systems, as well as precautions during construction and occupancy. Local codes, insurance requirements and any special needs of the product user will determine the correct fire-rated interior finish and fire suppression system necessary for a specific installation.
Horwitz deposed that he did not discuss with Robinson the manner in which Robinson would affix the FRP to the ceiling and did not discuss with Robinson the use of nylon rivets versus other installation methods, but he directed Robinson to install FRP and to do so in a timely manner in order to avoid breaks in production. Robinson's invoice did not contain a breakdown of price for labor, the FRP, or any fasteners, but his prior work with Crane always involved the use of nylon rivets as the fastening product. Horwitz deposed that Wayne Farms did not install any metal capable of rusting, but this would not have excluded the use of stainless steel fasteners.
Horwitz deposed that at the time he worked at the plant, another cooked-poultry line was being upgraded by replacing FRP around a fryer with stainless steel because the FRP would warp from the heat and discolor to a light brown or yellow. Horwitz explained that he and Carrodus made the decision to replace FRP around the fryer with stainless steel because of issues with the FRP near heat. Horwitz deposed that approximately 60 percent to 80 percent of the plant walls were covered in FRP at the time of the fire.
Hector Rodriguez, who worked at Wayne Farms performing maintenance, deposed that he was directed by Bob Boren, who preceded Carrodus, to purchase and install FRP from various home improvement retailers, independent of R & R. Rodriguez deposed that Wayne Farms was installing FRP in the facility before R & R was contracted to install the material, and Rodriguez always used nylon rivets when installing FRP, which he decided to use because the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blondell v. Courtney Station 300 LLC
... ... likely to become dangerous." R & R Insulation Servs. v. Royal Indem. Co. , 307 Ga. App. 419, ... See also Dozier Crane & Machinery, Inc. v. Gibson , 284 Ga. App. 496, ... ...
-
Whitehead v. Green
... ... v. GREEN et al. White Pools, Inc. v. Green et al. A22A0797, A22A0798 Court of ... & Air Conditioning Serv., Inc. v. Statom , 309 Ga. App. 677, 679, 710 ... 24 See R & R Insulation Servs., Inc. v. Royal Indem. Co. , 307 Ga. App ... 61 Davis v. John Crane, Inc. , 353 Ga. App. 243, 251 (2) (b), 836 ... ...
-
Bellsouth Telecomms., LLC v. Cobb Cnty., A17A0265
... ... Telecommunications, LLC, and Earthlink, Inc., Earthlink, LLC, Deltacom, LLC, and Business ... or duty owed to the plaintiff); R & R Insulation Servs., Inc. v. Royal Indem. Co. , 307 Ga. App ... ...
-
Fletcher v. Water Applications Distribution Grp., Inc.
... ... R & R Insulation Svcs., Inc. v. Royal Indem. Co., 307 Ga.App ... ...
-
Insurance - Stephen M. Schatz, Stephen L. Cotter, and Bradley S. Wolff
...purchasing the vehicle, he was not a second 272. Id. at 371-72, 705 S.E.2d at 222. 273. Id. at 372, 705 S.E.2d at 222. 274. Id. at 374, 705 S.E.2d at 223. 275. Conklin v. Acceptance Indem. Ins. Co., 306 Ga. App. 585, 588, 702 S.E.2d 727, 730 (2010) (quoting Ga. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. ......
-
Georgia's Approach to Proportionality and Sanctions for the Spoliation of Electronically Stored Information
...App. 2002)); AMLI Residential Props., 667 S.E.2d at 154; R.A. Siegel, 539 S.E.2d at 878.121. R & R Insulation Servs. v. Royal Indem. Co., 705 S.E.2d 223, 240 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010) ("Dismissal is usually reserved for cases involving malicious destruction of evidence, which does not appear to b......
-
Product Liability - Franklin P. Brannen, Jr. and Jacob E. Daly
...at 897-98. 7. Id. at 510-11, 707 S.E.2d at 897-98 (internal quotation marks omitted). 8. Id. at 511, 707 S.E.2d at 898. 9. Id. 10. 307 Ga. App. 419, 705 S.E.2d 223 (2010). 11. Id. at 419-20, 705 S.E.2d at 228-29. 12. Id. at 428, 705 S.E.2d at 233. breached a duty through its recommendation ......
-
Product Liability
...Ga. App. 139, 140, 456 S.E.2d 661, 662 (1992)).105. Id. at 872, 756 S.E.2d at 690 (quoting R&R Insulation Servs. v. Royal Indem. Co., 307 Ga. App. 419, 428, 705 S.E.2d 223, 233 (2010)). 106. Id.107. Id. at 872-73, 756 S.E.2d at 690-91.108. No. 1:06-cv-3074-JEC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79250 (......