Royal Indemnity Co. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.
| Decision Date | 15 October 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 72 Civil 375.,72 Civil 375. |
| Citation | 385 F. Supp. 520 |
| Parties | ROYAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Gwertzman, Sessler, Nagelberg & Pfeffer, New York City, for plaintiff; Max J. Gwertzman, New York City, of counsel.
Townley, Updike, Carter & Rodgers, New York City, for defendant; Philip D. Pakula, Joseph F. Kelly, Jr., New York City, of counsel.
Defendant Westinghouse Electric Corporation ("Westinghouse") moves for summary judgment, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in this action brought by plaintiff as subrogee of Public Service Electric and Gas Company of New Jersey ("PSE&G"). The controversy centers about the breakdown of a turbine generator manufactured by Westinghouse for PSE&G and installed at its Hudson generating plant in Jersey City, New Jersey. Plaintiff seeks to recover $475,800 which it paid to PSE&G, pursuant to the terms of an insurance policy issued in favor of PSE&G, for 127 days loss of use of the generator during the period it was out of service. The complaint alleges the breakdown was the result of defendant's breaches of contract, breaches of warranty, or negligent acts or omissions by Westinghouse in the design, manufacture, installation and testing of the generator. Westinghouse contends that it fulfilled its obligation under its contract with PSE&G by making the repairs without charge to PSE&G further, that in any event, under the express provisions of the contract, it is not liable for consequential damages which plaintiff seeks to recover in this action. The parties agree that in this diversity suit the substantive law of New Jersey applies.1
The following essential facts appear from the affidavits submitted on this motion. After preliminary discussions and correspondence which extended over several years, during which PSE&G received an option to purchase subject to cancellation, Westinghouse, by letter dated November 5, 1964, quoted to PSE&G a price of $10,125,687 for a 600 megawatt generator with stated specifications. That letter specified "standard conditions of sale as outlined in Westinghouse's Price List 1252 dated September 21, 1964 will apply." Price List 1252 was enclosed in the letter. PSE&G, by letter dated November 13, 1964, accepted the proposal. PSE&G, in its letter of acceptance, specifically noted "standard conditions of sale as outlined in your Price List 1252 dated September 21, 1964 will apply," and further, "the cancellation clause contained in your proposal of April 5, 1961 is hereby eliminated and this shall be a firm contract." (emphasis supplied.)
A further exchange of correspondence resulted in an increase in the unit's size to 620 megawatts, other technical changes and a price increase. Westinghouse, in its letter of January 5, 1965, proposing these changes, noted: "all other terms and conditions as stipulated in our letter of November 5, 1964 and your letter of November 13, 1964 remain the same." PSE&G accepted the proposal by letter to Westinghouse dated February 18, 1965, and also stated, "all other terms and conditions of the contract remain unchanged."
This exchange of correspondence so clearly defines the contractual relationship of the parties that it borders on the absurd for plaintiff, through its counsel who obviously is without personal knowledge of what transpired between PSE&G and Westinghouse, to argue, as plaintiff does, "that there was no formal contract" between the parties, but merely an option, negotiations and exchange of letters. The day is long past when a red ribbon and seal is required upon documents which contain the terms of the parties' agreements in order to validate such agreements. This agreement was reached after arms length bargaining, emphasized by PSE&G in its letter of November 13, 1964, that "this shall be a firm contract." It is no less firm because the parties did not thereafter sign a formal document containing "whereases" and "the party of the first part" and "the party of the second part."2 The attempt by plaintiff to defeat summary judgment upon its claim that there is an issue of fact as to the existence of a contract between plaintiff's subrogor and Westinghouse is so transparent as to require no further discussion in the light of the documentary proof referred to above. The court finds that Westinghouse and PSE&G concluded an agreement, the terms of which are set forth in the exchange of correspondence referred to above.
We turn to the provisions of the agreement to consider the respective contentions of the parties. The agreement of the parties contains warranty and limitation of liability provisions, which if enforceable are sufficient to defeat plaintiff's claims for recovery. Price List 1252 contains a warranty by Westinghouse that the equipment shall be free of defects in workmanship or material, and that Westinghouse would, upon notification, correct any non-conformities that appear within one year after completion of shipment or installation. It further provided:
Price List 1252 included by reference the conditions stated in Westinghouse's Installation Services Form 29282B. This provision, applicable to the services of a Westinghouse field engineer in connection with the installation of the unit, provides:
emphasis supplied
It is undisputed that Westinghouse made the repairs upon notice to it from defendant and without cost.3 Thus, under the clear and unambiguous provisions noted above, plaintiff's claims are foreclosed.
Plaintiff, however, seeks to avert the force of these definitive and unambiguous provisions upon a statement by its attorney that "there is no definite evidence that the so-called exculpatory clauses were ever agreed upon and that specific notice thereof was brought home to plaintiff's subrogor."4 To urge, in an effort to create an issue of fact, that these provisions were not "brought home" to PSE&G flies in the face of documentary proof. Plaintiff's subrogor, in its letter of November 13, 1964, specifically identified and referred to Price List 1252 as constituting part of the agreement between the parties. This was an adoption substantially in haec verba of Westinghouse's reference to the list in its letter of November 5, in which the list was enclosed. The salutary purpose of Rule 56 and its requirement that "affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, and shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence,"5 cannot be aborted by conjectures of plaintiff's attorney, who is without personal knowledge of the facts and is an incompetent witness on the subject.6 Lawyers for litigants cannot defeat one's right to summary judgment by "superinducing the idea" that a genuine issue of fact exists when one does not exist.7
Significantly, plaintiff has submitted no affidavit from any representative of PSE&G who, with knowledge of the transaction, challenges the integrity of the documents constituting the contract between PSE&G and Westinghouse. To the extent, then, that plaintiff argues that it did not agree to the terms referred to in those documents, its argument is foreclosed by the well-settled principle, tempered only by recent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dunn v. United States
...see Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, the Court may only consider facts about which there is no serious dispute. E. g., Royal Indem. Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Co., 385 F.Supp. 520 (S.D.N.Y. 1974). 3 I.R.C. § 162, 26 U.S.C. § 162 (allowing deductions from income for "ordinary and necessary expenses paid or i......
-
Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Distillers Co. Ltd.
...F.Supp. at 1308, particularly where the cries of unconscionability are made by large corporations, Royal Indemnity Co. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 385 F.Supp. 520, 524-525 (S.D.N.Y.1974); Boone Valley Cooperative Processing Association v. French Oil Mill Machinery Co., 383 F.Supp. 606, ......
-
Gladden v. Cadillac Motor Car Division, General Motors Corp.
...party would prefer. See, e. g., S. M. Wilson & Co. v. Smith Int'l, Inc., 587 F.2d 1363 (9th Cir. 1978); Royal Indemnity Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 385 F.Supp. 520 (S.D.N.Y.1974) (applying New Jersey law); Wille v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 219 Kan. 755, 549 P.2d 903 (Sup.Ct.1976); A......
-
Am. Elec. Power Co., Inc. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
...138 (1970); Wyatt Industries, Inc. v. Publicker Industries, Inc., 420 F.2d 454, 457 (5th Cir. 1969); Royal Indemnity Co. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 385 F.Supp. 520, 522 (S.D.N.Y.1974); Potomac Electric Power Company v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 385 F.Supp. 572, 575 (D.D.C.1974), rev......
-
CHAPTER 10 THE RULES OF THE GAME: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN TAKE-OR-PAY LITIGATION
...disfavor by the courts in cases involving disputes between merchants. See, e.g., Royale Indemnity Co. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 385 F. Supp. 520, 524 (S.D.N.Y. 1974); Equitable Lumber Corp. v. IPA Land Development Corp., 38 N. Y. 2d 516, 523, 344 N.E.2d 391, 396 (1976); K&C, Inc. v. W......
-
To Have and Have Not: the Application of U.c.c. Section 2-719 to Clauses Limiting Remedy to Repair or Replacement and Excluding Liability
...Few courts have even mentioned conspicuousness. Two cases mentioned bold headings. See Royal Indem. Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 385 F. Supp. 520, 525 (S.D.N.Y. 1974); Wille v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 219 Kan. 755, 764, 549 P.2d 903, 910 (1976). One case held that an inconspicuous w......
-
CHAPTER 10 APPROACHING THE DAY OF JUDGMENT: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN TAKE-OR-PAY LITIGATION
...disfavor by the courts in cases involving disputes between merchants. See, e.g., Royale Indemnity Co. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 385 F. Supp. 520, 524 (S.D.N.Y. 1974); Equitable Lumber Corp. v. IPA Land Development Corp., 38 N.Y.2d 516, 523, 344 N.E.2d 391, 396 (1976); K&C, Inc. v. Wes......
-
Negligence: the Construction Claim Panacea?
...Light Co. v. United Telephone Co., 458 F.2d 177, 179 (10th Cir. 1972). 41. E.g., Royal Indemnity Co. v. Westing-house Electric Corp., 385 F.Supp. 520 (S.D.N.Y. 1974). 42. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 143 Ariz. 368, 694 P.2d 1......