Skyline Air Service, Inc. v. G.L. Capps Co.
| Decision Date | 19 September 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-3081,90-3081 |
| Citation | 916 F.2d 977 |
| Parties | , Prod.Liab.Rep.(CCH)P 12,645 SKYLINE AIR SERVICE, INC., Plaintiff, Americas Insurance Company, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. G.L. CAPPS COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., Defendant-Appellee. Summary Calendar. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Dale W. Poindexter, Poindexter & Bowers, New Orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellant.
Jesse R. Adams, Jr., D. Russell Holwadel, Gordon, Arata, McCollam & Duplantis, New Orleans, La., for defendant-appellee Bell.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Before POLITZ, DAVIS and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
Americas Insurance Company (Americas) appeals the district court's summary judgment, entered pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), finding Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. (Bell) met the required criteria of a government contractor under Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500, 108 S.Ct. 2510, 101 L.Ed.2d 442 (1988).
Americas argues on appeal that: (1) the district court erred by considering a government contract other than the one under which the helicopter at issue was produced; and (2) genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the cause of the helicopter's crash was a manufacturing, rather than a design, defect. We AFFIRM.
In August 1985, a military surplus Bell model UH-1B helicopter owned by Skyline Air Service, Inc. (Skyline), crashed near St. James, Louisiana, during a log hauling operation. As a result, the pilot was killed and the aircraft was damaged extensively. The National Transportation Safety Board concluded that the cause of the crash was engine failure or loss of power. Americas Insurance Company, as subrogee of Skyline, its insured, filed an action for damages against, among others, Bell, the manufacturer of the helicopter.
Bell moved for summary judgment, asserting the government contractor defense, and included in support, among other items, a copy of a contract allegedly similar to the contract between Bell and the government for the helicopter at issue and the affidavit of Dan McCrary, vice-president of government contracts/pricing, a Bell employee since 1955. McCrary stated that: he had worked in contract administration for Bell for 23 years and supervised the production contracts for the UH-1B, UH-1C, and UH-1D helicopters which Bell produced for the Army under government contract; and he was "fully knowledgeable about the procedures followed in such contracting." The affidavit and contract further show that Bell was required to "strictly adhere to previously established, Government-approved specifications"; to follow government specified procedures to assure compliance with those specifications; and to design and manufacture the helicopter precisely in accordance with the specifications--"[n]o deviations to the specifications or drawings were permitted without Government approval." Americas offered no opposing evidence to these assertions.
The district court entered summary judgment for Bell and certified the judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b).
"Summary judgment is proper when, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact." Smith v. Xerox Corporation, 866 F.2d 135, 137 (5th Cir.1989) (quoting Bynum v. F.M.C. Corp., 770 F.2d 556, 576 (5th Cir.1985)); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). If the movant meets its burden by demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, then the burden shifts to the opposing "party to demonstrate through affidavits or other competent evidence that a genuine issue of material fact exists for trial." Xerox, 866 F.2d at 137. "Mere allegations or affidavits setting forth ultimate or conclusory facts and conclusions of law are not enough." Id. (quoting Bynum, 770 F.2d at 576). We apply this same test on appeal. Trial v. Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe R.R., 896 F.2d 120, 122 (5th Cir.1990).
Americas' first challenge rests primarily on Bell's failure to produce the contract under which the helicopter was produced. 1 This argument is unavailing.
In addressing this issue, we must first address the government contractor defense raised in the district court, which preempts state tort law in areas of unique federal interest. Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500, 108 S.Ct. 2510, 101 L.Ed.2d 442 (1988). The rationale is that: "It makes little sense to insulate the Government against financial liability for the judgment that a particular feature of military equipment is necessary when the Government produces the equipment itself, but not when it contracts for the production." Id. 108 S.Ct. at 2518. Both implicate the government's interest in "getting the Government's work done." Id. at 2514.
The Boyle Court thus held that "[l]iability for design defects in military equipment cannot be imposed, pursuant to state law, when: (1) the United States approved reasonably precise specifications; (2) the equipment conformed to those specifications; and (3) the supplier warned the United States about the dangers in the use of the equipment that were known to the supplier but not to the United States." 108 S.Ct. at 2518. "Boyle further held that the government contractor defense applies to both negligence and strict liability actions, as well as to other state law tort claims." Smith v. Xerox Corp., 866 F.2d 135, 137 (5th Cir.1989). Boyle does not require that the specific government contract be provided; so long as the movant otherwise establishes the above-described elements, the government contractor defense is available.
Recently, in Smith v. Xerox Corp., this court addressed a challenge similar to that raised here. In Xerox, the party opposing summary judgment argued that "Xerox failed to establish affirmatively that the government had approved reasonably precise specifications for the [weapon simulator] because the original specifications were never produced; Xerox only produced a set of modified specifications dated ... over a year after [plaintiff's] accident." 866 F.2d at 137. This court found Xerox nevertheless met its burden by producing a list of specifications, a copy of the original government performance criteria, and a production contract for a series of the weapon simulators specifically referencing government-approved specifications. Id. at 138.
Bell presented sufficient evidence to establish that the United States approved reasonably precise specifications, especially in light of Americas' failure to challenge any of the information or produce...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. United Technologies Corp.
...applies to negligence and strict product liability actions as well as to related state tort claims. Skyline Air Service, Inc. v. G.L. Capps Co., 916 F.2d 977, 979 (5th Cir.1990); Smith v. Xerox Corp., 866 F.2d 135, 137 (5thultimately be passed on to the United States government. Boyle v. Un......
-
In re Chateaugay Corp.
...Maguire v. Hughes Aircraft Corp., 912 F.2d 67, 68 (3d Cir.1990) (Army National Guard helicopter); Skyline Air Service, Inc. v. G.L. Capps Co., 916 F.2d 977, 978 (5th Cir.1990) (Army helicopter); Mitchell v. Lone Star Ammunition, Inc., 913 F.2d 242, 243 (5th Cir.1990) (defective mortar shell......
-
Miller v. Upper Iowa University, CIVIL 1:19-CV-00039
...Smith, 866 F.2d at 137). "Mere allegations or affidavits setting forth ultimate or conclusory facts and conclusions of law are not enough." Id. (quoting Bynum, 770 at 576). Picard alleges, but has not shown, that "but for" her age she would have been re-employed to teach her customary law a......
-
Scott v. MD Helicopters, Inc.
...the United States.” The defense extends to military surplus helicopters converted to civilian use. See e.g. Skyline Air Svc., Inc. v. G.L. Capps Co., 916 F.2d 977, 978 (5th Cir.1990) (finding the defense applicable to such a helicopter). MDHI argues that the U.S. Army's control over the Hug......