Sun Chem. Corp. v. Fike Corp., Civil Action No. 13-4069 (JMV)
| Decision Date | 11 December 2017 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 13-4069 (JMV) |
| Parties | SUN CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. FIKE CORPORATION AND SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS INCORPORATED, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
Not for Publication
This case arises from an explosion that occurred at Plaintiff Sun Chemical Corporation's ("Sun" or "Plaintiff") ink manufacturing plant in East Rutherford, New Jersey. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Fike Corporation ("Defendant Fike") and Defendant Suppression Systems, Inc. ("Defendant SSI") (collectively, "Defendants") violated New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act ("CFA") when Defendants allegedly affirmatively misrepresented the characteristics of their product intended to protect against certain fires and explosions. Both Defendants, D.E. 167, and Plaintiff, D.E. 168, have moved for summary judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The Court reviewed all submissions,1 and considered the motions without oralargument pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b) and L. Civ. R. 78.1(b). For the reasons that follow, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED. As a result of the summary judgment decision, the Court dismisses the related Daubert motions as moot.
Plaintiff is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware. Plaintiff Statement of Material Facts ("Pl. SOMF") at ¶ 1. Sun is an international producer of printing inks and pigments, Pl. SOMF at ¶ 8; Defendants' Statement of Material Facts ("Defs. SOMF") at ¶ 9, and operated an ink production facility (the "Facility") in East Rutherford, New Jersey, Pl. SOMF at ¶ 8; Defs. SOMF at ¶ 10. Defendant Fike is a corporation organized under the laws of Missouri. Pl. SOMF at ¶ 2. Defendant SSI, a corporation organized under the laws of Pennsylvania, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Fike. Pl. SOMF at ¶¶ 3-4. Defendant SSI provides "comprehensive fire protection solutions through fire suppression, fire alarm and explosion protection systems." Pl. SOMF at ¶ 6. The explosion protection system that SSI sold to Sun is at issue in this case. Beginning in 2010 or early 2011, Plaintiff began considering a new dust collection system, including an explosion protection system, for its black ink pre-mix operations at the Facility. Pl. SOMF at ¶¶ 10, 13-14; Defs. SOMF at ¶¶ 19-21.2 Sun sought an explosion protection system, with isolation and suppression capabilities, for the new dust collection system. Pl. SOMF at ¶¶ 13, 47. In other words, Plaintiff wanted the explosion protection system integrated with the dust collection structure. Plaintiff indicates that it was aware of, but not familiar with, such isolationsystems. Pl. SOMF at ¶ 57 ( . Plaintiff contacted Faber Industrial Technologies ("Faber") concerning the dust collection system. Faber in turn asked United Air Systems ("UAS"), who manufactured dust collection systems, to provide information to Plaintiff. Pl. SOMF at ¶ 15; Defs. SOMF at ¶ 23. UAS also asked Defendants Fike and SSI to contact Plaintiff regarding the explosion protection system. Pl. SOMF at ¶ 15. In early 2011, representatives of Plaintiff and Defendant SSI began communicating about explosion suppression systems. Pl. SOMF at ¶ 16; Defs. SOMF at ¶¶ 22-25.
Between March and May 2011, and between March and June 2012, Defendants sent Plaintiff information and materials. Pl. SOMF at ¶¶ 25-26, 36, 44-47. First, on March 28, 2011, Defendant SSI sent Plaintiff two marketing materials: (1) a Fike Explosion Protection Application Profile for Dust Collection Systems ("Fike Profile") that provided a basic explanation of explosion hazards and dust collections systems, and (2) a Fike Protection Application Bulletin ("Fike Bulletin") which was essentially marketing information. Pl. SOMF at ¶¶ 25-29; see Defs. SOMF at ¶ 30-32. Both the Fike Profile and the Fike Bulletin stated that its products were in compliance with National Fire Protection Association ("NFPA") and FM Approvals ("FM") standards. Pl. SOMF at ¶¶ 32-33. Also on March 28, 2011, Defendant SSI sent an Explosion Protection Proposal (2011 SSI Proposal") to UAS that stated in part: "Per the requirements of NFPA 69 and 654, [Defendant SSI is] proposing" a specific type of system called an "Active Fike EPACO" explosionprotection system ("Fike System"). Pl. SOMF at ¶ 36. Faber incorporated the language that SSI sent to UAS into a Faber proposal form. Pl. SOMF at ¶ 38.
Faber then sent its proposal ("2011 Faber Proposal") to Plaintiff. Pl. SOMF ¶ 39; Defs. SOMF at ¶¶ 25, 35. The proposal included language that stated "[p]er the requirements of NFPA 69 and 654, we are proposing" a Fike System. Pl. SOMF at ¶ 40. Defendant SSI then sent two revised proposals to UAS and Faber on March 19 and 30, 2012 ("2012 SSI Proposal"). Pl. SOMF at ¶ 44. On April 3, 2012, Faber submitted its final proposal ("2012 Faber Proposal") to Plaintiff. Pl. SOMF at ¶ 45. The 2012 Faber Proposal stated, in part, that "[p]er the requirements of NFPA 69 and 654, we are proposing" to provide Plaintiff with a Fike System "to detect, and chemically isolate a deflagration originating in the Dust collector." Pl. SOMF at ¶ 45. A central issue in the case concerns Defendants' representations concerning an audible alarm as part of the Fike System. Plaintiff contends that Defendants represented that the Fike System had an audible alarm because it complied with NFPA 69. Pl. SOMF at ¶ 54. Plaintiff also claims that "Fike/SSI affirmatively represented to Sun (and all other recipients of these standard manuals and data sheets) that the Fike system had an audible alarm in the Fike Manuals and Data Sheets (the "Fike Manual") that were included as part of the SSI Engineering Submission dated May 30, 2012." Pl. SOMF at ¶ 54 (citing SUN00000007-37 at SUN00000193, SUN 00000195, SUN00000201, SUN00000244 (Exhibit 5)). However, in examining Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, the Court finds no mention of an audible alarm.3
In May 2012, Plaintiff purchased the new dust collection system that included the Fike System. Pl. SOMF at ¶ 60. According to Defendants' diagram, the actual dust collector was located on the roof of Plaintiff's Facility, while other parts of the system were inside the Facility itself. Defendants further assert that the Fike System was designed with an explosion suppression container for the dust collector on the roof. Defendants add that the only portion of the Fike System within the facility was the control panel ("Fike Panel"). Defs. Opp. at 3. According to Plaintiff's expert's diagram, the Fike Panel was located outside the pre-mix room, across an adjacent room. D.E. 131, Exhibit B (hereinafter "Murphy Report") at 27.
On September 14, 2012, SSI sent representatives to install the Fike System at the Facility. Pl. SOMF at ¶ 62. A few days later, on October 1, 2012, an SSI employee completed the installation process and gave an orientation presentation to Plaintiff's staff. Pl. SOMF at ¶ 66. Plaintiff claims that this orientation was inadequate in light of the fact that Plaintiff had requested a "more detailed training," after it bought the Fike System, on a form submitted to Defendants. Pl. SOMF at ¶¶ 63, 67-71.
On Tuesday, October 9, 2012, Plaintiff began regular operations with the new dust collection system. Pl. SOMF at ¶ 79. At approximately 1:10 PM on October 9, 2012, there was a loud noise followed by a small fire observed on top of a mixer in the pre-mix room. Pl. SOMF at ¶¶ 80-82; Defs. SOMF at ¶ 64. Two of Plaintiff's employees attempted to use a fire extinguishers to put the fire out, Pl. SOMF at ¶83, however, a larger ball of flames then materialized in the pre-mix room, Pl. SOMF at ¶ 84. The incident injured seven of Plaintiff's employees, who were in the pre-mix room at the time of the fireball. Pl. SOMF at ¶ 86. Plaintiff contends that the Fike System was supposed to include an audible alarm capable of being heard by workers close to theFike Panel. Pl. SOMF at ¶ 76. Plaintiff further asserts, however, that the injured employees heard no alarm. Pl. SOMF at ¶ 87.
After the explosion, a number of government agencies, including the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA") and the Chemical Safety Board ("CSB") opened investigations. Pl. SOMF at ¶ 102. Plaintiff was unable to use the Facility until December 10, 2012 due to the CSB investigation. Pl. SOMF at ¶¶ 104, 110. During the investigations, Plaintiff had other facilities manufacture black ink and ship it to the Facility so it could be distributed, adding additional costs. Pl. SOMF at ¶¶ 117-118. Although Plaintiff attempted to restore operations, Plaintiff ultimately shut down its black ink production at the Facility. Pl. SOMF at ¶¶ 113-114. Plaintiff asserts that as a result of the fireball, it was forced to pay worker's compensation claims for its injured workers as well as incur legal fees and expenses in related litigation. Plaintiff adds that the explosion destroyed $6,015.55 worth of raw materials, Pl. SOMF at ¶ 100, and caused Plaintiff to incur expenses cleaning the Facility site and transporting salvaged equipment to Plaintiff's other facilities, Pl. SOMF at ¶ 101. In total, Plaintiff claims that Defendants' misrepresentations cost Plaintiff $1,264,167.05 in workers' compensation costs, $1,976,471.66 in administrative costs, $227,162.45 in additional labor costs, $958,699.16 in distribution costs, $219,506.42 in property-related costs, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial