Telang v. NVR, Inc.
| Decision Date | 30 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 19-1025 |
| Parties | RAHUL TELANG and ASHWINI GANDHE, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, v. NVR, INC. trading and doing business as RYAN HOMES, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
W Scott Hardy, United States District Judge
Presently before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment and brief in support filed by Defendant NVR, Inc. t/d/b/a Ryan Homes (“NVR”) in this matter (Docket Nos. 56, 58), the brief in opposition filed by Plaintiffs Rahul Telang (“Dr. Telang”) and Ashwini Gandhe (“Dr Gandhe”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) (Docket No. 61), and NVR's reply (Docket No. 64). In addition to the motion and briefs, the Court has considered the parties' concise statements and counter statements of material facts, and the appendices that were filed in connection with the briefs (Docket Nos. 57, 59, 60, 62, 63 65).
For the reasons set forth herein, NVR's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.
As the parties are well-acquainted with the factual background of this case, at this juncture the Court will present an abbreviated version of the facts relevant to NVR's summary judgment motion. Plaintiffs, husband and wife, are homeowners, and NVR is a Virginia corporation that builds and sells homes in Pennsylvania and other states. (Docket Nos. 57, ¶¶ 1, 2; 60, ¶¶ 1, 2). On April 23, 2007, Plaintiffs and NVR entered into a Pennsylvania Purchase Agreement, under which NVR agreed to build, and Plaintiffs agreed to purchase, a model home in Franklin Park Borough, Pennsylvania. (Docket Nos. 57, ¶ 3, 4; 60, ¶¶ 3, 4). After the parties executed the Purchase Agreement for the home, NVR built the home (the construction of which was completed in the fall of 2007), and Plaintiffs purchased the home from NVR on November 5, 2007. (Docket Nos. 57, ¶¶ 10, 52; 60, ¶¶ 10, 52). The model of Plaintiffs' home includes two furnace systems, one in the basement and one in the attic. (Docket Nos. 57, ¶ 11; 60, ¶ 11). As the model home is designed, the furnace/HVAC system in the home's attic sits on a plywood platform that is approximately six (6) feet by eight (8) feet in size, and a catwalk connects the attic opening to the attic platform. (Docket Nos. 57, ¶¶ 12, 15; 60, ¶¶ 12, 15). Blown insulation is installed in the space beside the attic platform opposite the catwalk. (Docket Nos. 57, ¶ 16; 60, ¶ 16). As Plaintiffs' home was actually built, however, Plaintiffs' attic platform measures approximately eight (8) feet by eight (8) feet, which is larger than the model's designed platform. (Docket Nos. 57, ¶ 17; 60, ¶ 17). Notably, Plaintiffs' attic furnace's return air filter access is located 63 inches (over five (5) feet) from the far end of the attic platform. (Docket Nos. 57, ¶ 20; 60, ¶ 20).
During the construction process, Franklin Park Borough (the “Borough”) conducts periodic inspections of homes as they are being built in order to assure that the homes comply with applicable building codes. (Docket Nos. 57, ¶ 36; 60, ¶ 36). One such inspection is a framing inspection, which here included an inspection of the passageway and platform that houses the furnace in Plaintiffs' attic. (Docket Nos. 57, ¶¶ 37, 38; 60, ¶¶ 37, 38). The Borough conducted a framing inspection of Plaintiffs' home on August 1, 2007, and that inspection did not note any deficiency with the framing of the attic, including the attic platform. (Docket Nos. 57, ¶¶ 41, 42; 60, ¶¶ 41, 42). On October 1, 2007, NVR applied for a certificate of occupancy from the Borough for Plaintiff's house. (Docket Nos. 57, ¶ 43; 60, ¶ 43). The Borough completed all required inspections of Plaintiffs' house and issued a certificate of occupancy on October 31, 2007. (Docket Nos. 57, ¶ 44; 60, ¶ 44). Pursuant to § 3(c) of the Purchase Agreement, Plaintiffs conducted a pre-settlement demonstration of the house with the project manager, and Dr. Telang acknowledged having signed a Pre-Settlement Demonstration Report. (Docket Nos. 57, ¶¶ 46, 47; 60, ¶¶ 46, 47). The Pre-Settlement Inspection Report noted that Plaintiffs reviewed the appliances and the attic insulation depth on October 31, 2007, and, other than noting that the attic steps lid needed to be touched-up and re-nailed, the report noted no other alleged defect in the attic. (Docket Nos. 57, ¶¶ 48-50; 60, ¶¶ 48-50). Dr. Telang does not dispute the accuracy of the Pre-Settlement Inspection Report. (Docket Nos. 57, ¶ 51; 60, ¶ 51).
Plaintiffs moved into their home in 2008, and from the time they purchased the home until January 28, 2019 - a period of over 11 years - neither Plaintiffs nor anyone else changed the air filter in their attic furnace. (Docket Nos. 57, ¶¶ 53, 54; 60, ¶¶ 53, 54). Prior to January 28, 2019, Dr. Telang did go into the attic between one and three times in order to change a light bulb. (Docket Nos. 57, ¶ 55; 60, ¶ 55). On January 28, 2019, Dr. Telang entered the attic to change the air filter in the attic furnace. (Docket Nos. 57, ¶ 56; 60, ¶ 56). According to Plaintiffs, while Dr. Telang was in the attic, he fell through the insulation and ceiling joists on the far side of the attic platform which, as noted, is more than five (5) feet past the location of the return air filter access. (Docket Nos. 57, ¶ 57; 60, ¶ 57). Dr. Telang landed in the home's foyer below, allegedly suffering various injuries. (Docket Nos. 57, ¶ 74; 60, ¶ 74; Docket No. 1-1).
When he went to the attic, Dr. Telang was accompanied by one of his sons, although that son did not enter the attic with his father and instead remained at the bottom of the attic stairs, so that son could not see his father in the attic. (Docket Nos. 57, ¶¶ 59-61; 60, ¶¶ 59-61).
Plaintiffs' other son was in the kitchen when Dr. Telang went to the attic. (Docket Nos. 57, ¶ 62; 60, ¶ 62). Prior to the accident, Dr. Telang had warned both of his sons not to step on any insulation in the attic. (Docket Nos. 57, ¶ 63; 60, ¶ 63). As he was ascending the attic stairs, Dr. Telang advised both of his sons that “there is a platform in the attic, and there is insulation,” and “you should always stay on the platform if you ever come up” to the attic. (Docket Nos. 57, ¶ 64; 60, ¶ 64). Dr. Telang also told his son that stepping on the insulation was dangerous. (Docket Nos. 57, ¶ 65; 60, ¶ 65).
No one saw Dr. Telang in the attic prior to the accident, and Dr. Telang has no recollection of what he was doing in the attic on that day. (Docket Nos. 57, ¶¶ 66, 67; 60, ¶¶ 66, 67). Dr. Telang has no recollection of the day of the accident, nor does he have any recollection of what caused his fall. (Docket Nos. 57, ¶¶ 68, 71; 60, ¶¶ 68, 71). Additionally, Plaintiffs' two liability experts do not know why Dr. Telang fell through the insulation and drywall ceiling to the foyer floor below. (Docket Nos. 57, ¶¶ 72-75; 60, ¶¶ 72-75).
Plaintiffs filed the Complaint in this case in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, on July 30, 2019. (Docket No. 1-1). On August 15, 2019, NVR removed the action to this Court pursuant to the Court's diversity jurisdiction. (Docket No. 1). The Complaint includes three Counts brought against NVR under Pennsylvania law: Count I -Negligence (Dr. Telang v. NVR); Count II - Professional Negligence (Dr. Telang v. NVR); and Count III - Loss of Consortium (Dr. Gandhe v. NVR). (Docket No. 1-1 at 9-15). Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages for injuries they have suffered, interest, and costs of suit. (Id.). The parties have completed fact and expert discovery. (Docket Nos. 57, ¶ 78; 60, ¶ 78). As explained, supra, NVR filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, which has been fully briefed by the parties, and the motion is now ripe for decision.
Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986). The parties must support their position by “citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1)(A). “[T]he mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-48 (emphasis in original). A disputed fact is material if it might affect the outcome under the substantive law. See Boyle v. Cnty. of Allegheny, Pa., 139 F.3d 386, 393 (3d Cir. 1998) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-48). Summary judgment is unwarranted where there is a genuine dispute about a material fact, that is, one where a reasonable jury, based on the evidence presented, could return a verdict for the non-moving party with regard to that issue. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.
When deciding a motion for summary judgment, the Court must draw all inferences in a light most favorable to the non-moving party without weighing the evidence or questioning the witnesses' credibility. See Boyle, 139 F.3d at 393. The movant has the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, while the non-movant must establish the existence of each element for which it bears the burden of proof at trial. See Celotex Corp. v Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). If the movant has pointed to sufficient evidence of record to demonstrate that no genuine issues of fact remain, the burden is on the non-movant to search the record and detail the material controverting the movant's position. See ...
To continue reading
Request your trial