John Zink Company LLC v. Industrial Boiler and Mechanical Inc
Filing
44
ORDER denying 24 Motion for Summary Judgment and summary judgment will be entered in favor of the Defendant. Signed by Honorable David L. Russell on 6/7/12. (kw, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JOHN ZINK COMPANY, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
INDUSTRIAL BOILER AND
MECHANICAL, CO., INC.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-11-90-R
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by
Plaintiff, John Zink Company, LLC., pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.
Defendant responded in opposition to the motion.
Having considered the parties'
submissions, the Court finds as follows.
In 2004, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a Distributorship Agreement whereby
Defendant accepted an appointment as the exclusive authorized distributor of all John Zink
manufactured Gordon-Piatt brand catalogued products for the state of Georgia. Pursuant to
the agreement Defendant was appointed the exclusive distributor and was obligated to use
its best efforts to promote, sell and distribute the product. Defendant was required to
cooperate with John Zink in marketing of the product, to maintain inventory, and have
properly trained staff, equipment and facilities to carry out its distributorship obligations.
John Zink's obligations included using reasonable efforts to supply the products ordered by
Defendant and providing current literature and operating data. The agreement provided that
Defendant's compensation would be derived from resale of the Zink products. The
Distributorship Agreement also contained an indemnity clause:
15. Indemnification. DISTRIBUTOR SHALL TO THE FULLEST
EXTENT ALLOWED BY APPLICABLE LAWS, AT ITS OWN COST AND
EXPENSE, DEFEND, INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS JOHN ZINK
AND ITS AFFILIATES, SUBSIDIARIES, OFFICERS, DIRECTORS,
EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS, AND THEIR SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS
(COLLECTIVELY, "INDEMNITEES"), AGAINST ALL DAMAGES,
LOSSES, COSTS, CLAIMS, STRICT LIABILITY CLAIMS, LIENS,
ENCUMBRANCES, LIABILITIES, AND EXPENSES, INCLUDING
ATTORNEYS' FEES, (COLLECTIVELY, "DAMAGES/LIABILITY")
ARISING OUT OF OR RESULTING FROM DISTRIBUTOR'S ACTS OR
OMISSION OR THIS CONTRACT, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SUCH
DAMAGES/LIABILITY ARE CAUSED BY THE NEGLIGENCE OF
INDEMNITEES, BUT EXCLUDING DAMAGES/LIABILITY TO THE
EXTENT CAUSED BY THE SOLE NEGLIGENCE OF THE
INDEMNITEES.
In 2005 the agreement was modified to increase the geographic scope of Defendant's
exclusive territory.
On January 14, 2008, an accident occurred at the Pilgrim's Pride Poultry Processing
Plan in Gainesville, Georgia. The accident occurred while Defendant's employee, Marc
Beck, was performing work on boiler #2 at the Pilgrim's Pride plant, which was equipped
with a Gordon-Piatt burner manufactured by John Zink. The work was being performed
pursuant to a 2005 contract between Industrial Boiler and Mechanical and Pilgrim's Pride.
The boiler, which was equipped to operate on either natural as or Number 2 fuel oil, was
being converted to run on Number 2 fuel.. Unbeknownst to Mr. Beck, a prior sub-contractor
of Defendant Industrial Boiler and Mechanical, had reversed the supply and return lines on
the burner, causing it to intake vast quantities of fuel, which ultimately exploded due to the
2
heat of the boiler. The Georgia Department of Labor's investigation indicated:
Completed laboratory tests have identified that the #2 fuel oil burner input and
return piping were reversed, and that the nozzle screens were partially clogged.
In those laboratory tests it was identified that these conditions combined to
crate "atomization was noted as being less than optimal with extensive
streaming of fuel and a delivery rate 10 times that for the same nozzle being
plumbed properly." This input spray of fuel went beyond the igniter zone,
resulting in excess fuel accumulation. After 4 or 5 attempts the latent heat of
the boiler surface, approximately 350 degrees, apparently caused enough
vaporization of the oil that it reached the igniter zone and resulted in ignition
of the excessive amount of vapor (the explosion).
Mr. Beck was severely injured in the accident. It is undisputed that Mr. Beck failed to follow
company policies and procedures or industry standards and procedures on January 14 ,2008,
which contributed to the accident.
Thereafter Plaintiff Zink was sued in state court in Georgia in two separate actions,
one by Pilgrim's Pride, for damage to their facility, and one by Marc Beck's mother, on his
behalf. The underlying state court litigation alleged, in both cases, that John Zink Company
was strictly liable for defective design and manufacture of the Gordon Piatt burner, because
the oil inlet and oil return connections were identical and not clearly marked "supply" and
"return," which made it possible for the lines to be reversed. Plaintiffs in both cases also
alleged breach of warranty and negligence by John Zink. Defendant Industrial Boiler and
its employee were alleged to have been negligent in performing maintenance on the boiler
in the suit by Pilgrim's Pride.
Plaintiff seeks to recoup from Defendant the costs of defending and settling the state
court actions and for the cost of pursuing indemnification in this action. Defendant contends
3
that the incident upon which both state court actions was premised was not related to its
Distributorship Agreement with Plaintiff, and therefore, the provisions of the indemnity
clause do not apply. The parties raise additional arguments in support of their respective
contentions, but because the Court concludes that the claims pursued in the state court actions
fell outside the scope of the Distributorship Agreement, it need not consider those arguments.
Agreements to indemnify a party against its own negligence or liability are strictly
construed. See Transpower Constructors v. Grand River Dam Auth., 905 F.2d 1413, 1420
(10th Cir.1990) (applying Oklahoma law). “To be enforceable, the agreement must meet the
following three conditions: (1) the parties must express their intent to exculpate in
unequivocally clear language; (2) the agreement must result from an arm's-length transaction
between parties of equal bargaining power; and (3) the exculpation must not violate public
policy.” Id. (citing Fretwell v. Protection Alarm Co., 1988 OK 84, ¶ 12, 764 P.2d 149, 152).
Noble Steel, Inc. v.. Williams Brothers Concrete Const., 49 P.3d 766 (Okla.Civ.App. 2002)).
In a letter dated September 20, 2010, demanding indemnity from Defendant, Plaintiff's
counsel noted that "[i]t is undisputed that at the time of the accident Mr. Beck was working
on a Gordon-Piatt brand burner in the course and scope of his employment for Industrial
Boiler as the Distributor's designated agent and employee, Mr. Beck's acts or omission were
those of Industrial Boiler." The shortcoming in this theory, which mirrors Plaintiff's
summary judgment argument, is that the Gordon-Piatt burner upon which Mr. Beck was
performing maintenance was not distributed by Defendant, it was not originally sold or
installed at the Pilgrim's Pride facility by Defendant or pursuant to the Distributorship
4
Agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant.1 The evidence presented indicates Mr. Beck
was not utilizing Gordon-Piatt parts on the work he was performing, and the work was being
done pursuant to an entirely separate and independent contract between Industrial Boiler and
Pilgrim's Pride.2 "However broad may be the terms of a contract, it extends only to those
things concerning which it appears that the parties intended to contract." Okla. Stat. Tit. 15
§ 164. In this case, the facts established do not indicate that Defendant was engaged in any
work under the 2004 or 2005 Distributorship Agreement at the time of the accident or that
Mr. Beck's work was even relevant to the Distributorship Agreement.
Plaintiff
acknowledges Defendant's contention that because the burner was sold prior to execution of
the Distributorship Agreement, that it is excluded from coverage thereunder. Plaintiff
contends however, that because the Distributorship Agreement "expressly contemplated
IB&M's sale of replacement parts, which inevitably would be used to service burners" and
because "IB&M installed these replacement parts," that the indemnity provision of the
contract applies. Reply at p. 3. As noted above, however, there is no evidence that any
replacement parts distributed by Defendant under the Distributorship Agreement were
involved in the 2008 accident such that the claims could conceivably fall under the umbrella
1
The burner was originally installed on one boiler and in 2005 or 2006 it was removed from that
boiler and installed on the #2 boiler. The reinstallation of the old burner was undertaken by a sub-contractor
of Defendant Industrial Boiler.
2
Mr. Beck's notes indicate he was using Asco parts.
5
of the Distributorship Agreement.3 Additionally, there is nothing in the contract to indicates
that the parties contemplated that Defendant would actually be servicing boilers and burners
with Plaintiff's parts, rather than merely selling Plaintiff's parts.4 Regardless, there is no
evidence that a single part or component distributed pursuant to the Distributorship
Agreement was involved in the 2008 accident. To enforce the provisions as suggested by
Plaintiff would required the Court to remove the indemnity provision from its context within
the Distributorship Agreement, making Defendant's presence under its Pilgrim's Pride
contract at the time of the accident fortuitous for the Plaintiff.
Because there is no evidence that Defendant was functioning in its capacity as
distributor under the agreement at the time of Mr. Beck's injuries, i.e. it sold and installed the
wrong part to Pilgrim's Pride which part caused Mr. Beck's injuries, and because there is no
evidence that the product manufactured by Plaintiff and alleged by the two plaintiffs in the
underlying state court litigation to be defective was part of either the 2004 or 2005
Distributorship Agreement, the Court finds that Defendant is entitled to summary judgment
as requested in its sur-reply in response to Plaintiff's motion, and that Plaintiff's Motion for
3
In an affidavit attached to the Reply brief Plaintiff's employee Casey Chambers indicates that in
2006 Defendant received a combustion head and components and blower wheel and components from
Plaintiff for the burner involved in the 2008 accident. There is, however, no allegation or evidence that these
parts or the installation of these parts was implicated in the accident.
4
The only even remotely related provision of the Distributorship Agreement provided that Defendant
was obligated to maintain "sufficient and properly trained staff, equipment and facilities to carry out its
obligations under this Agreement." The Agreement, however, called for the sales of product supplied by John
Zink, not performance of any work. Accordingly, it would be Defendant's responsibility to sell the
appropriate parts manufactured by Plaintiff, not to actually perform service with those parts. Defendant was
required to "use its best efforts to promote, sell and distribute Products within the Sales Territory to its fullest
possible potential." Nothing in the Agreement extends beyond sales.
6
Summary Judgment should be denied. The broad language of the indemnity provision cannot
extend beyond the contract of which it is a part, and accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment is DENIED.
For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED,
and summary judgment will be entered in favor of the Defendant.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of June, 2012.
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?