DiPietro v. Glidwell Laboratories

Filing 78

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - AND NOW, this 31st day of Jan., 2012, upon con. of third-party deft.'s mtn. for SJ 53 & third-party plf.'s response, & pursuant to the accompanying memorandum, it is ordered that: 1. Third-Party deft.'s mtn. for SJ on counts II & IV of plf.'s complt. is denied. 2. Third-Party deft's mtn. for SJ on counts I & III of plf.'s complt. 1 is moot. (See memo for complete details.) Signed by Honorable William W. Caldwell on 1/31/12. (am, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ANN DIPIETRO, D.D.S.,
Plaintiff
v.
GLIDEWELL LABORATORIES,
Defendant
v.
IVOCLAR VIVADENT, INC.,
Third-Party Defendant

:
:
:
: CIVIL NO. 1:07-CV-1591
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

MEMORANDUM
I.

Introduction
We are considering a motion for summary judgment filed by Third-Party

Defendant, Ivoclar Vivadent, Inc. (“Ivoclar”). This matter involves Defendant, Glidewell
Laboratories (“Glidewell”), allegedly manufacturing defective dental crowns, which were
sold to Plaintiff, a dentist. Ivoclar provided Glidewell with some of the materials used in
producing the crowns and was added as a third-party defendant. We will examine the
motion under the well-established standard. Lawrence v. City of Philadelphia, 527 F.3d
299, 310 (3d. Cir. 2008).
II.

Background
Plaintiff is a dentist with a practice in Plymouth, PA. Defendant, Glidewell

Laboratories, fabricated and manufactured dental crowns and bridges for Plaintiff.
Around 2001, Plaintiff began experiencing difficulties with the crowns produced by

Glidewell, which Plaintiff attributes to a change in manufacturing materials and
processes. These difficulties included discoloration, separation, and flaking of the
porcelain surface of crowns. Plaintiff filed the instant suit on February 26, 2007 in the
Court of Common Pleas, Luzerne County. On August 29, 2007, the action was removed
to the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Glidewell filed a complaint against Third-Party
Defendant, Ivoclar Vivadent, on October 19, 2007. Ivoclar provided some of the
materials to Glidewell for the production of the crowns made for Plaintiff. Glidewell seeks
judgment against Ivoclar, indemnification, or contribution for the claims brought by
Plaintiff. Ivoclar filed a motion for summary judgment on August 5, 2011.

Ivoclar

argues that Glidewell has failed to establish that the materials provided were defective
and caused any harm. Ivoclar also seeks summary judgment on the basis of the
economic loss doctrine for Counts I and III of Plaintiff’s complaint.
III.

Discussion
A. Evidence Establishing that Ivoclar’s Materials Were Defective
“To establish a breach of . . . warranty, plaintiffs must show that the

[product] they purchased from defendant was defective.” Altronics of Bethlehem, Inc. v.
Repco, Inc., 957 F.2d 1102, 1005 (3d Cir. 1992). Ivoclar argues that Glidewell has not
provided any expert witness testimony or other evidence that supports its claim that the
materials provided were defective.
In response, Glidewell points to statements made by Ivoclar’s Vice
President, Pat Signere, and Plaintiff’s expert, Sander White, D.D.S. Specifically, Signere

2

told Plaintiff that there were “problems with porcelain particle distribution separating from
the material resulting in pulling and cracking.” These problems occurred in testing in the
lab but did not occur when tested on patients. Dr. White’s expert report indicated that
“The porcelain fractures speak to a procedural error, or to a contamination of materials or
to a defect in the materials themselves.”
There is a genuine issue of material fact regarding the materials provided
by Ivoclar. Ivoclar’s motion for summary judgment will be denied.
B. Economic Loss Doctrine
Ivoclar asserts that Plaintiff’s tort claims are barred by the economic loss
doctrine. Pursuant to our November 8, 2011 Order (Doc. 77), Plaintiff’s tort claims were
dismissed. Ivoclar’s motion to dismiss these claims is moot.
IV.

Conclusion
Based on the preceding, we will deny Third-Party Defendant’s motion for

summary judgment on counts II and IV of Plaintiff’s complaint. Third-Party Defendant’s
motion for summary judgment on counts I and III of Plaintiff’s complaint is moot.
We will issue an appropriate order.

/s/ William W. Caldwell
William W. Caldwell
United States District Judge

3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ANN DIPIETRO, D.D.S.,
Plaintiff
v.
GLIDEWELL LABORATORIES,
Defendant
v.
IVOCLAR VIVADENT, INC.,
Third-Party Defendant

:
:
:
: CIVIL NO. 1:07-CV-1591
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

ORDER

AND NOW, this 31st day of January, 2012, upon consideration of ThirdParty Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 53) and Third-Party Plaintiff’s
response, and pursuant to the accompanying Memorandum, it is ordered that:
1. Third-Party Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on counts II and
IV of Plaintiff’s complaint is denied.
2. Third-Party Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on counts I and III
of Plaintiff’s complaint is moot.

/s/ William W. Caldwell
William W. Caldwell
United States District Judge

4