Date: 12-18-2014

Case Style: Hanover America Insurance Company v. MAC Systems, Inc.

Case Number: CJ-2013-445

Judge: Rebecca B. Nightingale

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Phil Richards, William Schmidt and Ivy Rosier

Defendant's Attorney: Robert Coffey, Stephanie Demers and Henry Laskey

Description: COME NOW Plaintiffs Hanover America Insurance Company and Eastern Oklahoma Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, and for their claim against Defendants, subject to amendment at the conclusion of all pretrial discovery, do allege and state as follows:
THE PARTIES
1. Plaintiff Hanover America Insurance Company (“Hanover”) is a New Hampshire
corporation engaged in the insurance business, with a principal place of business located at440
Lincoln Street, Worcester, Massachusetts. At all times relevant hereto, Hanover was authorized
to issue policies of insurance in the State of Oklahoma.
2. Plaintiff Eastern Oklahoma Oral And Maxillofacial Surgeons (“EOOMS”), is an oral surgery practice. At all times relevant hereto, EOOMS owned a building located at 4716 West Urbana Street, Broken Arrow, Oklahoma.
3. Upon information and belief, Defendant MAC Systems, Inc. (“MAC”) is an Oklahoma corporation with a principal place of business located at 210 South Norfolk Avenue, Tulsa, Oklahoma,
4. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, MAC was authorized to conduct business in Oklahoma and was engaged in the business of, among other things, the sale, design, and installation of fire protection sprinkler systems.
5. Upon information and belief, Defendant Ames Fire & Waterworks (“Ames”) is a business entity with a principal place of business at 1427 N. Market Boulevard, Suite 9, Sacramento, California. At all times relevant hereto, Ames has been in the business of manufacturing valves and fittings used in fire protection systems, including backflow preventers. Upon information and belief, Ames is a subsidiary or otherwise related entity of Watts Water Technologies.
6. Watts Water Technologies, Inc. (“Watts Water”) is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business located at 815 Chestnut Street, North Andover, Massachusetts. At all times relevant hereto, Watts Water’s business included, among other things, the manufacture, design, distribution, sale and/or supply of backflow preventers used in fire suppression sprinkler system applications.
7. Defendant Watts Regulator Company (“Watts Regulator”) is a Massachusetts corporation with a principal place of business located at 815 Chestnut Street, North Andover, Massachusetts. Upon information and belief, Watts Regulator is a subsidiary of Watts Water Technologies, Inc. At all times relevant hereto, Watts Regulator’s business included, among other things, the manufacture, design, distribution, sale and/or supply of backflow preventers used in fire suppression sprinkler system applications.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8. Defendants, at all times relevant to this lawsuit, were doing business in Broken
Arrow, Tulsa County, Oklahoma, and as alleged below, caused the damages incurred as a result of a water loss incident that occurred at the property located at 4716 West Urbana Street, Broken Arrow, Oklahoma.
9. Venue is proper in this Court in that the cause of action arose in Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
10. Defendants’ acts or omissions, as alleged below, were the proximate and direct cause of Plaintiff’s damages and caused the substantial destruction of real property and business personal property located in Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
11. The damages sustained are in excess of $75,000.00 and hence are in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court, Therefore, both venue and jurisdiction are proper in Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
FACTS
12. In or around December 2009, EOOMS contracted with general contractor RECO Enterprises for the construction of an office building and surgical center located at 4716 West Urbana Street, Broken Arrow, Oklahoma (the “Subject Property”).
13. Defendant MAC was hired by RECO Enterprises to install a fire suppression sprinkler system at the Subject Property.
14. In or around November 2010, EOO15. On or around February 9, 2011, Dr. Todd Johnson of EOOMS discovered extensive water infiltration at the Subject Property and identified a Reduce Pressure Backflow Preventer in the utility closet as the source of the water.
16. Upon information and belief, as part of the installation of the fire suppression sprinkler system, MAC installed the Reduce Pressure Backilow Preventer which failed.
17. Defendants Ames, Watts Water and/or Watts Regulator designed, manufactured, sold and/or distributed the Reduce Pressure Backflow Preventer (“backfiow preventer”) that failed and resulted in the discharge of water into the Subject Property.
18. Examination of the failed backflow preventer subsequent to the loss revealed a slit in the diaphragm of the backflow preventer.
19. In addition, the design of the system allowed for the sprinkler system components to be subjected to freezing temperatures, increasing the likelihood of a failure of those components.
20. The slit in the backflow preventer is evidence of damage to the backflow preventer, either during manufacture or installation of the same.
21. Hanover issued a property insurance policy to LOOMS providing coverage for the Subject Property, which was in force at the time of this loss.
22. Pursuant to the terms of the insurance policy it issued to EOOMS, Hanover paid
$383,515.72 to compensate EOOMS for damage to its property. LOOMS incurred a $10,000 deductible.
23. By virtue of the payments made to LOOMS in accordance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, Hanover is now subrogated to the rights of EOOMS, to the extent of the payment made by Hanover, against the party or parties responsible for the water discharge and resulting damages.
COUNT ONE - MANUFACTURERS PRODUCTS LIABILITY
Plaintiffs v. MAC
24. Plaintiffs incorporate the aHegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth at length herein.
25. At all times relevant hereto, MAC was engaged in the business of designing,
manufacturing, distributing, selling and/or supplying, among other things, backflow preventers.
26. The subject backflow preventer was dangerously defective.
27. MAC designed, manufactured, assembled, distributed, sold and/or supplied the subject backflow preventer in a dangerously defective condition.
28. The subject backflow preventer was placed or further distributed within the stream of commerce by MAC.
29. The subject backflow preventer was expected to and did reach its intended users, including EOOMS, without substantial change in the condition in which it was designed,
manufactured, assembled, distributed, sold and supplied.
30. A defect in the subject backilow preventer was a direct and proximate cause of the February 9, 2011 water loss at the subject premises.
31. MAC is strictly liable for all damage caused by the subject backflow preventer.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against MAC for damages in the amount of $393,515.72, together with interest, costs of suit and such other relief the court may deem appropriate.

Outcome: 03-13-2014 DISPDWOP 7 WATTS REGULATOR COMPANY 88697050 Mar 14 2014 9:09:58:527AM - $ 0.00
DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
03-13-2014 DISPDWOP 7 WATTS WATER TECHNOLOGIES 88697051 Dec 19 2014 7:51:30:897AM - $ 0.00
DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

12-18-2014 DISPCVDMWP 1 MAC SYSTEMS INC 92311708 Dec 19 2014 7:50:11:247AM - $ 0.00
DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
12-18-2014 DISPCVDMWP 2 MAC SYSTEMS INC 92311709 Dec 19 2014 7:50:12:667AM - $ 0.00
DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
12-18-2014 DISPCVDMWP 3 MAC SYSTEMS INC 92311710 Dec 19 2014 7:50:13:807AM - $ 0.00
DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
12-18-2014 DISPCVDMWP 4 WATTS WATER TECHNOLOGIES 92311711 Dec 19 2014 7:50:14:797AM - $ 0.00
DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
12-18-2014 DISPCVDMWP 5 WATTS WATER TECHNOLOGIES 92311712 Dec 19 2014 7:50:15:777AM - $ 0.00
DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
12-18-2014 DISPCVDMWP 6 WATTS WATER TECHNOLOGIES 92311713 Dec 19 2014 7:50:16:757AM - $ 0.00
DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: