Frankenmuth Ins. v. City of Hickory
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. COA14-70 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 15 July 2014 FRANKENMUTH INSURANCE, as subrogee of Catawba Country Club, Plaintiff, v. Catawba County No. 11 CVS 689 CITY OF HICKORY, a North Carolina Municipal Corporation, and MORGAN FIRE & SAFETY, INC., a North Carolina Corporation d/b/a UNIFOUR FIRE & SAFETY, Defendants. Appeal by plaintiff from order entered 14 May 2013 by Judge Timothy S. Kincaid in Catawba County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 6 May 2014. Dean Gibson Hofer & Nance, PLLC, by Jeremy S. Foster, for plaintiff-appellant. Cranfill Sumner & Hartzog LLP, by Jaye E. Bingham-Hinch and Patrick H. Flanagan, for defendant-appellee City of Hickory. HUNTER, Robert C., Judge. Frankenmuth Catawba granting Country the Insurance Club City of ( plaintiff ), ( the Club ), Hickory s as appeals a subrogee from ( defendant s ) summary judgment on plaintiff s negligence claim. an motion of order for On appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred by entering summary -2judgment in favor of defendant because genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether: (1) defendant negligently operated its municipal water system, and (2) the Club was contributorily negligent in its installation of sprinkler system pipes. After careful review, we affirm the trial court s order. Background On 5 July 2009, a water pipe leading to the Club s sprinkler system burst, causing damage to the clubhouse. The Club was insured by plaintiff, which filed this action against defendant as the Club s subrogee. In the complaint, plaintiff alleged that defendant s negligent care of the municipal water system, specifically in allowing unreasonably high water pressure to build up in the pipes, was the proximate cause of the damage. In 2000, ( Crawford ) to the Club install hired a Crawford sprinkler system Sprinkler on its Company grounds. Defendant sent members of its Fire Prevention Office to the site to measure the water pressure of the area. The standing water pressure was 180 pounds per square inch ( psi ). Kevin Greer ( Greer ), the Assistant Public Services Director for defendant, testified during deposition that 180 psi was not an uncommon -3standing water pressure in that service area. The average citywide standing water pressure was 115 to 120 psi, with some areas in the system attaining pressures of 230 to 240 psi. It is undisputed that Crawford designed a sprinkler system that called for eight-inch ductile iron pipes to be used throughout, given the 180 psi standing water pressure at the Club. However, Crawford actually installed six-inch PVC piping instead. Greer explained in his testimony that piping comes in two forms PVC and ductile iron. PVC piping has two different pressure ratings Class 150 psi and Class 200 psi; ductile iron comes in Class 250 psi and Class 350 psi. pipes are designed to constantly The ductile iron withstand standing water pressures within their class range, but they can also handle pressure surges of two-and-a-half times the class rating so long as the surges are not prolonged or sustained. Stephen Busic ( Busic ), the Club s General Manager, testified during deposition that soon after installation of the sprinkler system, the Club had continual problems with water pressure. According to Busic, the PVC pipes burst six times due to excess water pressure from 2000 through July 2009, with the sixth burst forming the basis of this action. bursts occurred on 27 July 2007. One of these Morgan Fire & Safety, doing -4business as Unifour Fire & Safety ( Unifour ), repaired this break in the line and replaced a three-foot section of the PVC pipe with ductile iron. One of Unifour s employees testified during deposition that it replaced the PVC piping with ductile iron because ductile iron is stronger than PVC. The flooding that forms the basis of this action occurred on 5 July 2009. Martin Chang ( Chang ), plaintiff s expert witness, visited the Club on 15 July 2009 to investigate the cause of the fracture. Chang was a forensic engineer; he received a bachelor s and master s degree in textile engineering but had no experience in designing or running a municipal water system. After speaking with Busic and examining the site, Chang determined that: (1) a longitudinal fracture was found on the six-inch PVC pipe, indicating stress produced by internal pressure; (2) the fire sprinkler pressure gauge failed at a pressure greater than 300 psi; and (3) the cause of the failure was excessive water pressure from defendant s water supply and potentially a sudden surge in water pressure. Chang noted triangular fractures in the ductile iron reducers, but admitted that he could not rule out mechanical mistakes made during excavation of the pipe as the cause of the fractures. Greer agreed with Chang s assessment that the longitudinal fracture -5was caused by internal pressure. opinion piping that the material, cause given of the that However, he developed the fracture the was six-inch due inferior pipes PVC to actually installed were of lesser strength than the minimum Class 250 psi eight-inch ductile iron pipes that were called for in Crawford s plan. After making insurance payouts to the Club, plaintiff brought this action against defendant and Unifour. It alleged that Unifour was liable for the damages, in part, because it [n]egligently failed to recommend removal of the six-inch PVC pipe and . . . replacement with eight-inch ductile iron pipe for the entire Plaintiff distance alleged between that the defendant pit was and the negligent clubhouse. when it: (1) negligently failed to ensure that the water pressure in its municipal water supply did not exceed reasonable levels ; (2) negligently failed to correct the layout of its municipal water distribution system with a loop system to protect residents at the terminal ends against excess pressures, water hammer, and shock waves within the water distribution system ; and (3) negligently failed to recommend or install a pressure-relieving device to prevent damage from excess water pressures. -6Defendant and Unifour filed motions for summary judgment in April 2013. Both parties were awarded summary judgment in May 2013. Plaintiff summary judgment timely but appealed subsequently from both withdrew orders its granting appeal as to Unifour. Discussion I. Summary Judgment for Defendant Plaintiff argues that summary judgment was inappropriate where genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether: (1) defendant was negligent in its operation of the municipal water system, and (2) plaintiff was contributorily negligent. plaintiff has failed to standard of care for carry its burden defendant s of Because establishing alleged a professional negligence, we affirm the trial court s order granting summary judgment in defendant s favor. This novo. Court reviews orders granting summary judgment de Foster v. Crandell, 181 N.C. App. 152, 164, 638 S.E.2d 526, 535 (2007). Summary judgment is appropriate only when the record shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. In re Will of Jones, 362 N.C. 569, 573, 669 S.E.2d 572, 576 (2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). The burden of -7proof rests with the movant to show that summary judgment is appropriate. Development Corp. v. James, 300 N.C. 631, 637, 268 S.E.2d 205, 209 (1980). We review the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Caldwell v. Deese, 288 N.C. 375, 378, 218 S.E.2d 379, 381 (1975). Because the standard of reasonable care should ordinarily be applied by the jury under appropriate instructions from the court, summary judgment is rarely an appropriate cases of negligence or contributory negligence. remedy in Thompson v. Bradley, 142 N.C. App. 636, 641, 544 S.E.2d 258, 261 (2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, summary judgment is appropriate in a cause of action for negligence where the forecast of evidence fails to show negligence on defendant s part, or establishes plaintiff s contributory negligence as a matter of law. Stansfield v. Mahowsky, 46 N.C. App. 829, 830, 266 S.E.2d 28, 29 (1980). [A] [p]laintiff is required to offer legal evidence tending to establish beyond mere speculation or conjecture every essential element of negligence, failure to do so, [summary judgment] is proper. and upon Young v. Fun Services-Carolina, Inc., 122 N.C. App. 157, 162, 468 S.E.2d 260, 263 (1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). -8Although the negligence, this professional complaint states cause action of negligence because only is a claim actually plaintiff is one for for alleging negligent performance by defendant in its professional capacity as the operator of a municipal water system. See Michael v. Huffman Oil Co., 190 N.C. App. 256, 271, 661 S.E.2d 1, 11 (2008) (characterizing negligence action brought against the City of Burlington for failure to warn, failure to investigate, and negligent misrepresentation as professional negligence where the defendant was installing a potable waterline). Defendant admitted in its answer that it has all of the corporate powers as set forth municipal in [the North General When corporations][.] Carolina municipal a Statutes for corporation operates a system of waterworks and sells water for private consumption and use, it is acting in its proprietary or corporate capacity and is liable for injury or damage resulting from such operation to the same extent and upon the same basis as a privately owned water company would be. Mosseller v. Asheville, 267 N.C. 104, 107, 147 S.E.2d 558, 561 (1966). In a professional negligence action, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing: (1) the nature of the defendant s profession; (2) the defendant s duty to conform to a certain -9standard of conduct; and (3) a breach of the duty proximately caused injury to the plaintiffs. Huffman Oil Co., Inc., 190 N.C. 11 App. at quotation 271, marks experience of 661 S.E.2d omitted). the jury at (emphasis Where is [not] common and internal knowledge sufficient to and evaluate compliance with a standard of care, the plaintiff is required to establish the standard of care through expert testimony. Id. The standard of care provides a template against which the finder of fact professional. may measure the actual conduct of the The purpose of introducing evidence as to the standard of care in a professional negligence lawsuit is to see if this defendant s actions lived up to that standard[.] Associated Indus. Contr rs, Inc. v. Fleming Eng'g, Inc., 162 N.C. App. 405, 410, 590 S.E.2d 866, 870 (2004) (internal quotation marks omitted), aff'd, 359 N.C. 296, 608 S.E.2d 757 (2005). If the plaintiff fails to establish the proper standard of care through expert testimony in a professional negligence claim, summary judgment for the defendant is proper. Huffman Oil Co., 190 N.C. App. at 271, 661 S.E.2d at 11. This Court has previously held that the common knowledge exception to the requirement that the standard of care be established by expert testimony applies either when the actions -10are of such a nature that the common knowledge of laypersons is sufficient to find the standard of care required, a departure therefrom, or proximate causation. Associated Indus. Contractors, Inc., 162 N.C. App. at 411, 590 S.E.2d at 871. Associated Indus. Contractors, Inc., this Court held In that a surveyor s actions fell within the common knowledge exception because a trier of fact could adequately determine whether the surveyor correctly measured ninety-degree angles in its design of a rectangular building site. 871. Id. at 411-12, 590 S.E.2d at It noted that where . . . the service rendered does not involve esoteric knowledge or uncertainty that calls for the professional s judgment, it is not beyond the knowledge of the jury to determine the adequacy of the performance. Id. (citation and quotation omitted). Here, plaintiff asserted that defendant was negligent in three ways: (1) failing to ensure that water pressure did not exceed reasonable levels; (2) failing to install a loop system in its municipal water distribution system to prevent excessive pressures failing at to the install pressure-relieving degree terminal angles in or ends of recommend device. Associated Unlike the that the Indus. water the line; Club measuring Contractors, and install of (3) a ninety- Inc., the -11alleged wrongdoing of defendant here required the exercise of professional judgment regarding a reasonable level of water pressure install in a a municipal loop water system, and system, the the skill expertise to needed to install or recommend installing a pressure-relieving device at the terminal ends of the system. evaluated with the Because these claims could not be properly common knowledge and experience of the jury, plaintiff bore the burden of producing expert testimony to establish the proper standard of care to which defendant should have been held. See Huffman Oil Co., Inc., 190 N.C. App. at 271, 661 S.E.2d at 11. Plaintiff failed to meet this burden. sole expert witness, specifically testified Chang, plaintiff s that he had not studied defendant s facility, did not know what type of water distribution system defendant used, had no experience in designing or running a municipal water system, and did not know of anything defendant may have done to create an increase in water pressure. Busic, the Club s General Manager, testified that he had no experience or training in the field of plumbing at all. Although Chang and Busic testified that the six-inch PVC pipe installed by Crawford burst due to internal pressure, neither could identify what a reasonable municipal corporation -12providing water to the Club would do given the facts of this case. Nor could they identify any action taken by defendant that might have caused a sudden increase in water pressure. Thus, plaintiff essentially argues that because defendant could have prevented the six-inch PVC piping erroneously installed into the Club s sprinkler system from bursting, they necessarily breached a duty owed to the Club by failing to do so. of However, absent expert testimony establishing the standard care that defendant owed the Club, plaintiff failed to provide a context to assess whether defendant s conduct differed from what it should have done. See Associated Indus. Contractors, Inc., 162 N.C. App. at 410, 590 S.E.2d at 870. Thus, by leaving the standard of care unresolved, plaintiff failed to offer legal evidence tending to establish beyond mere speculation or negligence[.] conjecture every essential element of Fun Services-Carolina, Inc., 122 N.C. App. at 162, 468 S.E.2d at 263. In other words, without evidence of the applicable standard of care, [plaintiff] [has] failed to establish a prima facie claim for professional negligence. Huffman Oil Co., 190 N.C. App. at 272, 661 S.E.2d at 11-12. Accordingly, summary judgment for defendant was proper, and we need not address defendant s alternative argument on appeal that -13plaintiff was contributorily negligent. Id.; see also Huffman Oil Co., 190 N.C. App. at 271, 661 S.E.2d at 11 (holding that summary judgment in favor of the defendant City of Burlington was proper where the plaintiff failed to provide expert testimony establishing the applicable standard of care). Conclusion Because plaintiff failed to establish a standard of care in its professional negligence claim, we affirm the trial court s grant of summary judgment in defendant s favor. AFFIRMED. Judges McGEE and ELMORE concur.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
