2:06-cv-01750
W.D. Wash.Apr 16, 2014Background
- Fire on Seattle Monorail on May 31, 2004; AFM (insurer and subrogee of Seattle Monorail System, SMS) paid $3,267,861 and sued LTK for negligent engineering related to the trains’ grounding system.
- AFM alleged LTK recommended changing the Monorail grounding system in 2001–2002 and that change caused the 2004 fire; discovery revealed LTK may have first changed the system in 1997–1998 and in 2001 reorganized (but retained) a bonded grounding scheme.
- SMS maintenance/management (Glenn Barney) repeatedly documented shocks, arcing, and damage beginning in 1998–2001 and objected to LTK’s work in 2002, including a July 15, 2002 termination/complaint and later payment reimbursing the City for LTK’s services.
- LTK moved for summary judgment on three primary grounds: (1) AFM’s complaint allegations are factually inconsistent with discovery, (2) AFM’s claims are time‑barred, and (3) SMS failed to mitigate and assumed the risk.
- Court previously granted summary judgment on statute‑of‑limitations grounds, but the Ninth Circuit reversed in part and remanded; on remand the court considered LTK’s renewed summary judgment motion and denied it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency/consistency of complaint facts (timing of LTK’s recommendation) | AFM: complaint gave adequate notice of negligence regarding LTK’s grounding recommendations; discovery refined timing but did not abandon claim | LTK: AFM’s proof contradicts complaint (change occurred in 1997/98, not 2001/02), so summary judgment is proper | Denied — court finds refinement in discovery permissible under notice pleading; draft LTK report creates factual dispute about 2001/02 recommendations |
| Statute of limitations (accrual date) | AFM: limited to theory that negligence occurred in 2001/02 (terminal board redesign) and accrual is disputed | LTK: accrual occurred by July–Oct 2002 (Barney’s complaints and reimbursement), so suit filed too late | Denied — Ninth Circuit found genuine disputes about post‑installation events; payment did not necessarily trigger accrual; issues for jury |
| Mitigation of damages | AFM: SMS reasonably relied on LTK assurances and pursued remediation/payments despite concerns; damages mitigation is fact question | LTK: SMS continued to operate, paid, and thus failed to mitigate and/or assumed the risk — entitling LTK to judgment | Denied — evidence (LTK assurances, SMS protests) creates triable issues about reasonableness, mitigation, and implied primary assumption of risk |
| Admissibility/authentication of draft LTK report used by AFM | AFM: draft was produced by LTK in discovery and is admissible for summary judgment purposes | LTK: AFM failed to lay foundation so report should be excluded | Court considered the draft report (produced by LTK) and deemed its content admissible at summary judgment to create a factual dispute |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden and standards)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard; "scintilla" rule)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133 (drawing inferences; credibility at summary judgment)
- Cline v. Industrial Maintenance Eng’g & Contracting Co., 200 F.3d 1223 (9th Cir. 2000) (pleading vs. proof limitations — distinguished)
- Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2000) (movant may show nonmoving lacks evidence)
- Affiliated FM Ins. Co. v. LTK Consulting Servs., Inc., 556 F.3d 920 (9th Cir.) (prior Ninth Circuit disposition relevant to limitations/theory)
- Affiliated FM Ins. Co. v. LTK Consulting Servs., Inc., 243 P.3d 521 (Wash. 2010) (Washington Supreme Court discussion of tort injury traceable to breach independent of contract)