IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`CHATTANOOGADIVISION
`
`CHATTANOOGA HAMILTON COUNTY)
`HOSPITAL AUTHORITYd/b/a
`)
`Erlanger Health System
`
`Civil Action No.:
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`) ) }
`
`) )
`
`)
`)
`
`) )
`
`)
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`VS.
`
`HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL,INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`COMES NOW the Plaintiff, CHATTANOOGA HAMILTON COUNTY HOSPITAL
`AUTHORITYd/b/a Erlanger Health System, by counsel, and hereby submitsits complaint and
`demandforjury trial against defendant Honeywell International, Inc., and alleges the following:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`Plaintiff Chattanooga Hamilton County Hospital Authority d/b/a Erlanger Health
`1.
`System (hereinafter referred to as “Erlanger) is a nonprofit Tennessee corporation which owns and
`operates, amongotherfacilities, the Erlanger Baroness Hospital or “Main Hospital” at 975 E, 34
`Street in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
`
`Defendant Honeywell International, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Honeywell”)
`2.
`is a Delaware corporation with a principal place ofbusiness at 300 South Tryon Street, Charlotte,
`North Carolina, At all times relevant to the allegations contained herein, defendant Honeywell
`designed and manufactured hydronicvalvesfor use in, among other applications, water chilled air
`handling units. At all relevant times Defendant Honeywell conducted business in the State of
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00026-DCLC-CHS Document1 Filed 01/31/22 Pagelof6 PagelD#:1
`
`
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`CHATTANOOGADIVISION
`
`CHATTANOOGA HAMILTON COUNTY)
`HOSPITAL AUTHORITYd/b/a
`)
`Erlanger Health System
`
`Civil Action No.:
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`) ) }
`
`) )
`
`)
`)
`
`) )
`
`)
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`VS.
`
`HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL,INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`COMES NOW the Plaintiff, CHATTANOOGA HAMILTON COUNTY HOSPITAL
`AUTHORITYd/b/a Erlanger Health System, by counsel, and hereby submitsits complaint and
`demandforjury trial against defendant Honeywell International, Inc., and alleges the following:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`Plaintiff Chattanooga Hamilton County Hospital Authority d/b/a Erlanger Health
`1.
`System (hereinafter referred to as “Erlanger) is a nonprofit Tennessee corporation which owns and
`operates, amongotherfacilities, the Erlanger Baroness Hospital or “Main Hospital” at 975 E, 34
`Street in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
`
`Defendant Honeywell International, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Honeywell”)
`2.
`is a Delaware corporation with a principal place ofbusiness at 300 South Tryon Street, Charlotte,
`North Carolina, At all times relevant to the allegations contained herein, defendant Honeywell
`designed and manufactured hydronicvalvesfor use in, among other applications, water chilled air
`handling units. At all relevant times Defendant Honeywell conducted business in the State of
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00026-DCLC-CHS Document1 Filed 01/31/22 Pagelof6 PagelD#:1
`
`
`
`Tennessee, including Hamilton County, Chattanooga, Tennessee, on a regular androutine basis
`and availed itselfofthe laws ofthe State ofTennessee. Honeywell may be served with process by
`serving its registered agent at: Corporation Service Company, 2908 Poston Avenue, Nashville,
`Tennessee 37203-1312.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`Originaljurisdiction ofthis Court exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332 becausethere
`3.
`is complete diversity ofcitizenship between Plaintiffand Defendant and the amount in controversy
`exceeds $75,000.00 exclusive ofinterest and costs.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 in that a substantial part
`4,
`ofthe events and/or omissions givingrise to the claim occurred within this District.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`Atall relevant times, Erlanger used a cardiovascular operating room on the 4“ floor
`5,
`ofthe Main Hospital. The Cardiovascular Operating Room utilized robotic imaging equipment.
`6.
`Atall relevanttimes, there was a mechanical/electrical room located adjacent to the
`Cardiovascular Operating Room which contained mechanical and electrical equipment that
`serviced the cardiovascular operating room and robotic imaging equipment.
`7.
`The mechanical/electrical room consisted of, among other things, an overhead
`chilled water unit and an electrical panel used to supply power'to the robotic imaging equipment
`in the cardiovascular operating room.
`
`At all relevanttimes, the chilled water unit contained an uninsulated hydronic valve
`8.
`manufactured by Honeywell (hereinafter referred to as “the uninsulated hydronic valve”or the
`“valve”).
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00026-DCLC-CHS Document1 Filed 01/31/22 Page 2of6 PagelD#: 2
`
`2
`
`
`
`On or about September 11, 2019, the hydronic valvein the subject Chilled Water
`9.
`Unit leaked water onto and into the Plaintiff's electrical panel. The water caused substantial
`
`damage and destructionto the electrical panel.
`
`The valve leaked to damagePlaintiff’s electrical panel because it was not properly
`10.
`designed and/or manufactured.
`|
`|
`
`11. Asa direct and proximate result of the water leak and associated damagesto the
`Erlanger electrical panel, Erlanger sustained losses in an amount in excess of Eight Hundred
`Thousand and No/100 ($800,000.00) Dollars.
`4
`12,
`The negligent acts and omissions ofdefendant Honeywell,its employees, servants,
`and agents, proximately caused the damages sustained by plaintiff. |
`
`COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE
`
`DEFENDANT HONEYWELL
`Plaintiffhereby incorporates by referenceparagraphs | through 12 asiffully stated
`:
`
`13.
`
`herein.
`
`Honeywell owed a dutyto Erlanger to use ordinary and/or reasonable care in
`14.
`designing, manufacturing, and supplyingthe hydronicvalveused inthe Chilled WaterUnit located
`inthemechanical/electrical room forthe cardiovascularoperating room andassociatedequipment,
`suchthat itwould be free from defects in design, material, manufacture and/or workmanship.
`Honeywell further owed Erianger a duty to warn Erlanger of any dangerous defects or conditions
`in the hydronic valve which Honeywell knew orshould have known existed.
`
`15.|Honeywell breached its duties to Erlanger and, as a result, Erlanger has been
`damaged in an amount in excess ofEight Hundred Thousand and No/100 ($800,000.00) Dollars.
`
`WHEREFORE,Plaintiff seeksrelief as follows:
`
`3
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00026-DCLC-CHS Document1 Filed 01/31/22 Page3of6 PagelD#: 3
`
`
`
`That judgment be entered in its favor and against Defendant Honeywell for an
`1,
`amount in excess of Eight Hundred Thousand and No/100 ($800,000.00) Dollars, together with
`pre-judgmentinterest;
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4,
`
`That Plaintiff recoverits costs, if appropriate;
`
`That the Court empanel a jury to hear all issues of fact; and
`
`For such other and furtherrelief as the Court deemsjust and proper.
`
`COUNTII - STRICT LIABILITY
`DEFENDANT HONEYWELL
`16._Erlangerre-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 13ofthis Complaint as
`ifset forth fully hereinafter.
`.
`|
`17,
`At all timesrelevanthereto, Honeywell was engaged in the business ofdesigning,
`manufacturing, selling, and delivering hydronic valvessuchas the hydronic valve in question.
`18.
`Honeywellis strictly liable to Erlanger for designing, manufacturing,selling, and
`delivering the hydronic valve which was unreasonably dangerous and in a defective condition
`whenit left the control ofHoneywell andwhichproximately caused Erlanger’s losses and damages
`while the hydronic valve was beingused for its ordinary, intended purpose and in an ordinary,
`
`intended manner.
`
`At all ‘times relevant hereto, Erlanger was unaware of the defective and
`19,
`unreasonably dangerous condition of the hydronic valve designed, manufactured, sold, and
`delivered by Honeywell.
`
`WHEREFORE,Plaintiff seeksrelief as follows:
`
`4
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00026-DCLC-CHS Document1 Filed 01/31/22 Page 4of6 PagelD #: 4
`
`
`
`1.
`
`That judgment be enteredin its favor and against Defendant Honeywell for an
`
`amountin excess of Eight Hundred Thousand and No/100 ($800,000.00) Dollars, together with
`pre-judgment interest;
`|
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`ThatPlaintiff recoverits costs, if appropriate;
`
`That the Court empanela jury tohear all issues offact; and
`
`DEFENDANT HONEYWELL
`
`4,
`For such other and furtherrelief as the Court deemsjust and proper.
`COUNTIII - BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY
`20._Erlanger re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through YD of this Complaint
`as if set forth fully hereinafter.
`21.
`Honeywell is amerchant with respectto hydronic valves and with respect to the
`hydronic valve in question.
`22.
`Honeywell impliedly warranted thatthe hydronic valve was merchantable.
`23.
`Honeywell breached the impliédwarranty of merchantability with respect to the
`hydronic valve in question.
`|
`24.=Asa result of Honeywell’s breach ofthe implied warranty ofmerchantability, the
`Valve failed and leaked water onto the Plaintiff's electrical panel.
`25.
`Asa resi ofthe hydronic valve’s failure andleak, Erlanger has been damaged in
`an amount in exptss ofEight Hundred Thousand andNo/100 ($800,000.00) Dollars.
`
`WHEREFORE,Plaintiff seeksrelief as follows:
`
`1.
`
`That judgment be entered in its favor and against Defendant Honeywell for an
`
`amount in excess of Eight Hundred Thousand and No/100 ($800,000.00) Dollars, together with
`
`pre-judgmentinterest;
`
`2.
`
`That Plaintiffrecoverits costs, ifappropriate;
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00026-DCLC-CHS Document1 Filed 01/31/22 Page5of6 PagelD#:5
`
`5
`
`
`
`3.
`4.
`
`That the Court empanela jury to hear all issues of fact; and
`For such other and furtherreliefas the Court deemsjust and proper.
`
`This 31" day of January, 2022.
`
`‘si George E. Copple
`George E. Copple (TN BPR #006411)
`5115 Maryland Way
`Brentwood, TN 37027
`(615) 254-9100
`gcopple@copplelaw.biz
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00026-DCLC-CHS Document1 Filed 01/31/22 Page 6of6 PagelD #: 6
`
`6
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
