lawsuit arises out of the crash of a medical transport helicopter in two thousand and fourteen i'm denounced to mention rands at the top of the engine failure that led to the crash was caused by a faulty turban a wheel that rolls royce had fraudulently concealed from men trans and the rest of the helicopter community rather than standing by its defective prop rolls royce moved for summary judgment claiming that the economic loss were exempted from liability because the engine was an integrated part of the entire helicopter and thus the whole are precluded liability because there was no personal injury or damage to other property met trans however pointed out that the medical honor there are actually four places in the in the record where there is evidence of the medical equipment on board first of all the n t s b report the accident report which is at record site e r seventy five lists it as a medical transport flight by definition in order for a helicopter under the n t s b purview to be a medical transport flight it has to be outfitted with medical equipment capable of providing medical services that's the  a little bit of both your honor is that as a matter of law it is is i'm get is a matter of in t s b regulatory rules that in order for a medical transport fly to be classified as such it must be capable of performing and providing medical services including so much pain as well what kind or what it stands or with what equipment does the regulations specify that your honor no the regulation does not specify the type and extent of equipment but it does require that the helicopter be capable of providing medical treatment and another location in the record and this is one that we did not identify in our briefing but we did identify it yesterday in preparation for today and it is in the information provided by rolls royce in their statement of fa was dated april th two thousand one hundred and forty four dollars days before the crash and on that equipment list provided by rolls royce halfway down the page is the listing of the air met that is the air medical equipment it is required by n t s b and f a a rules to be inspected every twelve months or one hundred and fifty hours of operation whichever comes st and as the court will see on the r one hundred and sixteen supplied by rolls royce this aircraft was outfitted with mandatory air medical equipment that was required to be inspected and had been inspected approximately six months before the crash so that when he sees me i have a question about that that with respect to this specific helicopter because there was another piece of evidence that pertain to a different yes sometimes i brought that i would like to i would like to follow the sword in and make sure i clear up any and any discrepancies the two helicopters and i will short cut the designation won was number five hundred and fifteen my tango the other one was five o nine my tango the engines were swapped that was the and that with that is the discrepancy with respect to the air medical sweet estimate from executive air transport that was for five hundred and fifteen not five own up but records cite one hundred and sixteen is the minimum equipment list for the accident helicopter that into the record by rolls royce but it so the court is the source of the document itself is a med trans generated report and it's known as in any l or minimum equipment list and that is a document that is generated by the aircraft operator in this pic in this particular case med trans so it was producing lines that say air med it was inspection in the middle what does that tell us about anything that tells us that there was on april down equipment where is was damaged in the excellent excellent question your honor the proof of loss that was supplied by med trans to star indemnity was a sworn proof of loss for a total into to repair it or an economical to repair it doesn't necessarily mean that every component in it was it wasn't like it burst into flames and incinerated every item it i don't know fans ha regulations when an aircraft has been subjected to an over stress of that as such as this one when you have a hard landing the disc is being spread the loads that are imparted into the airframe and all equipment installed on the airframe are considered to be overstressed and per f a a rules if they are determined to be everyplace more are they may not be returned safely to service they are a total loss that also includes the medical equipment on board but i but also like for now you know that specifically mean this seems to me to be a record that just cries out for somebody is an affidavit saying here are the fourteen things that were on board and after this van you know thirteen of them were completely to be rather tenuous inference and your honor i appreciate that observation and i would like to point out that when a rolls royce move for summary judgment they didn't even try to claim that the medical equipment was not other equipment or other property there and i asked j was very simple it said the engine is an integrated part and to have an entire product and because of that the economic loss rule applies we responded and said there was a medical suite on board that was totally destroyed on reply for the st time they raised the issue that the medical equipment was either not identifiable or hadn't been sufficiently identified or was not destroyed so under the cleaning standards in arizona with the pleading rules of they raised for the st time one reply which is not permitted a factual dispute as to the status sufficiency of the medical equipment they didn't even challenge that it was destroyed they simply raise the idea that medical equipment itself was not other property so at this point in time rolls royce has never even claimed that the medical equipment was not destroyed i have i have i appreciate your observation and i frankly i understand exactly where you're coming deny they said it's relevant but they deny what you say in paragraph thirty four doesn't that put you through the notice you have to do something your proof was deficient in and you have you need to do something to create a that they provided to unsigned undated one general warranties we said those are not proper on our response brief and reply they provided an affidavit for the st time that attempted to prove up their warranty claims you really believe that balts the that's the applicable warranty for this i mean what i was puzzled by here is the log is in one the record and it has the tab that says warranty we did not come out  discovery what was behind that tab no it did not run away didn't get a chance to go that far in discovery this case was originally up to the th circuit on a choice of law issue as soon as the core of the th circuit issued the opinion on the choice of law a rolls royce moved immediately if your summary judgment on economic loss rules so this case has not been discovered at all which is part of the gravina robin of my complaint is that the court granted summary judgment before any discovery was performed but the and to matches exactly what's at the fold of what they produce i mean is it really i understand the issue about that occasion and and maybe then you know the district court was lenient  letting them fix that in in the last minute but is there really any issue that that that is the warranty that beyond that ted to be perfectly honest with your honest with you your honor i don't know that there's going to be an issue with that with respect to the original form a warranty that was allegedly shipped with the engine we haven't had a chance to discover it but i have also like to point out that what failed on this helicopter was a replacement affidavit they supplied for the st time on reply in violation of the rules he said and a conclusory statement the spare part warranty was shipped with the turban we'll that's that's literally as far as he went he can't prove and he did not even attempt to prove the premier jurgens received it acknowledge it or passed it along and that's my issue with many of the things that occurred at the district court level is the judge granted summary judgment and the only way that  possible was to take all reasonable inferences in favor of rolls royce and not in favor of med trance and i see that i've only got two not minutes left so i won't be happy to answer any questions and continue going but i would like to read reserve a little time for  please the court my name's tom kline i'm here on behalf of back what's your response to his argument that under the f a a regulations all of the materials that were on the plane would have to be considered  declaration that tells us what that provides the then occasion foundation for tying this warranty document to this part that's ho reasoning and analysis demonstrate a preference for lying on economic loss through contract rather than tort law and so your argument is if i understand correctly that your turbans received acknowledged or obtained the warranty card he says without citation to any effort any document any envoy's any paperwork he says can cool serenely it was sent with it he has no proof other than we have to take of an expert he says it so it must be true and that is not proper for a self serving uncontrovertible affidavit filed in reply only that's with respect to the warrant with respect to the economic loss doctrine and the other property considered an entered rated part into a finished helicopter helicopter can't fly without an engine engines worth of that helicopter that's not our fact here the fact that we had a swap engine he said makes it a similar but it has nothing to do with this case golden spread which was just issued by the th circuit three weeks ago said that a digital controller that was installed onto a steam turban to make the steam turbine work was not other property and our case we have a completely separate set of facts are other property it is medical equipment on a helicopter the helicopter does not need the medical equipment to run in any respect the medical equipment does nothing with respect to the operation the helicopter and can virtually the helicopter in no way affects the performance of the medical equipment it is truly separate equipment that was purchased after irrational sale and under saratoga fishing and my core supply those two cases clearly support the id of the proposition that after market other property for a cure there a separate transaction after the original delivery is the property and i'm i'm over my time your honor so i will yield thank you very much we appreciate the arguments from both of you they've been very