Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-04108/USCOURTS-ca10-91-04108-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

-,.,. 

FIL D 

UNITED STATES COURT OF 

United St le& Court of Appeals APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT JUL 2 8 1992 

ROCKY MOUNTAIN HELICOPTERS, INC., a 

Utah corporation, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

BELL HELICOPTERS TEXTRON, INC., a 

Delaware corporation, 

Defendand-Appellee. 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

> Clerk 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 91-4108 

) (D.C. No. 90-CV-1040) 

) (D. Utah) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, EBEL, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.** 

Plaintiff, a Utah corporation, appeals from the dismissal of 

its diversity action seeking compensation for the repair and 

replacement of two rotor blades on a helicopter designed and 

manufactured in Texas by Defendant, a Delaware corporation. While 

operating the helicopter in Alaska shortly after acquiring it, 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 91-4108 Document: 010110275091 Date Filed: 07/28/1992 Page: 1
used, from a third party, Plaintiff discovered water trapped 

inside the rotor blades, contrary to design safety regulations of 

the Federal Aviation Agency. See 14 C.F.R. § 29.653(a)(3)(rotor 

blade must be designed to prevent water from becoming trapped in 

it). The problem necessitated substantial corrective expense at a 

time when the rotor blades still had nearly sixty percent of their 

7200-hour maximum useful life remaining. The Complaint asserted 

five claims for relief, including breach of warranty, negligence 

per se, res ipsa loquitur, fraudulent misrepresentation, and 

negligent misrepresentation. The district court dismissed the 

action after a hearing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, and 

denied Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. This appeal 

followed. 

This case must be decided under principles of state law. 

However, the summary rulings issued by the district court are not 

sufficient for our review in this regard. When the district court 

dismisses an action without providing a statement of the grounds 

for its disposition adequate for proper appellate review, remand 

for additional explanation is appropriate. See United States ex 

rel. Romero v. Douglas Constr. Co., 531 F.2d 478, 482 (10th Cir. 

1976); Armstrong v. Trico Marine, Inc., 923 F.2d 55, 58 (5th Cir. 

1991); Gould, Inc. v. Chafee, 450 F.2d 667, 669 (D.C. Cir. 1971). 

We follow that course here. Furthermore, the parties have 

represented throughout the proceedings, and we agree, that the 

factual circumstances surrounding this case raise a substantial 

choice of law issue with respect to the various contract and tort 

claims asserted. We therefore include the unaddressed choice of 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-4108 Document: 010110275091 Date Filed: 07/28/1992 Page: 2
law issue as part of the basis for, and subject of, our remand of 

this case. See McClelland Eng'rs, Inc. v. Munusamy, 784 F.2d 

1313, 1319 (5th Cir. 1986); see, e.g., Judge v. American Motors 

Corp., 908 F.2d 1565, 1575 (11th Cir. 1990); Baltimore Orioles, 

Inc. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass'n, 805 F.2d 663, 681-82 

(7th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 941 (1987). 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Utah is VACATED, and the cause is REMANDED for further 

proceedings consistent with this Order and Judgment. 

Entered for the Court 

Paul J. Kelly, Jr. 

Circuit Judge 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-4108 Document: 010110275091 Date Filed: 07/28/1992 Page: 3