* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JUL 11 2001 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

MOUNTAIN WEST HELICOPTERS, a Utah Limited Liability Company,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. TEXTRON, INC., doing business as Textron Lycoming Overseas Corp., a Delaware corporation; ALLIEDSIGNAL, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendants - Appellees, and MCTURBINE, INC., a Texas corporation; PUEBLO AIRMOTIVE, INC., an Arizona corporation; GARLICK HELICOPTERS, INC., a Montana corporation; SCOTT PAPER, a Delaware corporation,

Defendants. No. 00-4151 (D. Ct. No. 97-CV-887-K) (D. Utah)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *1 Appellee is variously referred to in this case as Textron, Inc. and

AlliedSignal, Inc. For purposes of this order and judgment, we refer to the appellee as Textron, Inc.

2 Scott Paper Company was also a defendant in the lawsuit filed by Mountain West, however; this appeal deals exclusive ly with Mountain West’s claims against Textron. - 2 - Before TACHA , Chief Judge, ANDERSON , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.
Appellant, Mountain West Helicopters, appeals the d istrict court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee, Textron, Inc

. 1 We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
I. On September 18, 1995, a military surplus UH-1L hel icopter owned by Mountain West crashed near Grace, Idaho. At the ti me, Mountain West was operating the helicopter in Idaho in its logging op erations. The helicopter’s pilot, a Mountain West employee, was seriously inju red in the crash. The helicopter was equipped with a T53-L-13B engine ori ginally manufactured for the United States Army by Avco Corporation, the pre decessor of Textron. The crash was caused by a loss of power in the engine t hat was in turn caused by the failure of the engine’s centrifugal impeller. Mountain West had purchased the helicopter, with th e engine and centrifugal impeller already installed as component s, from Scott Paper Company 2- 3 -

approximately nine months before the accident. In 1990, while Scott Paper owned the helicopter, a replacement centrifugal imp eller, also manufactured by Textron, had been installed. The replacement impel ler was the impeller that later failed and caused the 1995 crash. Mountain West pu rchased the helicopter “as is” from Scott Paper. The purchase agreement clear ly stated that all express or implied warranties were excluded. Mountain West filed this lawsuit in Utah state court to recover the following economic losses it allegedly suffered as a result of the crash: (1) the value of the helicopter; (2) increased worker’s com pensation premiums allegedly incurred because of the crash; (3) increased aviati on hull and liability insurance premiums allegedly incurred because of the crash; ( 4) a year’s worth of insurance premium payed for the crashed helicopter; (5) penal ties paid to contractors when Mountain West was unable to perform its logging obl igations because of the crash; and (6) lost profits on contracts Mountain W est was unable to complete because of the crash. Mountain West’s suit sounded in tort and advanced a theory of strict product liability. Defendant Scott Paper removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Ut ah pursuant to federal diversity jurisdiction. Textron filed for summary judgment arguing that purely economic damages are not recoverable in a products liability lawsuit under Idaho law. The district court agreed and granted summary judgment against Mountain West on- 4 -

all of its claims against Textron. This appeal fol lowed.
II. We review a “grant of summary judgment de novo appl ying the same standards used by the district court.” Byers v. Ci ty of Albuquerque , 150 F.3d 1271, 1274 (10th Cir. 1998). Summary judgment is appropriate if “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admiss ions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine i ssue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The question now on appeal is whether Mountain Westcan recover in tort for purely economic damages. The parties have stip ulated that Idaho law applies to this dispute. Therefore, the limited question b efore us is whether, under Idaho law, Mountain West can recover in tort for purely e conomic damages. For substantially the same reasons given by the distric t court, we agree that Idaho law does not permit Mountain West to recover its allege d damages in tort. Accordingly, the district court’s grant of Appellee ’s motion for summary judgment is AFFIRMED. Mountain West has additional ly moved to have the question certified to the Idaho Supreme Court. Further, Textron has moved to strike references made by Mountain West to any sett lement between Textron and the helicopter’s pilot. The motion to certify is D ENIED and the motion to strike- 5 -

is GRANTED. ENTERED FOR THE COURT,

Deanell Reece Tacha Circuit Judge