2001 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

3-7-2001

Woessner v. Air Liquide, Inc.

Precedential or Non-Precedential:

Docket 99-5237

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2001

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2001 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Woessner v. Air Liquide, Inc." (2001). 2001 Decisions. Paper 43.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2001/43
Filed March 7, 2001 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

No. 99-5237 

AMELIA WOESSNER, 

 Appellant 

v. 

AIR LIQUIDE. INC., a Delaware Corporation; 

CARDOX INC, a California Corporation; 

GEN ELEC CO; D ELEC MOTORS INC; 

INTL SWITCHBOARD; OLSEN ENG CORP 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of New Jersey 

(D.C. Civil Action No. 96-cv-552) 

District Judge: Honorable Joseph E. Irenas 

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) 

December 11, 2000 

Before: SCIRICA, AMBRO, Circuit Judges and 

POLLAK, District Judge.** 

(Opinion filed: March 7, 2001) 

 Kevin P. McCann 

 Walter H. Iacovone 

 Chance & McCann 

 201 West Commerce Street 

 P.O. Box 278 

 Bridgeton, New Jersey 08302 

 Counsel for Appellant 

_________________________________________________________________ 

**Honorable Louis H. Pollak, Senior United States District Judge for the 

Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. 
 Richard T. Smith 

 Margolis Edelstein 

 216 Haddon Avenue 

 Suite 200 

 Westmont, New Jersey 08108 

 Counsel for Appellee International 

 Switchboard Corp. 

 Richard P. Maggi 

 McDermott & McGee 

 75 Main Street 

 P.O. Box 192 

 Millburn, New Jersey 07041 

 Counsel for Appellee 

 Olsen Engineering Corp. 

OPINION OF THE COURT 

AMBRO, Circuit Judge 

Amelia Woessner ("Woessner") appeals from the grant of 

summary judgment in favor of the two remaining 

defendants in this diversity action -- Inter national 

Switchboard Corporation ("International Switchboard") and 

Olsen Engineering Corporation ("Olsen"). She contends that 

the District Court erred in its analysis of New Jersey's 

choice of law doctrine by applying Delaware's builder's 

statute, 10 Del. Code S 8127, to bar her pr oducts liability 

claims. Furthermore, Woessner ar gues that neither the 

builder's statute of Delaware nor New Jersey should

preclude her action because her injuries wer e the result of 

alleged defects in production machinery and therefore were 

not covered by the scope of either builder's statute. We 

affirm the grant of summary judgment of the District Court 

because it properly applied Delaware law in this case and 

correctly found that Delaware's builder's statute precluded 

Woessner's cause of action. 

I. Factual and Procedural History 

In 1972, Cardox, Inc. ("Cardox") planned the construction 

of a carbon dioxide recovery plant adjacent to its existing 

facilities in Delaware City, Delaware. Car dox contracted 

 2 
with Olsen to provide design and engineering services for 

that construction. One component of the construction was 

a 2,300 volt motor control center, also known as a 

switchgear. That motor control center was manufactured by 

International Switchboard to the specifications demanded 

by Olsen and was integrated into the production process of 

the facility in 1973. Cardox was later acquir ed by Air 

Liquide, Inc. ("Air Liquide"), a Delawar e corporation, which 

continued to operate the facility. 

Woessner was employed as a field technician by "D" 

Electric Motors (" `D' Electric") on July 29, 1994, the day of 

her injury. "D" Electric is located in V ineland, New Jersey 

and Woessner is a New Jersey resident. In her capacity as 

a field technician, Woessner visited Air Liquide at its 

request on that day to provide an evaluation of a motor that 

was not functioning. Unable to make repairs to the motor 

on site, Woessner sought to remove it for repair at the "D" 

Electric facility in New Jersey. Before r emoving the motor, 

Air Liquide officials asked Woessner to evaluate the 

attached motor control center. While examining the motor 

control center with an electrical tester , Woessner was 

severely burned by an explosion. 

This products liability action was brought by Woessner in 

1996, alleging that the motor control center was defective in 

that it contained exposed electrical components. 

Jurisdiction was based on the diversity of the parties. 28 

U.S.C. S 1332. The District Court made two determinations 

relevant to this appeal. On January 7, 1999, the Court 

granted the motion of International Switchboar d to

establish that the law of Delaware will gover n the

determination of liability. On March 17, 1999, the Court 

then granted summary judgment in favor of Olsen and

International Switchboard, predicting that Delaware's 

builder's statute would bar Woessner's claims against them. 

All of the defendants not involved in this appeal, including 

"D" Electric, General Electric Co. and Car dox, have either 

settled or been dismissed from this action, and thus the 

entry of summary judgment was a final order which is ripe 

for appeal to this Court. 28 U.S.C. S 1291. 

II. Standard of Review 

The District Court's grant of summary judgment is 

subject to plenary review in this Court. Hurley v. Atlantic 

 3 
City Police Dept., 174 F.3d 95, 128 n.29 (3d Cir. 1999), cert. 

denied, 528 U.S. 1074 (2000). Similarly, W oessner is 

entitled to plenary review of the District Court's prediction, 

interpretation and application of the gover ning state 

substantive law. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Buf fetta, 230 

F.3d 634, 637 (3d Cir. 2000). W e are required to apply the 

same test that should have been used initially by the 

District Court -- whether the movant can demonstrate that 

there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and it is 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

56(c); Omnipoint Communications Enters., L.P . v. Newtown 

Township, 219 F.3d 240, 242 (3d Cir .), cert. denied, 121 S. 

Ct. 441 (2000). In doing so, we view the evidence and draw 

all inferences in the light most favorable to the non-movant. 

Whiteland Woods, L.P. v. Township of West Whiteland, 193 

F.3d 177, 180 (3d Cir. 1999). 

III. Analysis 

As an initial matter, we note that the District Court was 

required to apply the law of the forum state, including its 

choice of law provisions. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. 

Co., 313 U.S. 487, 496 (1941); Robertson v. Central Jersey 

Bank & Trust Co., 47 F.3d 1268, 1273 (3d Cir. 1995). New 

Jersey has rejected the strict lex loci delicti ("place of the 

wrong") rule for determining the choice of law based on the 

place where the tort occurred. V eazey v. Doremus, 510 A.2d 

1187, 1189 (N.J. 1986). In its place, the New Jersey courts 

have substituted "the more flexible gover nmental-interest 

analysis in choice-of-law decisions." Id.[citations omitted]. 

It is the District Court's application of this gover nmentalinterest analysis to which Woessner objects on appeal. 

Before discussing the governmental-inter est analysis, we 

observe that the scope of our review of the choice of law 

question will not be as broad as the District Court's 

determination. The District Court found that Delaware law 

applied with respect to all issues of liability. We need not 

delve that far, for we note that the application of New 

Jersey's choice of law test proceeds on "an issue-by-issue 

basis." Veazey, 510 A.2d at 1189."Conflicts principles do 

not dictate that all legal issues presented by a single case 

should be decided under the laws of a single state. The 

evaluation of significant relationships and governmental 

 4 
interests takes place issue by issue and can lead to the 

application of different bodies of law." Johnson Matthey Inc. 

v. Pennsylvania Mfrs. Ass'n Ins. Co., 593 A.2d 367, 374 

(N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1991). We are convinced, at least 

as to the question of which builder's statute applies in this 

case, that the District Court properly applied the law of 

Delaware. 

New Jersey's governmental-interest test r equires a twostep inquiry. "The first step in the analysis is to determine 

whether a conflict exists between the law of the interested 

states. . . . If an actual conflict exists, the next step is to 

identify the governmental policies underlying the law of 

each state and how those policies are af fected by each 

state's contacts to the litigation and to the parties." Veazey, 

510 A.2d at 1189. Thus, we begin with whether a conflict 

exists between the builder's statutes of New Jersey and 

Delaware. 

"The Delaware `Builder's Statute' pr ovides a six year 

limitations1 period on actions for damages, indemnification, 

_________________________________________________________________ 

1. The builder's statutes of both New Jersey and Delaware are technically 

statutes of repose and not statutes of limitation. Though both work to 

extinguish claims after the running of a given period, a statute of repose 

differs in two respects from a statute of limitation. First, the time 

period 

of a statute of repose does not run from the accrual of a cause of action, 

as does a statute of limitations. "With the above backdrop it is safe to 

assert that our statute is not at all a typical statute of limitations, 

for the 

time within which suit may be brought commences with the completion 

of services and construction and is thus `entir ely unrelated to the 

accrual of any cause of action.' " O'Connor v. Altus, 335 A.2d 545, 553 

(N.J. 1975) (citation omitted); see City of Dover v. International 

Telephone 

& Telegraph Corp., 514 A.2d 1086, 1089 (Del. 1986) ("The statute in 

question is truly a statute of repose. It pr events a claim from arising, 

whereas a statute of limitations bars an accrued cause of action."). 

Secondly, statutes of repose serve a dif ferent purpose than traditional 

statutes of limitation. "Statutes of limitations are designed to stimulate 

litigants to prosecute their suits diligently and to avoid burdening our 

courts with stale claims....[T]he statute of r epose does not serve to 

limit 

stale claims as such. Rather, the statute literally confers immunity ten 

years after the performance of services or construction when an injury 

occurs due to a defect or unsafe condition, r egardless of any intended 

useful life of a product." Van Slyke v. Worthington, 628 A.2d 386, 388 

(N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 1992) (citations omitted). 

 5 
or contribution for damages resulting fr om personal 

injuries arising out of any deficiency in the construction or 

improvement to any real property or the design, planning, 

supervision, or observation of any such construction." City 

of Dover v. International Telephone & T elegraph Corp., 514 

A.2d 1086, 1088-89 (Del. 1986); see 10 Del. Code S 8127. 

The six year period runs from the earliest of any of a variety 

of dates signaling the completion of construction. 10 Del. 

Code S 8127(b). There is a governmental interest in such 

laws. The Delaware Supreme Court has noted that builder's 

statutes have been enacted in as many as 47 states and 

that "[t]hey are prophylactic measures taken by the

Legislatures to lessen the construction pr ofessionals' 

exposure to the almost unlimited liability which has 

resulted from the demise of the privity doctrine and the 

imposition of a discovery rule in tort cases." Becker v. 

Hamada, Inc., 455 A.2d 353, 355 (Del. 1982). 

The New Jersey builder's statute, N.J. Stat. Ann. 2A:14- 

1.1, does not differ from that of Delawar e in any respect 

material to this litigation. "N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1.1 was adopted, 

effective May 18, 1967, as a legislative r esponse to the then 

expanding liability concepts in this jurisdiction concerning 

the legal responsibility of contractors, ar chitects, engineers, 

and others involved in creating improvements to real 

estate." Brown v. Jersey Cent. Power & Light Co., 394 A.2d 

397, 404 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1978). The primary 

distinction between the two is that Delaware's statute 

provides that no actions may be brought against the

builder after six years, while New Jersey has chosen to do 

similarly after ten years. Compare 10 Del. Code S 8127(b) 

with N.J. Stat. Ann. 2A:14-1.1. Of course, because the 

current action was brought almost twenty-three years after 

the construction of the Cardox facility, the action would be 

time-barred by either statute, assuming either applied in 

this case. Indeed, Woessner has made no ef fort to 

distinguish between New Jersey's and Delawar e's builder's 

statutes and has "submitted that the outcome is the same 

regardless of which statute of repose is applied." Br. of 

Woessner at 15. 

Even assuming, arguendo, that the builder's statutes of 

New Jersey and Delaware differed other than as noted, an 

 6 
evaluation of the relative governmental interests can lead 

only to the conclusion that the District Court pr operly 

applied Delaware law. Woessner notes the following 

considerations favoring the employ of New Jersey law: 

Woessner was a New Jersey resident, was employed by a 

New Jersey company, sought medical assistance in New 

Jersey and was the beneficiary of public aid in New Jersey.2 

"New Jersey has a clearly recognized gover nmental interest 

in the compensation of its domiciliaries." Pine v. Eli Lilly & 

Co., 492 A.2d 1079, 1082 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1985). 

Indeed, this consideration is closely related to New Jersey's 

interest in assuring that its residents ar e productive and do 

not become the beneficiaries of public assistance. Schum v. 

Bailey, 578 F.2d 493, 501 (3d Cir .1978) (Gibbons, J., 

concurring). 

These domicile-related considerations ar e not, however, 

so important under the governmental-inter est analysis to 

be dispositive of our inquiry. Moreover , the compensation of 

Woessner is only tangentially related to the relevant 

governmental interests that underlie the builder's statutes. 

This point was made in Fantis Foods, Inc. v. North River Ins. 

Co., 753 A.2d 176, 180 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2000). 

Though Fantis Foods involved the application of the

governmental-interest test to an action for property 

insurance coverage between two companies whose principal 

offices were in New Jersey, the Court concluded that New 

York law should apply because the insur ed building was 

located in New York. Id. at 177. 

 Notwithstanding New Jersey's undeniable inter est in 

 protecting the rights of its insureds and in promoting 

 responsiveness on the part of its insur ers, those 

 "wholly domestic" concerns [citation omitted] --the only 

 such factors in the case pertaining to New Jersey-- 

_________________________________________________________________ 

2. Woessner's argument assumes that this Court must make a choice of 

law determination with respect to all issues of liability, and as such its 

focus is on considerations relevant to the question of which state's 

products liability law applies. We find this argument unhelpful to the 

resolution of the choice of law determination, as New Jersey courts have 

unambiguously held that they must proceed on an"issue-by-issue" 

basis. See Veazey, 510 A.2d at 1189; Johnson Matthey, 593 A.2d 367 at 

374. 

 7 
 have considerably less weight than the inter ests of New 

 York in the condition, maintenance and r epair of 

 structures within its borders; the r espective 

 responsibilities, financial and otherwise, of property 

 owners and insurers with respect ther eto; and relevant 

 considerations of hazard, sequence and causation 

 when collapse occurs or is threatened. 

Fantis Foods, 753 A.2d at 180. We believe the choice of law 

analysis for this tort claim to be no differ ent. 

At root here is each state government's interest in the 

premises liability concerns of its contractors and related 

builders. It is the location of the building, not the 

individuals who might have been tortiously har med,3 that is 

relevant to the choice of which builder's statute to apply. 

Indeed, at least one New Jersey court has recognized that 

the state governmental interest inher ent in each builder's 

statute cannot be divorced from the situs of that 

construction. In Van Slyke v. Worthington, 628 A.2d 386 

(N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 1992), the Superior Court, Law 

Division, held that New Jersey's builder's statute did not 

apply because all of the alleged injuries occurr ed in New 

York buildings, and thus New York law should apply. The 

court stated: 

 I find that New York's contacts and inter est in this case 

 are more significant than that of New Jersey's. New 

 Jersey's only interest in this suit lies in ensuring the 

 compensation of its domiciliary--plaintiffs. Clearly, this 

 interest would not be furthered thr ough the operation 

 of New Jersey's substantive law and therefor e the 

 operation of N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1.1. . . . Additionally, New 

 York has a far more compelling inter est in regulating 

 dangers inherent in construction activity conducted on 

 its soil. The forgoing [sic] inter nal state needs would 

 not be advanced by application of the [New Jersey 

 builder's] statute to New York realty. Clearly New York 

_________________________________________________________________ 

3. It is for this reason that we find W oessner's argument that she was 

only fortuitously located in Delaware and thus New Jersey law should 

thus apply to her, see Blakesley v. Wolford, 789 F.2d 236, 243 (3d Cir. 

1986), to be unpersuasive. 

 8 
 State has the paramount interest in this litigation and 

 therefor its substantive law should gover n this case. 

Van Slyke, 628 A.2d at 391-92. W e find Van Slyke and 

Fantis Foods to be compelling, and thus we pr edict that a 

New Jersey court applying New Jersey's choice of law 

analysis would find that Delaware's inter est in the conduct 

of construction activities in that State outweigh New 

Jersey's interest in the compensation of its r esidents. 

We turn to the District Court's analysis of Delaware's 

builder's statute and determine whether the Court 

appropriately awarded Olsen and Inter national Switchboard 

the benefits of that statute. The statute bars, after six years 

from the earliest of certain defined dates marking the 

termination of construction, any claim arising"[f]rom any 

alleged deficiency in the construction or manner of

construction of an improvement to real pr operty and/or in 

the designing, planning, supervision and/or observation of 

any such construction or manner of construction." 10 Del. 

Code S 8127(b)(1). Woessner argues that this statute should 

not bar her action against International Switchboard and 

Olsen because the motor control center was not an 

"improvement to real property" covered by the statute.4 

Whether the motor control center is an "impr ovement" 

under the statute is a question of law and thus 

appropriately resolved on a motion for summary judgment. 

Hiab Cranes & Loaders, Inc. v. Service Unlimited, Inc., C.A. 

No. 82C-FE-98, at 3 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 16, 1983). 

"Improvement" is defined in the statute to "include

buildings, highways, roads, streets, bridges, entrances and 

walkways of any type constructed thereon, and other

structures affixed to and on land, as well as the land itself." 

10 Del. Code S 8127(a)(2). This list, however , is intended to 

be exemplary and not exhaustive. "As a matter of statutory 

construction, the words `shall include' ar e properly 

interpreted to indicate that the term`structure' 

encompasses items not expressly enumerated in the 

_________________________________________________________________ 

4. Woessner appears not to challenge on appeal the District Court's 

conclusion that both Olsen and International Switchboard performed or 

furnished construction services and wer e not merely suppliers of 

construction equipment. 

 9 
statute." City of Dover, 514 A.2d at 1089 (finding that a 

utility pole can be a "structure" within the meaning of the 

statute because "it is unquestionably affixed to land"). 

Delaware courts have employed various means to 

determine whether a particular construction is an 

"improvement" to land. The first case addressing the issue, 

Hiab Cranes & Loaders, Inc. v. Service Unlimited, Inc., C.A. 

No. 82C-FE-98 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 16, 1983), looked to 

the definition of improvement in other states and found 

that two approaches were widely employed-- a common

law fixture analysis and a "common sense" interpretation 

defining the term according to common usage. Hiab at 3-4. 

On the first approach, the Hiab court cited Pennsylvania 

law for the proposition that "while a fixture is, by definition, 

an improvement to real property, the converse is not true; 

an improvement to real property[,] in the ordinary sense of 

the term, need not be a fixture." Hiab at 4 (citing Keeler v. 

Commonwealth Dep't of Transp., 424 A.2d 614, 616 ( Pa. 

Commw. Ct. 1981)). Of the second approach, the Hiab

court cited with approval Brown v. Central Jersey Power & 

Light Co., 394 A.2d 397, 405-06 (N.J. Super . Ct. App. Div. 

1978), which contrasted permanent parts of the mechanical 

systems necessary to the normal function of a building 

from those "chattels brought into a structure after it is 

architecturally and mechanically suitable for occupancy for 

the purpose intended, . . . e.g., furnitur e, production 

machinery, appliances, etc."-- the former being 

improvements, the latter not. Id. at 405-06. The Hiab court 

went on to find that a building's furnace was an 

improvement covered by the statute. Hiab at 5. 

Woessner argues that the motor contr ol center is not an 

improvement to real property because it is "production 

machinery" as noted in Brown, and her claims therefore are 

not barred by Delaware's builder's statute. This argument 

is unpersuasive for several reasons. First, the only 

reference in Delaware case law to the fact that "production 

machinery" is not covered is the citation of Brown 

contained in the Hiab decision of the Delaware Superior 

Court.5 Yet because the furnace in Hiab was not 

_________________________________________________________________ 

5. The genesis of the "production machinery" comment in Brown further 

demonstrates why the motor control center should be covered by 

 10 
"production machinery," this refer ence is, at best, dicta. 

More importantly, a subsequent Delaware case found 

production machinery to be an improvement to real 

property. Davis v. Catalytic, Inc., Nos. 82C-AU-39, 82C-OC84, 1985 WL 189329 (Del. Super. Ct. 1985). In Davis, the 

Superior Court analyzed the Hiab decision's use of a 

"common sense" approach and found that, under that 

approach, a "slurry cooler" was an impr ovement to real 

property and its builder was entitled to pr otection under 10 

Del. Code S 8127. Davis, 1985 WL 189329, at * 5. The 

"slurry cooler" was a sizable free-standing structure bolted 

to the concrete floor and affixed to the adjacent pieces of 

the production process. Id. It is similar to the motor control 

center here, which was also bolted to the concr ete floor and 

affixed to the other elements of the production process. See 

Standard Chlorine of Delaware, Inc. v. Dover Steel Co., 1988 

WL 32044, *2 (Del. Super. Ct. March 31, 1988) (holding 

that a liquid storage tank "attached to the r ealty through a 

system of pipes, valves, manifolds, wires, scaf folds, 

catwalks and a foundation" was an improvement to 

property). Furthermore, both the motor control center and 

"slurry cooler" were an integral part of the respective 

purposes of the buildings. See Windley v. Potts Welding & 

Boiler Repair Co., 888 F. Supp. 610, 613 (D. Del. 1995) 

(finding a preheater that was "central to the plant's 

function" to be an improvement). Thus, we pr edict that a 

Delaware court would find the motor contr ol center to be 

an improvement under the "common sense" approach 

employed in Hiab and Davis. 

_________________________________________________________________ 

Delaware's builder's statute. The Brown decision relied heavily uponIlich 

v. John E. Smith Sons Co., 367 A.2d 1216 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 

1976), which held that a defendant who wired a meat grinding machine 

during the conversion of a building from a theater to a butcher shop 

could not claim the benefit of the builder's statute in New Jersey. Brown, 

394 A.2d at 405. There was no evidence that the meat grinding machine 

was in any way affixed to the building and the court expressly stated 

that it was not a fixture. Ilich, 367 A.2d at 1217-18. The court in Brown, 

however, described Ilich as involving a "meat grinding production 

machine," and seems to have extrapolated ther efrom the general 

comment that production machines were not covered by the builder's 

statute. Brown, 394 A.2d at 405. Obviously, production machines that 

are fixtures, as the motor contr ol center was, can be covered by the 

builder's statute. Davis, 1985 WL 189329, at *5. 

 11 
We caution, however, that the "common sense" approach 

advocated by Woessner was not adopted by the Delaware 

Supreme Court in its only statement on the matter. In City 

of Dover, that Court seemed to employ a fixtur es analysis 

by relying on the "other structures affixed to and on land" 

clause in the definition of "improvement." City of Dover, 514 

A.2d at 1089-90 (citing 10 Del. Code S 8127(a)(2)). The 

Court stated that a "utility pole can be consider ed a 

`structure' within the meaning of the statute. Since it is 

unquestionably affixed to land, it can be consider ed an 

`improvement' covered by that statute." Id. at 1090. 

Employing a strict fixtures analysis lends even stronger 

support to the conclusion that the motor contr ol center was 

an improvement, as it had been installed in 1973, was 

affixed to the concrete floor by bolts for the entire lifetime 

of the structure leading up to the accident and was an 

integral part of the production process. Seen in this light, 

the motor control center is indistinguishable from a circuit 

breaker box,6 which was also held to be a "permanent 

fixture" in Kirkwood Dodge, Inc. v. Fr ederic G. Krapf, Jr., 

Inc., C.A. No. 84C-DE-81, slip. op. at 3-4 (Del. Super. Ct. 

May 9, 1989).7 

We are convinced that the motor contr ol center was

intended to be a permanent fixture for the lifetime of the 

Air Liquide facility and that it was covered by the Delaware 

builder's statute. Alternatively, were we to employ the 

"common sense" approach to improvements, we are 

convinced that the motor control center was an 

improvement, indeed an indispensible one, to the Air 

Liquide facility. 

For the reasons noted, we conclude that the District 

Court properly granted summary judgment in favor of both 

Olsen and International Switchboard. 

_________________________________________________________________ 

6. Indeed, one of Woessner's expert witnesses likened the motor control 

center to a "circuit breaker box in the home." 

7. The Court in Kirkwood Dodge went on to hold, however, that a 

supplier of a standard circuit breaker box did not "furnish construction" 

under the builder's statute. Kirkwood Dodge, Inc., at 4-5. 

 12 
A True Copy: 

Teste: 

 Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals 

 for the Third Circuit 

 13