Opinion ID: 202101
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Lockheed and Rantec

Text: 3 Lockheed is an advanced technology company incorporated in Maryland that also has its principal place of business in Maryland. Rantec is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Missouri. Rantec designs and constructs anechoic chambers. 2 On April 15, 1992, Lockheed and Rantec entered into a written contract in which Rantec agreed to design and construct an anechoic chamber at a Lockheed facility in Merrimack, New Hampshire. As part of the contract, Rantec was required to design, fabricate, and install a fire detection and sprinkler system in the chamber. The contract contained a warranty clause providing that [a]ll equipment and workmanship shall be guaranteed to be free from defects by [Rantec] for a period of one (1) year after final acceptance, unless a different warranty is specified. Rantec completed construction of the chamber in late 1992, and final acceptance occurred in 1993. 4 The fire detection system consisted of, inter alia, smoke detectors, fire alarms, valves, telescoping sprinkler assemblies (TSAs), and sprinkler heads. The TSAs were retracted above and outside the chamber and were designed to extend into the chamber when the detection system identified smoke or fire but not immediately release water. Once the temperature exceeded a certain level, a fusible link incorporated in the sprinkler head would melt and water would be released into the chamber. 5 The present case stems from two incidents involving flooding of Lockheed anechoic chambers. In December 1996, an anechoic chamber at a Lockheed facility in California suffered water damage when three of the TSAs broke and water flooded the chamber. On March 27, 1997, the sprinkler system at the anechoic chamber in New Hampshire malfunctioned. The fire suppression system activated due to a defect in an electronic panel sold and installed by another contractor not party to this suit. The TSAs extended and some of the sprinkler heads broke and released a large amount of water into the chamber. The foam and sub-flooring of the chamber suffered $400,000 of damage. According to Lockheed, also damaged by the flood were a pedestal and positioning system costing over $160,000. These items were not provided under the contract with Rantec. Lockheed did not include these items in its complaint and did not amend its complaint to add these items. 3 6 On December 20, 1999, Lockheed brought suit against Rantec in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 4 alleging claims stemming from the incidents in California and New Hampshire. On August 29, 2000, the district court in California severed Lockheed's New Hampshire claims, and the parties then stipulated to transfer the New Hampshire claims to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Lockheed raised the following claims regarding the New Hampshire events: (1) negligence, (2) strict liability, and (3) implied warranties.