Court Opinion

ID: 992274
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:49:30.290783+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:56:52.078255
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

LAIDLAW ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
(TOC), INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
                                                                  No. 96-2447
v.

HONEYWELL, INCORPORATED,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg.
William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-95-473-7-21)

Argued: May 9, 1997

Decided: May 28, 1997

Before RUSSELL and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and
MICHAEL, Senior United States District Judge for the
Western District of Virginia, sitting by designation.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Kellum Wright Allen, KIRKLAND, WILSON, MOORE,
ALLEN, TAYLOR & O'DAY, P.A., West Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellant. Matthew L. Woods, ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER &
CIRESI, L.L.P., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for Appellee. ON BRIEF:
Kenneth W. Ebener, KIRKLAND, WILSON, MOORE, ALLEN,
TAYLOR & O'DAY, P.A., West Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellant. William H. Manning, Brad P. Engdahl, ROBINS,
KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI, L.L.P., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for
Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

In 1991, Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Incorporated
(Laidlaw), purchased a computer-control system from Honeywell,
Incorporated (Honeywell), for use at Laidlaw's hazardous waste
incinerator plant in Roebuck, South Carolina. Over the ensuing years,
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fined Laidlaw approxi-
mately $400,000 for violating certain environmental regulations.
Believing that its problems with the EPA were caused by program-
ming errors in the computer-control system provided by Honeywell,
Laidlaw sued Honeywell for breach of contract, breach of warranties,
and negligence.

Following extensive discovery by both parties, Honeywell moved
for summary judgment on the ground that, under the express terms of
the parties' contract, it cannot be held liable for any of Laidlaw's
claims or damages. After extensive briefing and oral argument, the
district court granted Honeywell's motion for summary judgment.
According to the district court, the plain language of the contract lim-
ited Laidlaw to the exclusive remedy of repair or replacement.
Laidlaw appeals the district court's order, arguing that a new contract
was formed by Honeywell's reference, in its letter confirming the
contract, to a purchase order that Laidlaw had sent Honeywell prior
to negotiations.

We have reviewed the record, briefs, and pertinent case law in this
matter, and we have had the benefit of oral argument. Our review per-

                    2
suades us that the rulings of the district court were correct. Accord-
ingly, we affirm on the reasoning set forth in the district court's
thorough and meticulous opinion. See Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC),
Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc., C.A. No. 7:95-473-21 (D.S.C. Sept. 18,
1996).

AFFIRMED

                    3