a) Defendant Caterpillar, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Adjudication – GRANTED, in part; DENIED, in part.
The motion is DENIED as to the First and Twelfth Causes of Action for Strict Products Liability and Negligence, respectively. While Defendant, as the moving party, met the initial burden of demonstrating entitlement to summary adjudication, Plaintiff has submitted evidence of the existence of disputed material facts with regard to the issue of whether the component part (i.e. the NRS cooler) constituted a separate product from the engine, such that application of the economic loss rule is barred by application of the factors articulated in KB Home v. Superior Court (Consolidated Industries Corp.) (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1076. (See Facts 2, 3 and Plaintiff’s Additional Facts 17-21.) Therefore, the facts herein are not susceptible of only one legitimate inference, and the issue is inappropriate for determination by this motion.
The motion is GRANTED as to the Third and Fourth Causes of Ac