Full opinion text
ORDER JULIAN ABELE COOK, Jr., Chief Judge. This case involves a tragedy that occurred on August 16,1987 when Northwest Airlines Flight 255 crashed shortly after takeoff from the Detroit Metropolitan Airport and resulted in the death of one hundred fifty-six people and injuries to several other persons. There are a variety of motions, most of which have been filed by the Third-Party Defendants in this cause, that are currently pending before this court. These motions are based on the jury verdict and ensuing final judgment which addressed and resolved the general loss claims between Northwest Airlines, Inc. (Northwest) and McDonnell Douglas Corporation (MDC). Northwest has filed cross-motions for summary judgment and a motion to amend its complaints. In addition, Northwest and MDC have filed cross-motions for summary judgment which relate to whether MDC is entitled to contribution, indemnity, and sub-rogation in the “special defense” cases. All of these pleadings raise complex and vexing issues pertaining to choice of law, collateral estoppel (issue preclusion), res judicata (claim preclusion), the law of the case doctrine, and, finally, contribution, indemnity and equitable subrogation. For the following reasons, the court will (1) grant MDC’s July 16, 1991 motion for summary judgment in the loss of aircraft hull cases, (2) grant the July 16, 1991 motion for summary judgment by Texas Instruments Inc./Klixon (TI), (3) grant in part and deny in part the July 16, 1991 motions of National Car Rental System, Inc. (NCR), (4) grant in part and deny in part Northwest’s August 30, 1991 cross-motion for summary judgment against NCR, (5) grant in part and deny in part Northwest’s September 11, 1991 motion to amend its claims, (6) grant in part the July 16, 1991 requests of CAE Electronic, Ltd. (CAE), (7) grant MDC’s November 8, 1991 motion for summary judgment in the special defense cases, and (8) deny Northwest’s November 21, 1991 cross-motion for summary judgment. I. The first case to arise from the tragedy at the Detroit Metropolitan Airport was filed with this court on August 28, 1987 and charged Northwest and MDC, the manufacturer of the aircraft, with being responsible for the deaths of the occupants of the accident aircraft. The chief allegations against Northwest included the negligence of the pilots in failing to (1) set the flaps and slats for takeoff, (2) perform a proper checklist to ensure proper configuration for takeoff, and (3) perform mandatory stall recovery procedures. MDC was alleged to have provided Northwest with a defective warning system within the accident aircraft. Both of the Defendants denied these allegations. Shortly thereafter, Northwest filed cross-claims and third-party complaints for contribution and indemnity against MDC, TI, NCR, CAE, and the United States Government. In turn, MDC filed cross-claims and counterclaims for contribution and indemnity against Northwest. In separate but related lawsuits, Northwest filed complaints against MDC and the other Third-Party Defendants, seeking damages from them for, among other things, the loss of the aircraft hull. On December 9, 1987, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) ordered the transfer of all Northwest Flight 255 federal eases to this district for consolidated pretrial proceedings. On August 18, 1989, all of the multidistrict litigation cases were transferred to, and consolidated in, this court for trial. Order, In re Air Crash Disaster at Detroit Metropolitan Airport, Detroit, Michigan on August 16, 1987, 737 F.Supp. 391 (E.D.Mich.1989). On April 18, 1988, this court appointed a Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee (PSC), consisting of six experienced mass disaster attorneys, to pursue pretrial matters on behalf of all of the multidistrict federal Plaintiffs. See Practice and Procedure Order No. 2, MDL No. 742, at 3-4 (E.D.Mich. April 18, 1988); see also Order, MDL No. 742, at 10 (E.D.Mich. August 18, 1989) (stating intention of court to appoint PSC to serve as trial counsel for prosecuting joint liability trial on behalf of all Plaintiffs). The pretrial proceedings were extensive, consuming over two years and resulting in over 200 days of depositions, 1,400 docket entries, and 175 written orders by this court. The first witness at trial was sworn on October 12, 1989. The trial proceedings followed the path of the pretrial proceedings in terms of consumption of time, number of issues, docket entries, exhibits, and court orders. Against this trial background were continuous settlement negotiations by the parties and, in some instances, a complete resolution of a disputed issue or claim. As an example, Northwest settled a number of individual cases prior to the start of the joint liability trial, some of which involved stipulations not to contest liability in exchange for a compensatory damages-only trial. After considering various proposals with respect to the procedure for addressing all of the issues in the case, this court determined that it would resolve the litigation through a sequence of trials. First, a joint liability trial involving the claims of all nonsettling Plaintiffs against Northwest and MDC, and of all claims for contribution and indemnity between Northwest and MDC, would be conducted. Second, damage trials would follow in order to determine the amount of the compensation that would be payable to the nonsettling Plaintiffs and to those Plaintiffs who accepted damages-only stipulations. Third, a second liability trial would be held to resolve Northwest’s third-party claims. Jury selection for the joint liability trial began on October 2, 1989. During the voir dire, Northwest advised the court, in camera, that it had reached a settlement with (1) the Plaintiffs whose claims were governed by the Warsaw Convention, workers’ compensation statutes, or the provisions of an employee flight pass, and (2) the vast majority of the paying passengers who were injured or deceased as a result of the accident. Subsequent to the consummation of these settlements, this court permitted those Plaintiffs who had declined to settle with Northwest to sever their claims against the air carrier from the liability trial. As a result of these events, the litigative posture of the joint liability trial commenced with (1) the Plaintiffs pursuing their claims against MDC only, (2) Northwest remaining in the case as a Third-Party Plaintiff and pursuing its claims against MDC, and (3) MDC seeking relief against Northwest through an adjudication of its cross-claims and counterclaims. On February 14, 1990, MDC reached settlements with a wrongful death claimant and the remaining personal injury claimants. On March 28, 1990, this court was advised by MDC of the likelihood of its settlements with most or all of the remaining Plaintiffs. On April 6,1990, the last Plaintiff accepted MDC’s offer of settlement. On August 16, 1990 and following the final submission of the requisite documentation by the Plaintiffs, this court determined that there were no Plaintiffs remaining in the joint liability trial. On September 4, 1990, this court granted the PSC’s motion to be relieved of all further responsibility of attending and participating in the trial. On May 8, 1991, the jury reached a verdict and found Northwest to be responsible for the accident. See Verdict Form (Attachment A). On May 31, 1991, a final judgment on these claims was entered by the court. See Final Judgment On Claims Between Northwest Airlines and McDonnell Douglas (Attachment B). Subsequently, this court denied Northwest’s motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, as well as its alternative motion for a new trial, but granted in part its motion to amend the judgment. See October 1, 1991 Amended Final Judgment (Attachment C). Northwest filed its notice of appeal from these judgments on October 24, 1991. II. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Sixth Circuit) follows the minority view that federal standards govern summary judgment motions in diversity cases. Lewis Refrigeration Co. v. Sawyer Fruit, Vegetable and Cold Storage Co., 709 F.2d 427, 430 n. 3 (6th Cir.1983). Under Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, a summary judgment may be granted “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” In 1984, the Sixth Circuit opined that “[a] fact is ‘material’ and precludes grant of summary judgment if proof of that fact would have [the] effect of establishing or refuting one of the essential elements of the cause of action or defense asserted by the parties, and would necessarily affect [the] application of appropriate principle^] of law to the rights and obligations of the parties, [citation omitted].” Kendall v. Hoover Co., 751 F.2d 171, 174 (6th Cir.1984) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 881 (6th ed. 1979)). The court must view the evidence in a light that is most favorable to the nonmovant as well as draw all reasonable inferences in the nonmovant’s favor. See United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655, 82 S.Ct. 993, 994, 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962); Bender v. Southland Corp., 749 F.2d 1205, 1210-11 (6th Cir.1984). The movant bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of all genuine issues of material fact. See Gregg v. Allen-Bradley Co., 801 F.2d 859, 861 (6th Cir.1986). The initial burden on the movant is not as formidable as some decisions have suggested. The moving party need not produce evidence which demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Rather, “the burden on the moving party may be discharged by ‘showing’— that is, pointing out to the district court— that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2554, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Once the moving party has discharged that burden, the nonmoving party has the obligation to set forth specific facts which will demonstrate the existence of a genuine triable issue. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); Gregg, 801 F.2d at 861. To create a genuine issue of material fact, the nonmovant must do more than present some evidence on a disputed issue. The United States Supreme Court, in Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. at 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986), stated there is no issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmov-ing party for a jury to return a verdict for that party. If the [nonmovant’s] evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted. Id. at 249-50, 106 S.Ct. at 2511 (citations omitted); see Catrett, 477 U.S. at 322-23, 106 S.Ct. at 2552; Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). The standard for summary judgment mirrors the standard for a directed verdict under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a). Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250, 106 S.Ct. at 2511. Consequently, a non-movant must do more than raise some doubt as to the existence of a fact. The nonmovant must produce evidence that would be sufficient to require the submission of the dispute over the fact to the jury. III. On July 16, 1991, MDC filed a motion for summary judgment, Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, in the aircraft hull loss cases, Nos. 89-3236 and 89-2696. These cases are to be distinguished from the so-called general loss cases in which Northwest and MDC brought cross-claims against each other for contribution and indemnity for monies paid to those persons who were injured or killed in the accident. In the general loss cases, Northwest asserted four causes of action against MDC: (1) indemnity based in negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranty [Count 8], (2) contribution on the basis of negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranty [Count 9], (3) intentional misrepresentation/failure to disclose [Count 10], and (4) negligent misrepresentation/failure to disclose [Count 11]. In the aircraft hull loss cases, Northwest alleged the same causes of action: (1) negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranty [Count VII], (2) indemnity on the basis of negligence [Count VIII], (3) contribution based in negligence [Count IX], (4) intentional misrepresentation/failure to disclose [Count X], and (5) negligent misrepresentation/failure to disclose [Count XI]. The general loss and hull loss cases raise similar factual allegations pertaining to (a) the contract between Northwest and MDC for the purchase of the accident aircraft, (b) the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) type certification of the aircraft, (c) the TI 7274-55 circuit breakers, (d) the takeoff warning system, (e) the Central Aural Warning System (CAWS) fail light, (f) the flight director, (g) the auto-slat system, (h) the stick pusher, (i) the NCR light pole, and (j) the MD-82 simulators. Compare Attachments A and B of MDC Motion for Summary Judgment (July 16, 1991) with Attachment C of same motion. In its motion, MDC contends that, since the jury verdict and amended final judgment held Northwest 100% at fault for the accident, the hull loss complaints should be dismissed with prejudice as to it on the basis of (1) claim preclusion (res judicata), (2) issue preclusion (collateral estoppel), and (3) the law of the case doctrine. Northwest disagrees. A. A threshold question is whether federal or state law determines the preclusive effect of a federal diversity judgment in a subsequent diversity case. Moreover, since the District of Columbia suit, No. 89-3236, was transferred to this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 by the JPML and later consolidated for trial according to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), see 737 F.Supp. at 394, a separate question is whether the applicable federal law to apply in this case should be based on the decisions from the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit or the Sixth Circuit. This court is impressed by, and agrees with, the extensive analysis of the latter issue in In re Korean Air Lines Disaster of September 1, 1983, 829 F.2d 1171 (D.C.Cir.1987), aff'd on other grounds, 490 U.S. 122, 109 S.Ct. 1676, 104 L.Ed.2d 113 (1989) (KAL). In KAL, the district court was also confronted with multidistrict litigation involving an airline disaster. The lawsuits in that action had been initially filed in (1) the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, (2) the Eastern District of Michigan, (3) the District of Massachusetts, and (4) the District of Columbia. All of the actions were transferred to the District of Columbia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 for the purpose of consolidated pretrial proceedings. An issue arose as to whether the damage limitation of the Warsaw Convention applied because of the claimed inadequate type size of the liability limitation notice that was printed on the passenger tickets. A resolution of the matter became complicated because the case law from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (Second Circuit), from which several actions had been transferred, held that the inadequate type size obviated the damage limitation. The District of Columbia (D.C.Circuit) and First Circuit Courts of Appeal, as well as the Sixth Circuit, had not yet addressed the issue. The district court independently applied its own analysis to the issue, rejected the Second Circuit holding, and determined that the inadequate type size of the liability limitation notice did not obviate the damage limitation. The district thereafter applied this decision to all cases notwithstanding the law of the fora in which they had been originally filed. On appeal, the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the decision of the lower court to engage in an independent and reasoned analysis rather than to apply possibly divergent federal law on the basis of the districts in which the lawsuits were filed. In so doing, it regarded the rule of Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 84 S.Ct. 805, 11 L.Ed.2d 945 (1964), as inapplicable, since it only pertained to state law issues. In KAL, the law to be applied was federal (the Warsaw Convention), as to which there is or should be but one uniform law throughout the federal system, with the Supreme Court as the final expositor. Even though federal courts may have different interpretations of federal law, “each has an obligation to engage independently in reasoned analysis. Binding precedent for all is set only by the Supreme Court, and for the district courts within a circuit, only by the court of appeals for that circuit.” 829 F.2d at 1176. In more detail, the court explained: Application of Van Dusen in the matter before us, we emphasize, would not produce uniformity. There would be one interpretation of federal law for the cases initially filed in districts within the Second Circuit, and an opposing interpretation for cases filed elsewhere. Applying diverse interpretations of the governing federal law to plaintiffs, depending solely upon where they initially filed suit, would surely reduce the efficiencies achievable through consolidated preparatory proceedings. Indeed, because there is ultimately a single proper interpretation of federal law, the attempt to ascertain and apply diverse circuit interpretation simultaneously is inherently self contradictory. Our system contemplates differences between states’ laws; thus a Multidistrict Judge asked to apply diverse state positions on a point of law would face a coherent, if sometimes difficult, task. But it is logically inconsistent to require one judge to apply simultaneously different and conflicting interpretations of what is supposed to be a unitary federal law. [footnote omitted]. Id. at 1175-76. In the multidistrict litigation before this court, the lawsuit that had been initiated in the District of Columbia was transferred pursuant to section 1407 as in KAL, and subsequently consolidated for all purposes under section 1404(a) as in Van Dusen. This court believes that the binding precedent, if any, from the Sixth Circuit should be examined and, if none' exists, an evaluation of other circuit law should be undertaken in order to make a reasoned decision. This multidistrict litigation, which is already overextended, deserves to have but one interpretation of federal law. See also Isaac v. Life Investors Insurance Company of America, 749 F.Supp. 855, 863 (E.D.Tenn.1990); In re Air Crash Disaster at Stapleton International, 720 F.Supp. 1493, 1496 (D.Colo.1989); Marcus, Conflicts Among Circuits and Transfers Within the Federal Judicial System, 93 Yale L.J. 677 (1984); Steinman, Law of the Case: A Judicial Puzzle in Consolidated and Transfer Cases and in Multidistrict Litigation, 135 U.Pa.L.Rev. 595 (1987). The next threshold issue is whether federal or state law must be applied to determine the collateral estoppel effect of a federal court judgment that is based on diversity jurisdiction in a subsequent federal diversity suit. MDC contends that federal law controls. Northwest submits that the state law of Michigan governs. For the reasons that this court has expressed in an earlier opinion, all of which are incorporated into this order, federal law will control. Ratliff v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 776 F.Supp. 316 (E.D.Mich.1991). B. Under federal law, collateral estoppel or issue preclusion may be applied only if four criteria have been established: (1) the issue in the instant case is the same as in the prior litigation; (2) the issue was litigated in the prior adjudication; (3) the determination of the issue in the prior adjudication was a critical and necessary part of the judgment in that action; and (4) the party against whom the earlier decision is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior litigation. NLRB v. Master Slack and/or Master Trousers, 773 F.2d 77, 81 (6th Cir.1985); accord Central Transport Inc. v. Four Phase Systems, Inc., 936 F.2d 256 (6th Cir.1991). Northwest contends that issue preclusion should not be applied because (1) it would not save time and would distort the second trial, (2) the utilization of this doctrine would be unfair to its position in this case, (3) it should not be applied in mass ■tort litigation, and (4) MDC’s and Northwest’s claims were not essential to the amended final judgment. This court disagrees. First, the time saving argument is misplaced and, simply put, wrong. Issue preclusion is a matter of equity. Nations v. Sun Oil Co. (Delaware), 705 F.2d 742, 744 (5th Cir.1983). If the criteria for issue preclusion are met, MDC, of all litigants, should be entitled to its embrace following such costly and lengthy litigation. The contention'that a jury could not determine comparative fault without MDC in Northwest’s other hull suits is meritless, notwithstanding the dissent to its mandamus petition upon which Northwest relies. In re Aircrash at Detroit Metropolitan Airport on August 16, 1987, No. 89-1457 (6th Cir. June 13, 1989) (unpublished) (Wellford, J., dissenting). Northwest also does not refer to any compelling authority that would support its proposition that “[t]he policies denying nonmutual preclusion where it would not save time and could distort the decision are applicable to MDC’s attempted use of mutual preclusion.” Northwest Response Brief, at 12. Moreover, to deny MDC its use of a legitimate claim to issue preclusion would be unfair in terms of expense, time, and certainty. The claims between Northwest and MDC have been fully vented for over four years. Second, the unfairness argument has been previously raised and rejected by this court: Northwest has raised these same issues as grounds for a new trial, all of which the court has rejected. Order, MDL No. 742, October 1, 1991. Although the standard that would form the basis for overturning the judgment and the standard for finding error that precludes the application of ... collateral estoppel are not the same, Jack Faucett Assocs., Inc. v. American Telephone and Telegraph Co., 744 F.2d 118, 128-29 (D.C.Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1196, 105 S.Ct. 980, 83 L.Ed.2d 982 (1985), Northwest’s assertions about the alleged procedural unfairness attendant to the first trial are meritless. In every case, discovery could be pursued indefinitely and more witnesses could always be called. However, like life, litigation must end at some point. In this case, Northwest engaged, in substantial discovery and had the opportunity for more diligent discovery. The trial of the claims between Northwest and MDC covered eighteen months, litigation that approached incredulous proportions in terms of time, contentiousness, paperwork, witness examinations, and rhetoric. Juxtaposed against the monolithic pretrial and trial proceedings, Northwest’s claims of lack of discovery and inability to call witnesses reverberate much sound and fury but little substance. Since the court has rejected Northwest’s assertions in their entirety, not just as harmless error, there is- no unfairness to Northwest in permitting ... estoppel in Ratliff. Ratliff, 776 F.Supp. at 325-26. Third, this court has rejected Northwest’s contention that collateral estoppel should not be applied in mass disaster litigation: However, Northwest contends that Parklane Hosiery [Co., Inc. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 99 S.Ct. 645, 58 L.Ed.2d 552 (1979)], while sanctioning, the application of offensive collateral estoppel by a non-party to a prior judgment, curtailed its use. Insofar as it is relevant to this litigation, Northwest refers to the alleged command from the Supreme Court that offensive collateral estoppel could not be used in mass tort litigation. Id. at 330 & n. 14 [99 S.Ct. at 651 & n. 14]; see In re Bendectin Products Liability Litigation, 749 F.2d 300, 305 & n. 11 (6th Cir.1984) (noting Supreme Court’s explicit instruction that offensive collateral es-toppel is not to be applied in mass tort litigation); accord Lynch v. Merrell National Laboratories, 830 F.2d 1190, 1192 (1st Cir.1987). In Parklane Hosiery, the Supreme Court did permit the use of offensive collateral estoppel. Noting the arguments that had been advanced for rejecting its use, the Court identified several factors to consider in applying this doctrine but established no rigid rules: We have concluded that the preferable approach for dealing with these problems in the federal courts is not to preclude the use of offensive collateral estoppel, but to grant trial courts broad discretion to determine when it should be applied, [footnote omitted]. The general rule should be that in cases where a plaintiff could easily have joined in the earlier action or where ... the application of offensive estoppel would be unfair to a defendant, a trial judge should not allow the use of offensive collateral estoppel. Id. at 331 [99 S.Ct. at 651-52]. Given this broad grant of discretion, which is to be exercised in light of the mentioned factors as well as others, this court is puzzled by the broad comment of the Sixth Circuit in Bendectin that, “[i]n Parklane Hosiery the Supreme Court explicitly stated that offensive collateral estoppel could not be used in mass tort litigation.” 749 F.2d at 305 n. 11. A close reading of Parklane Hosiery reveals that the Court (1) authorized the use of offensive collateral estoppel, and (2) only mentioned, but did not broadly accept, the arguments that have been advanced against the wholesale application of offensive collateral estoppel. Thus, one argument against offensive estoppel “is that it may be unfair to a defendant.” Parklane Hosiery, 439 U.S. at 330 [99 S.Ct. at 651] (emphasis added). One situation in which its application might be unfair is when a railroad collision injures 50 passengers all of whom bring separate actions against the railroad. After the railroad wins the first 25 suits, a plaintiff wins in suit 26. Professor Currie argues that offensive use of collateral estoppel should not be applied so as to allow plaintiffs 27 through 50 automatically to recover. Id. at n. 14 [99 S.Ct. at 651 n. 14] (emphasis added). “[A]nother situation where it might be unfair to apply offensive estop-pel is where the second action affords that defendant procedural opportunities unavailable in the first action that could readily cause a different result.” Id. at 331 [99 S.Ct. at 651] (emphasis added). Accordingly, this court cannot blithely accept the proposition that offensive collateral estoppel is inappropriate because Ratliff, Corona, and the Bystander cases are part of “mass tort litigation.” This court interprets Bendectin as precluding the utilization of offensive estop-pel in a mass tort litigation situation that would be similar to that in Professor Currie’s hypothetical and in other situations in which its application would be unfair to the defendant. The contours of when offensive collateral estoppel would be unfair — even in mass tort litigation— should be developed on a case-by-case basis. Invoking the term “mass tort litigation” is meaningless without contextual analysis. The teaching of Parklane Hosiery is that the issue is delicate and must be handled in this manner. Id. at 324-25. More importantly, MDC is principally relying upon the defensive use of collateral estoppel, as to which the Park-lane Hosiery and Bendectin language does not apply. In addition, Northwest and MDC were the only parties to the lengthy joint liability trial, making moot any issues about mutuality. Fourth, the essential elements of Northwest’s claims in the hull suits are identical to the elements in the general loss claims. The jury evaluated the factual and legal bases for these claims adversely to Northwest. Thus, the jury necessarily decided that (1) MDC did not negligently design or manufacture the aircraft (Special Verdict Answers 21 and 23), (2) MDC did not defectively design or manufacture the aircraft (Special Verdict Answers 15 and 17), (3) MDC did not fail to warn Northwest about any dangerous propensities of the aircraft that would make it defective (Special Verdict Answers 19 and 25), (4) MDC was not negligent for failing to comply with any governmental regulations (Special Verdict Answer 27), (5) MDC did not make any intentional or negligent misrepresentations in its All Operator Letters concerning the quality of TI circuit breakers (Special Verdict Answers 29 and 31), and (6) MDC did not make an intentional misrepresentation to the FAA about the operation of the CAWS Fail Light (Special Verdict Answer 33). See also October 1, 1991 Amended Final Judgment. All or portions of these issues are essential to Northwest’s claims in the hull suit. Since they were decided adversely to Northwest by the jury following a lengthy and contentious trial, they cannot and should not be relitigated in the hull suit pursuant to the doctrine of issue preclusion, the application of which is unobstructed. See Womack v. Gettelfinger, 808 F.2d 446, 455 (6th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 820, 108 S.Ct. 78, 98 L.Ed.2d 41 (1987); Marino v. McDonald, 611 F.Supp. 848 (E.D.Mich.1985) (action dismissed when collateral estoppel removes essential elements of plaintiffs claim). Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, MDC’s motion for summary judgment in the hull loss cases is granted in its entirety. MDC shall submit an appropriate form of judgment. IV. On July 16, 1991, TI moved for the entry of a summary judgment, Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c), on the basis of the jury verdict and the amended final judgment. TI also filed a motion, in which it asked this court to determine the choice of law issue pertaining to the third-party claims that Northwest has lodged against it. Northwest opposes both of the TI motions. Northwest’s claims against TI are based on a TI circuit breaker. One feature of the accident aircraft was its CAWS, one function of which was to provide a supplemental alert to flight crews of improperly positioned flaps during takeoff. A circuit breaker in the “P40” position on the Northwest 255 aircraft was part of the power source to the CAWS. TI designed, manufactured, and sold this circuit breaker to MDC according to the terms of a contract that was governed by the law of Massachusetts. In its third-party claims against TI, as well as during the trial against MDC, Northwest contended that the P40 circuit breaker was defective and a proximate cause of the crash. It took the position that the circuit breaker was defectively designed and manufactured, which, in turn, allowed particulate contamination to render it, and concomitantly, the CAWS, to become inoperative. This, according to Northwest, prevented the 255 crew from being warned that the flaps/slats had not been set for takeoff. During the joint liability trial, it was the position of MDC that the circuit breaker was not defective and had not failed because of particulate contamination. Rather, MDC contended, in part, that the flight crew had intentionally disabled the system by pulling the P40 circuit breaker. See also, Order, MDL No. 742, October 1, 1991, at 5-10; Order, MDL No. 742, March 19, 1991, at 7-12; Order, MDL No. 742, November 6, 1990, at 12-30. Since the jury determined that, as between Northwest and MDC, Northwest was 100% responsible for the crash, TI contends that it is entitled to the entry of a summary judgment on the basis of the findings of the jury. Although Northwest contends that many of the choice of law questions are premature, this court believes that an examination of the governing law as to liability is necessary for an issue preclusion analysis. The fora in which the Northwest claims have been filed are Michigan, Arizona, California, and Florida. A federal court that sits in diversity matters must apply the choice of law rules of the forum state. Klaxon v. Stentor Electric Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 85 L.Ed. 1477 (1942). When a ease has been transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), the transferee court must apply the substantive law, including the choice of law rules, of the transferor forum. Van Dusen, 376 U.S. 612, 84 S.Ct. 805. In a prior decision in this litigation, this court extensively reviewed the appropriate choice of law analysis for these respective states. In re Disaster at Detroit Metropolitan Airport on August 16, 1987, 750 F.Supp. 793 (E.D.Mich.1989). The reasoning of that order, coupled with followup orders pertaining to liability choice of law issues, compel the conclusion that the law of Massachusetts, the state in which TI designed and manufactured the subject circuit breaker, should govern the elements of Northwest’s product liability claims against TI. See also Order, March 30, 1990; Order, February 1, 1991 (establishing that California law governed (1) Plaintiffs’ product liability claims against MDC, regardless of the fora in which cases filed, and (2) Northwest’s product liability claims against MDC). TI and Northwest agree on this point. Northwest Response to TI Choice of Law Motion, at 2-3; TI Choice of Law Motion, at 8. As explained in section 111(A) of this order, the court will look to the federal law within the Sixth Circuit and not to the circuit law in which the cases were originally filed before being transferred to this court. In addition, the court will follow its decision to apply federal law in order to determine the collateral estoppel effect of a diversity judgment in a subsequent diversity case. See also Ratliff, 776 F.Supp. 316. The analysis and result of the court on MDC’s summary judgment motion applies with equal force to TI’s motion. During the joint liability trial, Northwest contended that MDC’s aircraft — including one of its component parts (the P40 circuit breaker) — was negligently manufactured and designed. See Order, MDL No. 742 (November 6, 1990) (under seal) (denying Northwest motion for directed verdict); Order, MDL No. 742 (March 19, 1991) (addressing Northwest and MDC cross-motions for directed verdicts); Order, MDL No. 742 (October 1, 1991) (denying Northwest motion for jnov and new trial); Jury Instructions 39-41, 43, 46. Similarly, in its third-party claims against TI, Northwest contends that the TI circuit breaker was defective in design and manufacture. These issues were (1) fully and fairly litigated over the course of an eighteen month trial, (2) decided adversely to Northwest, and (3) necessary to the amended final judgment, and, moreover, are essential to Northwest’s third-party claims against TI. Therefore, the four factors that are required for the application of defensive issue preclusion have been fully satisfied in TI’S application for dispositive relief. See Master Slack, 773 F.2d at 81; Marino, 611 F.Supp. at 854. Accordingly, the court will grant TI’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety. Therefore, this court will enter a judgment in favor of TI and against Northwest in all cases, including the so-called hull loss case. TI shall submit an appropriate form of judgment, which shall include an itemized listing of all of the eases that are governed by its provisions. V. On July 16, 1991, NCR filed motions which seek (1) the application of Michigan law to Northwest’s claims for contribution and indemnity, (2) the utilization of federal law to the preclusive effect of the jury findings of negligence and willful and wanton misconduct, (3) a ruling that federal law requires these findings by the jury to apply to Northwest’s claims, (4) the entry of a partial summary judgment that (a) its light pole conformed to the applicable Building Restriction Line (BRL) and to FAA Regulations (FARs) at the time of the crash, and (b) it was not negligent, (5) a judicial determination in the form of a partial summary judgment that it is not legally obligated to make any contribution to Northwest, and (6) the entry of a partial summary judgment that Northwest cannot recover indemnity from it. Northwest opposes all but the first motion. It also has filed a cross-motion for summary judgment against NCR, to which NCR objects. On September 11, 1991, Northwest filed a motion for leave to amend, its first amended and second amended third-party complaints, as well as its cross claim and hull suit complaint, to assert a claim against NCR based on intentional and negligent nuisance in fact under Michigan law. NCR opposes this motion. A. NCR’s first motion is for the application of Michigan law to Northwest’s claims for contribution and indemnity. Northwest concurs in this motion. Accordingly, this motion will be granted and Michigan law will govern these claims. B. NCR’s second motion is for (1) the application of federal law to the preclusive effect of the May 8, 1991 jury verdict and the ensuing amended final judgment, and (2) a ruling that federal law requires that the findings of the jury apply to Northwest’s claims against it. As to the first portion of the motion, and consistent with the analysis in section III(A) of this order, the court will apply Sixth Circuit federal law to determine the preclusive effect of the jury verdict and amended final judgment on these claims. NCR also contends that the federal standards for issue preclusion have been met as to the findings of Northwest’s active negligence and willful and wanton misconduct. The court agrees. The issues that NCR currently presents and relies upon, Northwest’s so-called active negligence and willful and wanton misconduct under federal and Michigan law, were raised and actually litigated in the joint liability trial. See, e.g., Order, MDL No. 742, (November 6, 1990) (under seal) (Northwest directed verdict motion); Order, MDL No. 742 (March 19, 1991) (Northwest and MDC cross-motions for directed verdicts); Order, MDL No. 742 (October 1, 1991) (denying Northwest jnov and new trial motions). Northwest fully, fairly, and contentiously litigated these issues against MDC in that trial. It lost. The jury’s determination of these issues against Northwest was critical and necessary to the amended final judgment. See Master Slack, 773 F.2d at 81; October 1, 1991 Amended Final Judgment (Attachment C). The court cannot accept Northwest’s contention that issue preclusion should not be applied because of fairness concerns. These identical contentions have been rejected in earlier opinions. See, e.g., Ratliff, 776 F.Supp. at 325-26. Accordingly, the jury findings that Northwest (1) was negligent, (2) engaged in willful and wanton misconduct under federal and Michigan law, and (3) proximately caused the crash of Northwest Flight 255 on August 16, 1987 shall apply to the claims that Northwest has asserted against NCR. The effect of these findings will be addressed in subsection D, infra. C. In its third motion, NCR moves for a partial summary judgment “because at the time of the air crash, National Car Rental’s light pole conformed to the applicable Building Restriction Line and to FAA safety regulations and, therefore, was not negligent.” NCR Motion for Summary Judgment (Motion No. 3), at 1. Northwest opposes this motion. The success or failure of the motion depends upon which version of the safety regulations is applicable to this controversy. In each of its complaints, Northwest alleges that NCR carelessly and negligently failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of FAA Advisory Circulars 150/5300-12 and 150/5300-4B. See, e.g., Northwest Complaint, 11104 (Aug. 14, 1989) (attached as Exhibit 2 to NCR’s Appendix). Northwest contends that, but for NCR’s negligent construction of the lightpole within the mandatory Building Restriction Line (BRL) of Change 8 to Advisory Circular 150-5300-4B, Northwest Flight 255 would not have struck the lightpole and would not have crashed. Id. at ¶1¶ 106-07. NCR contends that the Change 8 standards did not apply to its light pole. 1. Uncontested Facts The NCR facility, including its light poles, was built as part of a larger Airport Improvement Project (AIP). One of Northwest’s FAA experts, Carl Steinhauer, testified about the procedure for federal funding of AIPs generally: [A]n airport sponsor, either directly or through another party, applies for federal assistance funds pursuant to the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (“AAIA”), 49 U.S.C.App. Section 2201 et seq. The FAA evaluates the application, and if it decides to participate financially, makes a tentative allocation of federal funds for the AIP project. The tentative allocation of funds permits the airport sponsor to commence preparation of construction plans and specifications, which are then submitted to the FAA for review and approval. Subsequently, bids are let for the items to be constructed. Thereafter, the FAA makes an offer of grant for federal funds. As construction progresses, funds are paid out to reimburse the Airport Sponsor for costs incurred. Plans for proposed construction on and in the vicinity of airports that are not federally funded must be submitted by the applicant to the FAA through FAA Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction. If upon review the FAA issues a finding of “No Objection,” then such project can be constructed. Steinhauer Declaration, Northwest Appendix, Exhibit 1, at 2-3. What follows are some of the FAA provisions that are pertinent to the construction of the NCR facility and the placement of its light pole. On August 3, 1979, FAA Order 5100.36, the Airport Development Aid Program (ADAP) Handbook, became effective. See Trial Exhibit 459. Paragraph 402(b) of this order provides: The applicable programming design and construction standards are those in effect on the date of allocation of ADAP funds. Standards that become effective after date of allocation may be applied to the project by mutual agreement. On May 22,1980, FAR 152.11(a) incorporated by reference Advisory Circulars 150/ 5300-4B and 150/5300-12 and made them mandatory standards for airport planning and development. See Trial Exhibit 455. On September 3, 1982, the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (AAIA), 49 U.S.CApp. § 2201-2227, superseded the AADA. On September 4, 1982, the FAA issued Program Guidance Letter No. 6, Trial Exhibit 452, which transmitted a new FAA Form Grant Agreement and Form Part V Sponsor Assurances. The letter also directed the regional offices of the FAA to use the standards that had been set forth in FAR Part 152, FAA Order 5100.36, and applicable Advisory Circulars for program implementation and compliance under the AAIA. Id. On May 25, 1983, the Detroit Metropolitan Airport, through Wayne County and the Wayne County Road Commission (sponsor), made a pre-application for federal assistance funds for Airport Improvement Project No. 3-26-0026-0283 (the project). See Trial Exhibit 457(a). Included in the project was the construction of a Northeast access road and lighting. The road was intended to provide access from Middlebelt Road to the new rental car facilities which were to be relocated from other sites. 1 Id. Neither the project nor its federal funding included the costs of construction of the new rental car facilities. Rather, the pre-application, the application, and the grant provided for the general location of the new rental car facilities but without any specifics as to their construction. Id.; Ste-inhauer Declaration, ¶¶ 6-7. As part of its pre-application, the sponsor represented in a letter to the FAA that [pjursuant to Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 152, as amended, and as a condition to receiving any Federal assistance, through a Grant Offer from the FAA for the proposed Airport Improvement Project (AIP) No. 3-26-0026-02/83, it is hereby certified that the Wayne County Road Commission will adhere to the requirements established in the Attached Part V Assurances. It is understood that these assurances are applicable only if a Grant Offer is accepted by the Wayne County Road Commission. Exhibit 457(a) (Letter from Joseph N. Hart-mann to Robert F. DeRoeck, May 25,1983). Some of the relevant assurances, to which the sponsor certified adherence, included (1) compliance with the AAIA (Assurance l(o)), (2) maintenance of the airport pursuant to the applicable federal standards (Assurance 11), (3) removal of existing airport hazards and the prevention of future airport hazards (Assurance 12), and (4) maintenance of the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) up to date (Assurance 29). On July 18, 1983, the airport sponsor applied for federal funds for AIP No. 3-26-0026-0238. Trial Exhibit 457(c). Two days later, on July 20, 1983, the FAA tentatively allocated Airport Improvement Funds to the sponsor pursuant to the AAIA. See NCR Statement of Uncontested Facts (SOUF) Nos. 1-2; Steinhauer Declaration, Í18; Trial Exhibit 457(b). The tentative allocation made the offer of the grant contingent upon all applicable federal requirements being met, including the requirements of FAR Part 152. On September 9, 1983, the FAA made an offer to grant federal funds for the project. Trial Exhibit 457(c). On September 15, 1983, the sponsor accepted the grant offer. Id. By accepting the grant offer, the sponsor ratified and adopted “all statements, representations, warranties, covenants and agreements contained in the Project Application and incorporated materials referred to in the foregoing Offer,” and “agree[d] to all of the terms and conditions thereof,” including the Part V Assurances. Id. On May 8, 1984, the Project Grant Agreement was revised in two ways, both of which were unrelated to the Northeast road construction portion. The revision noted that “all other terms and conditions of the grant agreement remain in full force and effect.” The sponsor accepted the revisions on June 22, 1984. On October 1, 1984, the FAA announced the Grant Assurances that were applicable to those Grant Agreements that were issued after October 1, 1984. See Trial Exhibit 454 (49 Fed.Reg. 35,282 (Sept. 6, 1984)). The sponsor submitted a revised ALP for the Detroit Metropolitan Airport, dated December 3, 1984, to the FAA for its approval. The ALP was approved by the FAA on December 17, 1984. See Trial Exhibit 457(d). Sheets 3, 12, and 13 of that ALP depicted the proposed location of the Northeast access road and the relocated rental car facilities but did not include any plans that detailed the construction of the NCR facility or its light poles. See Stein-hauer Declaration, 116. One provision of the ALP approval letter reads that “[actual facility development will be governed by adherence to development standards applicable at the time the development is undertaken.” Trial Exhibit 457(d). Another portion notes that [a] review of the landing area development proposed on the plan was conducted in accordance with Parts 77, 152, and 157 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (Aeronautical Study No. 02-ACL-732-NPA).... Based on considerations of safe and efficient use of airspace, the FAA offers no objection to the proposed ultimate airspace utilization as depicted on the development plan. The development plan will be afforded the status of a plan on file for the purpose of the Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77 obstructions evaluations or Part 152 airport aid program. Due to insufficient information regarding planned development, this review did not include an evaluation of actual construction for which separate notice is required under Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. Prior to constructing any facility, structure, or other items on the airport, notice consistent with requirements of Part 77 must be filed and evaluated (FAA Form 7460-1 or Pre-ap-plication for Federal Assistance). FAA Order 5100.38 became effective on February 11, 1985. This order governed the handling of grants under the AAIA but did not contain any language which stated that the applicable regulations were those in effect at the time of the allocation of federal funds. See Trial Exhibit 456. Change 1 to Order 5100.38, which became effective on June 5, 1985, added language that “[standards which became effective after the date of allocation may be applied to the project by mutual agreement between the FAA and the Sponsor.” See Trial Exhibit 456, at 12-1. On November 16, 1984, James Bushee, the Manager of the FAA’s Design and Operations Criteria Division, Office of Airport Standards, circulated a draft version of Change 8 to AC 150/5300-4B for comment. See Trial Exhibit 458. Change 8 proposed extending the BRL to 3,000 feet beyond the end of the runway. The change was in connection with a revision of the definition of “airport hazard.” See Trial Exhibits 458, 464. Prior to Change 8, the BRL extended beyond the end of the runway until it intersected the clear zone. See Trial Exhibits 438, 441. The FAA circulated the proposed Change 8 for comment to all FAA Regional Offices. One of those offices, the Great Lakes Regional Office, in turn circulated it to various Airport District Offices (ADO’s) within its region, including the Detroit ADO. The FAA also distributed the proposed change for comment to interested aviation and professional organizations. The interested parties were invited to submit comments between December 3, 1984 and May 11, 1985. See Trial Exhibit 458. On December 14, 1984, the Detroit ADO, in its response to the FAA invitation, recommended the application of a “very strict interpretation” of airport hazard rules: “Any facility ... that would involve the use by people for living, working, leisure or recreational purposes should be removed because they are hazards. We must not have any gray areas in these revised definitions.” Trial Exhibit 473, at 9. On July 2, 1985, Bushee recommended that Leonard Mudd, the Director of the FAA’s Office of Airport Standards, approve the proposed Change 8. In his transmittal memorandum to Mudd, and in the attached “Disposition of Substantive Comments,” Bushee addressed several of the responsive comments by FAA officials that had been directed at (1) the proposed definition of “airport hazard,” and (2) the requirement that airport hazards “must be removed.” The Great Lakes Region had suggested that the term “airport hazard” be discontinued, a position that Bushee rejected “[sjince statutes obligate airport sponsors to eliminate airport hazards.” Trial Exhibit 458, at 4. On July 3, 1985, Change 8 to AC 150/ 5300-4B became effective. It extended the BRL to 3,000 feet from the departure end, and 750 feet to each side of the runway centerline, of Runway 3C. See Trial Exhibits 461, 464. On August 23, 1985, the Detroit ADO received formal notice of Change 8. See Trial Exhibit 449(f). On August 30, 1985, NCR prepared a FAA Form 7460-1 (form) for construction of its rental car facility at the airport, including the subject light pole. See Trial Exhibit 449(d)(2). This form listed the distance from the light pole to the runway as 3,000 feet but noted the distance as being 2,000 feet south of Wick road and 1,000 feet west of Middlebelt road. The form also recorded the height of the light pole as 40 feet. In addition, NCR prepared a Form 7460-1 Notice of Proposed Construction for the temporary location of the construction equipment that would be necessary for the project. See Trial Exhibit 449(d)(1). The FAA received the NCR form on April 18, 1986. See Trial Exhibits 449(d)(2), 449(f). On June 13, 1986, NCR and Wayne County (the sponsor) entered into a building site lease. See NCR Appendix, Exhibit 24. The lease provides that the “lease is subordinate to the terms, conditions and covenants of any existing or future agreements between [Wayne County] and the United States of America relative to the operation and maintenance of the Airport, the execution of which has been or may be required as a condition precedent to the expenditure of federal funds for the development of the Airport.” Id. In addition, the lease requires NCR to “comply with all applicable federal and state laws and regulations.” Id. ¶ 30. On July 2, 1986, following its review of the NCR project proposal, the FAA issued a “no objection” determination and approved NCR’s Form 7460-1 construction applications. See Trial Exhibits 449(d)(2) and (1). In response to the application query, “Does this construction violate the BRL?”, Leonard Mizerowski, the FAA approving official, answered “No.” See id. The FAA made the following findings: (a) NCR’s proposed construction did not exceed any FAR Part 77 requirement. Specifically, the FAA determined that the construction did not constitute an obstruction prohibited by FAR Part 77.-25(a)(b)(c)(d) and (e). (b) The proposed construction did not exceed an obstacle free zone surface, was not located on a runway safety area, and was not inside the building restriction line (BRL). NCR Appendix, Exhibit 12, 11111-4 (Airspace Case No. 86-AGL-664-NRA, Surface Structures On Federally Obligated Airports, incorporating Airspace Study dated May 5, 1986). On August 16, 1987, the accident aircraft struck a light pole that had been constructed within the NCR facility pursuant to its proposal to the FAA. The top of the light pole was 40-42 feet above ground and located 2,760 feet from the departure end of Runway 3C and 50-100 feet from the runway center line. The accident aircraft struck the pole at a height of approximately 36 feet 6 inches or 41 feet 4 inches. The parties agree that (1) under the FAA standards that were promulgated before Change 8, the location of the NCR light pole did not violate the BRL, and (2) under Change 8, if applicable, the location of the light pole did violate the BRL. Thus, the question is whether Change 8 applies to the NCR light pole. NCR takes the position that its placement of the light pole conformed to those applicable federal standards that were in effect in September of 1983 when the FAA approved the AIP with which the construction of the NCR facility, including the light pole, was associated. These standards were contained in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-4B, as amended through Change 7. Relying in part upon its FAA expert, Carl Steinhauer, Northwest contends that the applicable federal standards were those in effect on and after April 18, 1986 when the FAA reviewed and approved the actual construction plans for the NCR facility. These standards were contained in Advisory Circular 150/5300-4B, as amended through Change 8, which became effective on July 3, 1985. From Northwest’s perspective, the NCR facility and its light pole constituted “airport hazards” under the Change 8 standards, and, as a consequence, should not have been built and should have been removed. 2. Analysis The court cannot hold, as a matter of law, that the Change 7 BRL (1,900 feet) applied to the construction of the NCR facility and its light pole. NCR places principal reliance upon what it labels a uniform and general rule that, once the FAA allocates funds to a proposed project by a sponsor, all construction standards that are in effect as of that date “lock in” unless modified by a mutual agreement at a later time. Since the FAA and the sponsor finalized the allocation of funds for AIP 3-26-0026-0283 on September 15, 1983, a date when Change 7 was still in effect, NCR contends that Change 7 applied to its anticipated car rental facility. At the outset, to a lay person who is not versed in the FAA regulatory scheme, the FAA orders and regulations for airport improvement projects contain vague, confusing, and, at times, seemingly inconsistent language, all of which is compounded by their inclusion in a multiplicity of forms. Nevertheless, upon reviewing the pertinent exhibits and affording them their common sense meanings, it is clear to the court that Change 8 applied to the construction of the NCR light pole. As the statutory and FAA regulatory scheme for AIPs reveals, a sponsor who seeks federal funding for an improvement project must submit various forms and proposals to the FAA for review and approval. In the matter before this court, Wayne County, as a sponsor, submitted a detailed AIP in which it sought federal funds for five specific improvement projects at the Detroit Metropolitan Airport: (1) Overlay CFR and Maintenance Roads (Approx. 18,000 L.F.) (2) Rehabilitate General Aviation Taxiway, Edge Lighting and Marking (Approx. 12,000 S.Y.) (3) General Aviation Site Development (Approx. 16 acres) Including Taxiways, Taxilanes, Ramp, Edge Lighting, Marking and Drainage. (4) Construct Northeast Access Road and Lighting (Approx. 3,600 L.F.) (5) Reconstruct Concrete Pavement on North and West Aprons and at Terminal Gates 30 and 40 (Approx. 3,550 S.Y.) See Trial Exhibit 457(a). It is significant to note that this funding proposal did not include the actual development of rental car facilities, even though it would have ostensibly aided in their expected development. At best, the project, for which the sponsor sought federal funding, identified the area within which rental car facilities could relocate. Thus, the development of rental car facilities would have been a separate “project” for which separate funding, notice, and FAA approval would be required. FAA Order 5100.36 by its own terms applies to (1) a project, (2) which is to be federally funded, (3) between an airport sponsor and the FAA. NCR was not, and could not have been, a part of the AIP for which federal funds were supplied. Accordingly, the language upon which NCR relies — “The applicable programming design and construction standards are those in effect on the date of allocation of ADAP funds. Standards that become effective after date of allocation may be applied to the project by mutual agreement.” — is not of controlling importance. As of September 15, 1983, NCR (1) was not a part of the Detroit AIP, (2) had not made a commitment to relocate its rental car facilities, (3) had no building site lease with Wayne County, and (4) had not submitted its Form 7460-1 to the FAA for a proposed construction of its facilities. Moreover, the FAA approval letter of Detroit’s ALP, which depicted only the location of the Northeast access road and the space for rental car facilities, advised that the “actual facility development will be governed by adherence to development standards applicable at the time the development is undertaken.” Trial Exhibit 457(d). A traditional maxim of statutory interpretation is that specific rules govern over general rules. See Bulova Watch Co. v. United States, 365 U.S. 753, 758, 81 S.Ct. 864, 867, 6 L.Ed.2d 72 (1961). The import of this language is that the standards in effect on the date of the FAA review and approval of the specific project will govern the facility development. After all, it is a building restriction line that is being applied. This interpretation is consistent with the only expert testimony that has been offered. See Steinhauer Declaration, fill 14-15. Change 8 became effective on July 3, 1985. The Detroit Airport District Office (ADO) received formal notice of this new mandatory building restriction line on August 23, 1985. Nothing in the record demonstrates that NCR and Wayne County or the FAA had any kind of arrangement or agreement with regard to the precise relocation of its rental car facilities prior to this date, much less any agreements with regard to building sites and construction details. The Wayne County-NCR building site lease indicates that five sites existed for the relocation of rental car facilities, one of which was selected by NCR in June of 1986, well after the effective date of the Change 8 BRL and after the Detroit ADO received notice of it. In fact, NCR did not submit the requisite Form 7460-1 to the FAA for approval of its relocated facility until August 30, 1985— nearly two months subsequent to the effective date of Change 8. NCR and Wayne County did not enter into their building site lease for the ear rental facility until June 13, 1986. The FAA did not issue its “No Objection” to the NCR form until July 2, 1986 and not until November of 1986 did NCR build its facility and install the