Products Liability Law Reporter
Decisions: Consumer Products
You must be a Products Liability Law Reporter subscriber to access this content.
If you are a member of the Products Liability Section or a subscriber, log in below. Not yet a Section member? Join today!
Join the Products Liability SectionAlready a subscriber? Log in
Testimony of expert who did not identify specific cause of fire was not precluded
November 9, 2021A federal district court denied a defendant’s motion to preclude a plaintiff expert in an insurance subrogation-products liability suit arising out of a house fire, finding that the expert was not required to test his hypotheses.
After a serious fire damaged the home of Tom and Lisa Ellis, Allstate Insurance Co. paid out over $298,300 on the Ellises' homeowners policy. Allstate brought a subrogation action against LG Electronics, arguing that the fire resulted from a refrigerator designed and manufactured by LG. The plaintiff retained expert Christoph Flaherty, an electrical engineer, who, using National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) methodology, reviewed photographs of the scene, other expert reports, testimony from the Ellises, and refrigerator-related documentation. Flaherty concluded that the fire damage resulted from a manufacturing defect and identified two potential causes of the fire.
The defendant filed a Daubert motion seeking to exclude Flaherty’s testimony and argued it was entitled to summary judgment.
Denying the motion, the district court noted that the plaintiff was entitled to rely on the product malfunction liability theory, which allows a party to prove a defect by circumstantial evidence of malfunction when a product has been destroyed or is otherwise unavailable. Citing case law, the court found that under this theory, it was not necessary for Flaherty to identify a single cause of the fire for his opinion to be relevant or helpful. The court rejected the defense argument that Flaherty had not applied the NFPA standard appropriately because he did not perform testing regarding his hypotheses for the cause of the fire. The NFPA supports Flaherty’s process, including developing hypotheses and eliminating them, the court found, adding that the NFPA does not require an expert to conduct specific tests.
Accordingly, the court held that the plaintiff has, with Flaherty’s testimony, created an issue of disputed fact for summary judgment purposes.
Citation: Allstate Ins. Co. v. LG Electronics USA, Inc., 2021 WL 2875603 (E.D. Pa. July 8, 2021).
Insurer counsel: Joseph McGlynn, Blue Bell, Pa.
