Products Liability Law Reporter

A federal district court held that an insurer and cell phone repair company were not liable to an iPhone owner who was injured when her phone exploded.

Ishynique McCoy purchased an Apple iPhone 6 Plus from T-Mobile USA, Inc. The phone was covered under an insurance policy issued by C-Work Solutions, LP. After McCoy’s iPhone was stolen, C-Work provided her with a replacement iPhone 6 Plus, which had been refurbished by C-Work contractor ATC Logistics & Electronics, Inc. (ATC). Several months later, McCoy’s phone exploded, injuring her.

She sued Apple, Inc.; T-Mobile USA; C-Work Solutions; and others, alleging negligence and strict liability under the Restatement (Second) of Torts §402A. C-Work Solutions filed a third-party complaint against ATC. C-Work Solutions and ATC moved for summary judgment.

Granting the motions, the district court considered the plaintiff’s argument that C-Work was liable under §402A because it qualified as a seller of the defective replacement iPhone pursuant to that section. The court found that the plaintiff had asserted a negligence claim against C-Work, not a strict liability claim, and thus cannot rely on section 402A. Moreover, the court said, because the plaintiff’s expert did not opine that C-Work was responsible for the replacement phone’s combustion and the plaintiff had not offered evidence supporting her negligence claim against the insurer, she cannot establish that C-Work had acted negligently and breached a duty of care. Therefore, the court concluded that C-Work was entitled to summary judgment.

Citing case law, the court determined that ATC also was entitled to summary judgment. When a main action is dismissed, the court said, third-party claims become moot because they are derivative of the original defendant’s liability.

Citation: McCoy v. C-Work Solutions, LP, 2022 WL 824007 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 18, 2022).