Products Liability Law Reporter

A Washington appellate court held that a homeowners insurer was not entitled to summary judgment in a suit alleging damages arising out of a home fire originating in a wood pellet stove.

Lavonne Jaff and Joseph Scott purchased a Ravelli Group wood pellet stove from Wood Stoves Etc., Inc. Two days after the purchase, the stove caught fire. Scott was able to extinguish the fire, but the stove reignited, causing fire damage. Jaff and Scott’s homeowners insurer, American Family Mutual Insurance Co. S.I. (AmFam), paid over $115,300 for the damage. AmFam then sued Wood Stoves under the Washington Product Liability Act (WPLA) and moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion.

Reversing, the appellate court noted that under the WPLA, the liability of a product seller is limited, and liability will not be imposed on a nonmanufacturing product seller based solely on its participation in the product’s chain of distribution. The court found that here, AmFam had failed to demonstrate that Ravelli was not subject to service of process under Washington law or that it was highly probable the insurer could not enforce a judgment against the company. The insurer’s bare assertions that Ravelli is located in Italy, making it difficult to sue and obtain a judgment, does not meet the required standard, the court said.

Thus, the court concluded that AmFam failed to show a lack of genuine issue of material fact that would warrant summary judgment.

Citation: American Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wood Stoves Etc., Inc., 2022 WL 9731624 (Wash. Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2022).