Products Liability Law Reporter

A federal district court held that an insurer alleged a plausible strict liability claim against the maker of a battery that allegedly caught fire at a homeowner’s property.

Adam Long owned property in Rome, N.Y., that was insured by Homesite Insurance Co. He purchased a First Power replacement battery to use at the property. The battery, manufactured or distributed by Chinese company Shenzhen Lepower International Electronics Co., allegedly caught fire, which led Long to file a claim with Homesite Insurance. Homesite made payments to Long and was subrogated to the rights of its insured.

Homesite filed suit against Shenzhen Lepower, alleging strict products liability. The defendant moved to dismiss the insurer’s claim in its entirety, arguing that the plaintiff had failed to plausibly allege a strict products liability claim. The district court granted the motion, allowing the plaintiff to amend its complaint to cure the defects. The plaintiff filed a second amended complaint and reasserted its strict products liability claim. The defendant again moved to dismiss the claim, arguing that the plaintiff had failed to proffer sufficient, non-conclusory facts to support its claim.

Denying the motion, the district court noted that in New York, a manufacturer that places a defective product into the stream of commerce may be held strictly liable for resultant injury. The plaintiff’s strict liability claim is premised on a manufacturing defect, the court found, noting that to prove such a defect, the plaintiff must allege that the specific product unit was defective as a result of a manufacturing problem, improper workmanship, or the use of defective materials, and that the defect resulted in injury.

Here, the court said the plaintiff has plausibly alleged a claim for strict liability based on manufacturing defect. The plaintiff asserted that the battery caught fire while in the ordinary and intended use of being charged, the court found, adding that the plaintiff’s experts also opined that, based on an investigation, the fire originated at the battery and that this excluded all other sources. The plaintiff asserted that the battery deviated from its expected performance in that similar Lepower units would not catch fire in the ordinary course of being charged, the court said.

Thus, the court concluded that the plaintiff’s allegations provided circumstantial evidence of a manufacturing defect, warranting the denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Citation: Homesite Ins. Co. v. Shenzhen Lepower Int’l Electronics Co., No. 6:23-CV-981 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2024).

Plaintiff counsel: Fredric P. Gallin, New York City.