PHILADELPHIA – A pair of Pennsylvania homeowners who said that a wood-staining product they purchased at a local Home Depot store caused a significant fire at their residence and led to more than $400,000 in damages recently ended their case through a voluntary dismissal.
David Singley and Jennifer Singley of West Chester first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 20, 2022 versus Rust-Oleum Corporation of Vernon Hills, Ill. and Home Depot USA, Inc. of Atlanta, Ga.
“On or before May 30, 2021, plaintiffs purchased at a Home Depot store one or more containers of Rust-Oleum/Varathane Wood Stain, a product designed, formulated, manufactured, tested, packaged, labeled, marketed, sold and/or distributed, by defendants. On or about May 30, 2021, plaintiffs applied the subject stain product at the subject property. The subject stain product was applied in a manner reasonably expected and foreseeable to Rust-Oleum,” the suit said.
“The subject stain product was used for its intended purpose in a manner reasonably foreseeable to Rust-Oleum. After the work was finished, the application materials containing and/or saturated with the subject product were left at the subject property. On May 30, 2021, a fire erupted at the subject property.”
The suit added that the fire “resulted in severe damage to the real and personal property of the plaintiffs.”
“As a result of this fire, plaintiffs were unable to live at the subject property and were forced to rent other property while repairs were made and their home was restored to pre-fire condition, and plaintiffs suffered other consequential and incidental damages including clean-up costs, repair, and associated expenses,” the suit stated.
“The fire was directly and proximately caused by the spontaneous combustion of the application materials containing and/or saturated with the subject stain product as further and more fully described below. As a direct and proximate result, plaintiffs sustained the damages described herein in an amount in excess of $400,000.”
Counsel for the defendants filed separate and nearly-identical answers to the litigation on Dec. 19, 2022, denying responsibility for the plaintiffs’ fire and subsequent damages.
“Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statute of limitations, statute of repose, laches and/or under the doctrines of waiver and release. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because plaintiffs’ damages, if any, were proximately caused by the acts or omissions of plaintiffs and/or a third-party or third-parties over which [the defendants] had no control,” the answer’s new matter stated, in part.
“Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because the product referred to in the complaint, if proven to have been designed, formulated, manufactured, tested, packaged, labeled, marketed, sold and/or distributed by [the defendants], was not defective at the time it left [the defendants’] custody and control. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because the product referred to in the complaint, if proven to have been designed, formulated, manufactured, tested, packaged, labeled, marketed, sold and/or distributed by [the defendants], was altered, modified or otherwise rendered to a form not substantially similar to the form when it left [the defendants’] custody or control. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of assumption of the risk and/or contributory negligence.”
The defendants further seek to block any demand punitive damages under the Pennsylvania Constitution and U.S. Constitution.
UPDATE
After nearly one year of further litigation, counsel for all parties mutually filed a stipulation to voluntarily dismiss the case on Dec. 5. It was not made clear whether the dismissal was connected to a settlement or not.
“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), all parties that have appeared in this action stipulate to the voluntary dismissal of this action, with prejudice. Each party shall bear its own costs and fees, and this matter shall hereafter be marked discontinued and ended by the Court Clerk,” the stipulation stated.
The plaintiffs were represented by Kenneth T. Levine and Matthew M. Connolly of de Luca Levine, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants were represented by Andrew P. Fishkin, David Cohen, Haley N. Graber and Zachary Winthrop Silverman of Fishkin Lucks, in Newark, N.J.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:22-cv-04210
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com