LINCOLN, Neb. – The Supreme Court of Nebraska ruled earlier this month that a Sharpsville man’s negligence and loss of consortium claims against a lithium-ion battery manufacturer and the owner of an e-cigarette kiosk were untimely, as provided by the applicable two-year statute of limitations under Pennsylvania law.
On Feb. 9, Supreme Court of Nebraska Justice Lindsey Miller-Lerman authored an opinion on behalf of the entire Court, which rendered a final dismissal of the claims brought by John Edward Griffith II against Shoemaker’s Truck Station, Inc. (doing business as “Shoemaker’s Shell Travel Center”) and E-Titan, LLC.
“John Griffith purchased two 18650 lithium-ion rechargeable battery cells on Nov. 6, 2015, from an electronic cigarette kiosk that was owned and operated by E-Titan and that was located inside the travel center owned by Shoemaker’s. E-Titan is a Nebraska corporation with its principal place of business in Grand Island, Neb. Shoemaker’s is a Nebraska corporation with its principal place of business in Lincoln. The Griffiths allege that the 18650 batteries were designed and manufactured by LG Chem, a Korean corporation, and distributed by its American subsidiary, LGCAI,” Miller-Lerman said.
“On March 12, 2016, John Griffith was injured while replacing two 18650 batteries in his electronic cigarette. He was carrying the batteries in his pocket when they exploded and burst into flames, resulting in serious burns to his body and other permanent injuries. On June 27, 2019, the Griffiths filed suit against LG Chem, LGCAI, Shoemaker’s and E-Titan in Nebraska in the Lancaster County District Court. The Griffiths claimed negligence, products liability (defective design and manufacturing defect), breach of warranty and loss of consortium by his wife, Christina Griffith. Defendant LG Chem was never served with summons in the District Court and, pursuant to Nebraska Revised Statutes Section 25-217 (Reissue 2016), was dismissed as a matter of law in December 2019.”
Shoemaker’s and E-Titan moved for summary judgment on the basis that the Griffiths’ claims against them were time-barred, under the two-year limitation period provided by a Pennsylvania statute of limitations regarding personal injury actions.
In contrast, the Griffiths contended that Nebraska law applied instead, and that their negligence claims were timely filed within Nebraska’s four-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions.
“On Oct. 29, 2020, the District Court determined that there was an actual conflict between the laws of Pennsylvania and those of Nebraska. The Court noted that the Griffiths’ negligence and loss of consortium claims would be barred under Pennsylvania law, but not under Nebraska law. It determined that the claims for negligence are substantively based on Pennsylvania law and that Pennsylvania, as the state where the injuries occurred, has the dominant interest in the matter and the most significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties,” Miller-Lerman stated.
“The District Court noted that with respect to the breach of warranty claims, the Griffiths conceded that there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding those claims as against Shoemaker’s and E-Titan. The court granted the motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims against Shoemaker’s and E-Titan based on the Pennsylvania two-year statute of limitations.”
On appeal to the Supreme Court of Nebraska, the Griffiths claimed that the District Court erred when it (1) applied the Pennsylvania statute of limitations and granted summary judgment in favor of Shoemaker’s and E-Titan on all claims and (2) dismissed LGCAI as a party for lack of personal jurisdiction.
However, in part due to the contested injuries having taken place in Pennsylvania, Nebraska’s top court found no merit to the plaintiffs’ appellate claims.
“The Court observed that Nebraska’s only contact with the events giving rise to this case was the purchase of the 18650 batteries. The District Court noted that Pennsylvania’s contacts are more substantial than those of Nebraska. Pennsylvania was the state where the product was being used at the time of the injury, the state where the injury occurred, and the state where the Griffiths had a settled relationship as residents,” Miller-Lerman said.
“We agree with the District Court that the significant contacts between Pennsylvania and the Griffiths and their injuries favor applying Pennsylvania law. Applying the Pennsylvania two-year statute of limitations provided by 42 Pa. Stat. and Cons. Stat. Ann. Section 5524(2), the Griffiths’ claims were untimely filed and are time-barred. The district court did not err when it granted summary judgment in favor of Shoemaker’s and E-Titan and dismissed them on this basis.”
Furthermore, the Court found that the District Court correctly ruled that it lacked personal jurisdiction over LGCAI – deciding that the Griffiths “failed to carry their burden to establish contacts between Nebraska and LGCAI that sufficiently relate to their suit.”
“The Griffiths are unable to identify contacts between LGCAI and Nebraska that are sufficiently related to the operative facts of the complaint. The 18650 batteries were shipped directly from South Korea, and LGCAI did not have physical possession of and did not participate in the distribution of the 18650 batteries in Nebraska. Although LGCAI participated in sales of petrochemicals, it does not generate other revenue in Nebraska. LGCAI has not contracted for business with Shoemaker’s or E-Titan and has not initiated the sale of the 18650 batteries for electronic cigarettes or vaping devices. In our view, LGCAI’s acts do not satisfy the ‘relatedness’ requirement of Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court. In contrast, because LG Chem and LGCAI shipped its 18650 batteries to customers located in Texas, the Texas Supreme Court found that a consumer’s claims were sufficiently related to LGCAI’s contacts with Texas to satisfy due process for the exercise of personal jurisdiction,” according to Miller-Lerman.
“The Griffiths emphasize that LGCAI rents warehouse space in Nebraska as part of its sales of petrochemical materials and products, such as rubber. No LGCAI employees work at the warehouse, and a third-party distributor delivers products from the warehouse to the customer when such petrochemical sales occur. The record suggests that at least two customers in Nebraska bought rubber products from LGCAI. However, LGCAI’s petrochemical sales and activities associated with distribution of other products were not related to LG Chem’s sale of the 18650 batteries involved in this suit, and are not enough to create a substantial connection of LGCAI to Nebraska for purposes of satisfying due process. In this case, the Griffiths have not demonstrated specific relatedness of LGCAI’s contacts with Nebraska and this lawsuit to satisfy due process to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction. Accordingly, LGCAI was properly dismissed as a party.”
Supreme Court of Nebraska case S-22-840
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com