PHILADELPHIA – An Easton couple who say that they used a Sherwin-Williams deck sealing product to stain their deck before it supposedly self-heated and caused a fire on their property is prepared to support their claim with a fire origin expert, while the company counters unrelated causes actually started the fire.
Scott and Andrea Mains first filed a complaint on Jan. 7 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against The Sherwin-Williams Co.
The Mains claimed they purchased Sherwin-Williams’ Thompson’s WaterSeal Penetrating Timber Oil for their deck and placed application materials with the product left on it on the lawn next to the deck.
They alleged that on Aug. 26, 2018, the application materials left on the lawn spontaneously caught on fire, causing extensive damage to the property. The Mains added the stain was defective and unreasonably dangerous, and that the product lacked adequate warnings and instructions.
On Feb. 27, Sherwin-Williams filed an answer to the Mains’ complaint, denying each of their claims in their entirety and countering with 42 affirmative defenses.
Among the 40-plus defenses were:
• The Mains’ lawsuit failing to state a claim against Sherwin-Williams upon which relief may be granted;
• If contributing negligence by the plaintiffs were discovered, then any recovery is barred pursuant to the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act;
• Because of plaintiffs’ own contributory negligence, comparative negligence, assumption of the risk and/or because plaintiffs disregarded certain open and obvious risks; and
• Because their damages were proximately caused by an unforeseeable misuse, application, alteration, modification, and/or abuse of the Thompson’s WaterSeal Penetrating Timber Oil identified in the complaint.
UPDATE
On June 22, counsel for the parties met for a joint rule meeting per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), to outline the parameters of discovery for the case.
The plaintiffs seek to prove their case through testimony from their fire cause and origin expert, which they say will confirm the account of the fire official who responded to the scene, the damage of which is still being repaired.
“Plaintiffs intend to prove through their experts that in addition to the fact that the fire was caused by the spontaneous combustion of the stain-soaked application materials, that defendant’s product was defective and unreasonably dangerous for all of the following reasons: 1) The product when drying self-heats and can ignite combustible materials soaked with the product; 2) The container and label had inadequate warnings and instructions to alert Mr. Mains and other users as to this hidden and dangerous characteristic of the product, and how to prevent it,” per plaintiff counsel in the report.
Conversely, the defendant denies all liability and counters that other unrelated causes, the plaintiffs themselves or persons close to them were in fact the true cause of the fire.
“Plaintiffs’ label-based warning claims are preempted by federal law, because the label on the product at issue was adequate and fully compliant with the Federal Hazardous Substances Act and the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. Additionally, the fire at issue may have been the result of other causes, including, but not limited to, faulty electrical wiring, malfunctioning electric tools, or careless smoking, the careless or negligent disposal of stain applicator rags by plaintiff Scott Mains, one or more members of the Mains household, or third-parties performing work at the Mains premises,” counsel for Sherwin-Williams stated.
Discovery is due to be completed on June 4, 2021 and the trial is due to begin Oct. 5 of next year.
For counts of strict liability, negligence and breach of implied warranty, the Mains are seeking monetary relief in excess of $75,000, plus interest, all other appropriate relief and a trial by jury.
The plaintiffs are represented by Kenneth T. Levine of de Luca Levine, in Blue Bell.
The defendant is represented by C. Tyler Havey, Ann T. Field and Eric C. Rosenberg of Gordon & Rees, in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 5:20-cv-00112
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com