PITTSBURGH – An Erie insurance company is seeking to repudiate defenses put forward by the manufacturers of a dehumidifier, which allegedly caused a fire leading to nearly $360,000 in property damages.
Erie Insurance Exchange (as subrogee of Ellen Marino) of Erie initially filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Dec. 15 versus Gree USA, Inc. of City of Industry, Calif., John/Jane Doe of Monroeville and ABC Corporation.
“On or about Oct. 15, 2019, a dehumidifier manufactured, assembled, sold or distributed by defendant (hereinafter referred to as “dehumidifier”) malfunctioned, failed and caught fire resulting in fire, smoke and other damages to plaintiff’s insureds,” the suit stated.
“At all times relevant hereto, defendant regularly and systematically designed, manufactured, assembled, distributed and/or sold dehumidifiers in the State of Pennsylvania and did design, manufacture, distribute and/or sell the subject dehumidifier to plaintiff’s insured in the State of Pennsylvania.”
After the insurer was compelled to pay for the damages to Marino’s property, it is seeking reimbursement for the monetary amount – based upon allegations sounding in strict liability and negligence against the defendants, who the plaintiff claims placed a defective product into the statewide stream of commerce.
“As a result of said fire and damages, plaintiff’s insured made claims with plaintiff under her relevant policies of insurance for damages sustained as a result of the fire. Erie has paid its insured $358,786.91 for the damages sustained in the fire. Erie’s insured had a deductible of $500.00,” according to the suit.
“As a result of said payments and pursuant to said policies of insurance and laws of the State of Pennsylvania, plaintiff became subrogated to any and all claims its insured had for those damages against defendant.”
Gree USA, Inc. fired back against the allegations in an answer to the complaint on Jan. 13, largely claiming that it is “without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth…and therefore denies same.”
In its new matter, the company put forth a considerable number of affirmative defenses, including, but not limited to, the following:
• Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state claims for which relief may be granted;
• Plaintiff’s cause and origin and engineering experts failed to produce any evidence that the dehumidifier was defective, failed and/or caused the alleged fire;
• All or part of plaintiff’s claims against defendant are barred in whole or in part by the doctrines of estoppel, waiver, laches, unclean hands, and/or other international and U.S. equitable doctrines;
• Plaintiff is barred from recovery for some or all of the claims asserted against defendant, because defendant did not owe any legal duty to plaintiff’s subrogors, or, if defendant owed a legal duty, defendant did not breach that duty.
The defendant is also seeking a bifurcated trial to separate the issues of liability and damages in this matter.
UPDATE
Erie Insurance Company responded to the defendant’s new matter on Jan. 25, calling their allegations “conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required and those allegations were denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial.”
“It is also denied that plaintiff’s claims are in any way barred, limited or precluded. It is further denied that plaintiff failed to mitigate their damages. It is specifically denied that plaintiff spoliated and/or failed to preserve the evidence,” per the plaintiff’s response.
“It is specifically denied that plaintiff’s cause and origin and engineering experts failed to rule out all other potential causes of the alleged fires. It is specifically denied that plaintiff’s cause and origin and engineering experts were not qualified to give an opinion. It is specifically denied that plaintiff’s cause and origin and engineering experts failed to produce any evidence that the dehumidifier was defective, failed or caused the alleged fire.”
For multiple counts of strict product liability, negligence, breach of implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, the plaintiff is seeking damages in the amount of $359,286.91, plus interest, costs, attorney’s fees and any other relief this Court may deem just and proper.
The plaintiff is represented by Anthony W. Ziccardi of Gaul & Associates, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Jessica G. Lucas of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-20-012626
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com