LANCASTER – A local man says that his upholstered bed frame and headboard contained bed bugs, an infestation which later spread to the rest of his home and caused substantial damages.
Daniel Forrester of Terre Hill first filed suit in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas on Feb. 6 versus Sleep Number Corporation, of Minneapolis, Minn.
“Plaintiff Daniel Forrester has purchased and utilized various consumer products from defendant Sleep Number since 2019. Notably, on Aug. 7, 2022, plaintiff purchased an upholstered bed frame and headboard from defendant for $1,679.99. As part of the sale, plaintiff purchased ‘premium delivery and setup’ for $249.00,” the suit says.
“On or about Oct. 1, 2022, defendant’s agents/employees delivered the upholstered bed frame and headboard, at which time plaintiff was present. Plaintiff observed the bed frame and headboard, before the goods were removed from the delivery truck, in contact with other furniture and bedding that appeared to be uncovered, used and soiled.”
The suit adds that shortly after installation of the upholstered bed frame and headboard, the plaintiff and his wife, Lori Forrester, began to experience painful and irritating bite marks covering their bodies. At various times, the plaintiff noticed small, brownish insects in and around the bed, which he believed to be bed bugs.
On or about Dec. 12, 2022, the plaintiff says he contacted Orkin Pest Control to conduct an in-home inspection, at which time Orkin confirmed the presence of bed bugs. The plaintiff paid $115.54 for that in-home inspection.
“Orkin specified that at least three chemical treatments of plaintiff’s home were required to treat the infestation, that plaintiff and his wife needed to be out of their home for four hours after each treatment, that plaintiff and his wife must remove all clothing and bedding items from the room and deep clean/replace all items, that plaintiff and his wife should avoid going into the master bedroom until the bed bugs have been exterminated, and that plaintiff and his wife must cannot sleep in their bedroom until the bed bugs have been exterminated,” the suit states.
“On or about Dec. 14, 2022, Orkin’s technician, Brandon Ensor, arrived at plaintiff’s home for the first chemical treatment. Mr. Ensor reported that he found ‘live [bed bug] activity around the headboard in the master bedroom, no other activity found. Plaintiff remitted payment of $2,192.08 to Orkin for three chemical treatments.”
Subsequent treatments showed that the upholstered bed frame and headboard displayed evidence of bed bug nests, dead bed bugs and live bed bug activity, with the infestation having spread to various other areas of the plaintiff’s home.
“Defendant’s conduct in marketing and selling the upholstered bedframe and headboard was deceptive and misleading as the goods lacked the characteristics, ingredients, uses and benefits that were represented. Defendant’s conduct in marketing and selling the delivery and setup as ‘premium’ was deceptive and misleading as the delivery service was of a lesser standard, quality or grade. In fact, plaintiff purchased the upholstered bed frame, headboard and ‘premium delivery’ new, directly from the defendant, in order to avoid the risk of bed bug contamination associated with used bedding and furniture. Plaintiff justifiably relied on defendant’s misrepresentations when deciding to purchase the upholstered bed frame and headboard as well as ‘premium delivery and setup.’ Defendant’s deceptive representations are material in that a reasonable person would attach importance to such information and would be induced to act upon such information in making purchase decisions,” the suit says.
“Furthermore, defendant had a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect plaintiff's upholstered bed frame and headboard within its possession or control from being compromised, exposed, and/or infected with bed bugs. Defendant’s duty included, among other things, designing, implementing, training, inspecting and maintaining, its delivery procedures and equipment to ensure that plaintiff’s consumer goods in defendant’s possession were adequately secured and protected from infiltration by bed bugs. Defendant further had a duty to implement processes to diminish the risk of contamination from used furniture and bedding and to sanitize its delivery trucks and equipment to prevent the contamination of goods in transit. Through its acts or omissions, defendant breached its duty to use reasonable care to protect and secure plaintiff’s consumer goods within its possession or control from contamination. Defendant breached its duty by failing to adopt, implement, inspect and maintain adequate delivery procedures to safeguard plaintiff’s consumer goods from contamination, failing to adequately sanitize defendant’s delivery equipment, and allowing used, soiled and uncovered goods to come in contact with plaintiff’s newly purchased consumer goods. But for defendants’ wrongful and negligent breach of the duties owed to plaintiff, the upholstered bed frame and headboard would not have been infested with bed bugs, and plaintiff would not have suffered thousands of dollars in damage to exterminate the bed bugs and replace the mattresses and bedding.”
For counts of negligence, negligent performance of an undertaking to render services, violation of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Improvements Act, violation of the Uniform Commercial Code, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, the plaintiff is seeking actual, consequential, statutory and treble damages in excess of the arbitration limits (plus restitution for the defendant’s unjust enrichment), compensatory damages for emotional distress, loss of enjoyment, pain, suffering, annoyance and grief, attorney’s fees and costs, pre- and post-judgment interests and such other and further relief as may be just and proper.
The plaintiff is represented by Joshua P. Ward and Justin M. Bahorich of J.P. Ward & Associates, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant has not yet obtained legal counsel.
Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas case CI-23-00820
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com