PHILADELPHIA – The estate of a woman killed when a piece of metal came through her windshield while driving and which had sued Safelite, has voluntarily dismissed its case.
Anthony Panichelli (as Administrator of the Estate of Cara Mia Francesca Panichelli, deceased) of Philadelphia first filed suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on Feb. 19 versus Safelite Autoglass and Kenneth Hedgespeth of Philadelphia, Safelite Glass Corporation, Safelite Fulfillment, Inc. and Safelite Group, Inc., all of Columbus, Ohio, and Fuyao Glass America, Inc. of Moraine, Ohio.
“On Aug. 31, 2019, the Safelite defendants, by and through their employee and agent, defendant Kenneth Hedgespeth, sold and installed a replacement front windshield in the 2014 Subaru referenced below. The replacement windshield Safelite installed on the Subaru was designed, manufactured, distributed and/or sold by Fuyao. The windshield includes the following information: ‘DOT-1038, AS-1, M-147,” the suit said.
“On June 12, 2023, at approximately 4:41 p.m., the plaintiff’s decedent, Cara Mia Francesca Panichelli, was operating the Subaru on Interstate 95 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania traveling southbound in the right center lane, when the incident described below occurred. While the decedent was operating her Subaru, the following incident occurred: A piece of metal struck/impacted the windshield, which failed to prevent intrusion and tore apart, causing/allowing the piece of metal to crash through the windshield and impact the decedent. After the incident, the Subaru veered out of control, colliding with another vehicle and then striking a concrete barrier on the right side of the highway and then came to a stop.”
The suit added that as a result of the misconduct of the defendants, and the supply, sale and installation of a defective windshield – as described herein – the plaintiff’s decedent suffered serious, fatal blunt trauma to her chest which resulted in her death on June 12, 2023.
“Because of the misconduct of the defendants and the unsafe design of the replacement windshield, the defendants breached the duty they owed to consumers and users of the product, including the decedent and their misconduct increased the risk of harm to the decedent, which resulted in her death. The defendants breached their duty to the plaintiff and plaintiff’s decedent by consciously disregarding a substantial risk that their conduct would significantly injure the rights of others,” the suit stated.
“The defendants’ wrongful conduct in the design, manufacture, and distribution of the replacement windshield was guided by either reckless indifference or willful disregard of the interests of others. The defendants knew, realized or should have reasonably known or realized that they created an unreasonable risk of causing physical harm to another by the design of the replacement windshield and its installation.”
The defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on March 11, citing the amount of damages exceeding the jurisdictional threshold and the diversity of citizenship between the parties.
UPDATE
On March 18, defendant Fuyao Glass America, Inc. (FGA) motioned to dismiss the complaint, for an alleged lack of general and specific personal jurisdiction against it in this matter.
“FGA is an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in Moraine, Ohio. FGA is not registered to do business in Pennsylvania, and has no business locations here. If FGA sold the subject replacement windshield to Safelite, as is alleged by plaintiff, FGA did not ship that product into Pennsylvania. Instead, Safelite or its shippers picked up the windshield from FGA’s premises in Ohio, and then shipped it to Safelite’s distribution centers in California or Georgia. Once FGA sells a product to Safelite, FGA has no control over where Safelite ultimately ships it for sale to the ultimate consumer, and FGA had no hand in sending the subject windshield to Pennsylvania. Under these facts, this Court lacks both general and specific personal jurisdiction over FGA in this matter, and plaintiff’s claims against FGA should be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2),” the dismissal motion stated, in part.
“In the alternative, plaintiff’s request for punitive damages, and related allegations, should be stricken and dismissed from the complaint. Punitive damages are an extreme remedy available only in extraordinary matters. The substantive allegations against FGA are general products liability claims, alleging that the subject windshield was unreasonably dangerous in its design, manufacture and warnings. Simply put, nothing in the complaint suggests any ‘particularly egregious,’ quasi-criminal or reckless conduct on the part of FGA, and does not establish the necessary mindset to justify an imposition of punitive damages. Plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages, as well as unsupported references to ‘reckless’ conduct, should be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).”
The very same day, plaintiff counsel filed notice with the Court that the case was dismissed, without prejudice.
“Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiffs and their counsel of record, hereby give notice that the above-entitled action is voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice against the defendants,” the filing stated.
The plaintiff was represented by Larry E. Coben of Anapol Weiss, in Philadelphia.
The defendants were represented by Joanna D. Buchanico and Jennifer Glazer Shorr of Weber Gallagher Simpson Stapleton Fires & Newby, plus Vlada Tasich and Michael Salvati of Marshall Dennehey, also all in Philadelphia
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:24-cv-01049
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 2402039353
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com