Products Liability Law Reporter

A federal district court held that a state court had jurisdiction over claims arising out of a home fire that allegedly started near a family’s water heater, which was owned by a utility company.

Here, a fire started in the Starbuck home, causing Marilyn Starbuck to suffer severe burns and her mother to sustain fatal injuries. Additionally, the home and its contents were completely lost, with the damages estimated at over $700,000. An investigation revealed that the fire originated at the base the family’s natural gas-fueled water heater. The water heater’s control valve had become severely corroded over time and did not close, allowing natural gas to burn outside of the water heater. Members of the Starbuck family sued Puget Sound Energy Inc., which supplied natural gas to the home, leased the water heater to them, and was responsible for water heater maintenance. The state court lawsuit alleged claims for common law negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, consumer protection, res ipsa loquitor, products liability, and statutory violations.

The defendant removed the case to federal court. The plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing that the case was strictly a Washington state law case.

Granting the motion, the court noted that although the plaintiffs had not pleaded any federal claims, federal question jurisdiction encompassed more than just federal causes of action. Citing case law, the court found that federal courts have jurisdiction to hear cases in which a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.

Here, the court said, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant failed to ensure that the natural gas it supplied was not contaminated and failed to maintain and repair its gas lines or the appliance serving the premises. Their allegations do not relate to the quality of interstate gas delivered to the defendant and whether the gas complied with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission tariff standard, as asserted by the defense.

The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ claims involved no substantial federal question that required adjudication in federal court. Thus, the court concluded that the defense had not met its burden of establishing federal jurisdiction.

Citation: Starbuck v. Puget Sound Energy Inc., 2023 WL 7297993 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 6, 2023).

Plaintiff counsel: Scott P. Carness, Edmonds, Wash.; David B. Richardson, Bellevue, Wash.; and John T. Bender and Kristen F. Barnhart, both of Seattle.

Comment: In USAA Casualty Ins. Co. v. Dampp-Chaser Electronics Corp., 2023 WL 4934222 (D. Md. Aug. 1, 2023), a fire started at the home of music teachers Elizabeth Dumas-Schneider and her husband, Karl Schneider. Their insurer, USAA Casualty Insurance Co., paid over $589,000 on their claim to cover the fire damage. The insurer, as subrogee for its policyholders, filed a civil action against Dampp-Chaser Electronics Corp., alleging negligence, strict liability, and breach of an implied warranty. The insurer alleged that the defendant’s product—a humidity control device known as a humidistat—was defective and caused the fire. Denying Dampp-Chaser’s motion for summary judgment, the district court concluded there was at least some evidence to support a finding of a defect based on circumstantial evidence. These include the production of expert testimony on the fire’s cause, evidence the fire occurred a short time after the product’s sale, evidence of the same incident involving a similar product, and elimination of other causes. Consequently, the court held that there was a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of a product defect that precluded summary judgment. Christina Billiet, Lutherville, Md.; and Emma Gaddipati, Chicago, represented the plaintiff.