Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. Samsung Electronics America Inc, 2:23-cv-01447

Homeowners Somchai and Duangta Ritnoppakun owned a Samsung washing machine that leaked in February 2022 and caused property damage.
Allstate, their insurer, paid $400,742.02 in indemnity and sued Samsung for product liability under Washington’s product liability statute (RCW 7.72).
Samsung moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing the machine’s presumptive 12‑year “useful safe life” had expired and the statute of repose barred recovery.
Samsung submitted a declaration that the washer was manufactured in September 2007; Allstate did not dispute the manufacturing date. The court took judicial notice of that manufacturing date.
The court denied the motion, reasoning (1) the statutory presumption is triggered by delivery date, not manufacture date; (2) the seller (Samsung) bears the initial burden to prove the useful safe life expired and Samsung failed to meet that burden; and (3) Allstate was not required at the pleading stage to allege facts disproving an affirmative defense.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the complaint must be dismissed because the RCW 7.72 statute of repose (12‑year useful safe life presumption) bars the claim	Allstate: The statute of repose is an affirmative defense; Allstate need not plead around it and its complaint plausibly alleges liability	Samsung: The washer was manufactured in 2007, the leak occurred in 2022, so the 12‑year presumption applies and the claim is time‑barred	Denied. Court: Samsung did not show on the face of the pleadings that the presumption applies and the claim is foreclosed
Whether the court may rely on the manufacturing date submitted by Samsung	Allstate: Did not dispute manufacture date; focused on delivery date issue	Samsung: Manufacturing date (Sept. 2007) shows >12 years elapsed before damage	Court took judicial notice of the manufacturing date but held manufacture date is not dispositive because the statute triggers from delivery, not manufacture
Who bears the burden to prove the useful safe life expired at the pleading stage	Allstate: Burden is on seller; plaintiff need not plead rebuttal at 12(b)(6) stage	Samsung: Plaintiff must show damage occurred within the 12‑year period to survive dismissal	Court: Burden initially lies with seller to prove the useful safe life expired; plaintiff need not plead around the affirmative defense at the motion to dismiss stage

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1990) (standards for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
In re Fitness Holdings, Int’l, Inc., 714 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 2013) (accept factual allegations and draw inferences for nonmoving party)
Vasquez v. Los Angeles Cnty., 487 F.3d 1246 (9th Cir. 2007) (conclusory allegations insufficient)
Lee v. City of L.A., 250 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2001) (limits on considering materials outside the complaint on 12(b)(6))
United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2003) (when outside materials convert a 12(b)(6) motion to summary judgment)
Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635 (1980) (plaintiff not required to anticipate affirmative defenses in complaint)
ASARCO, LLC v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 765 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2014) (affirmative‑defense dismissal proper only if defense is an obvious bar on the face of the complaint)
Rivera v. Peri & Sons Farms, Inc., 735 F.3d 892 (9th Cir. 2013) (statute of limitations defense may support dismissal only if complaint forecloses tolling or other avoidance)
Supermail Cargo, Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1204 (9th Cir. 1995) (plaintiff need not plead around statute of limitations to survive 12(b)(6))