Elkins v. Extreme Products Group, LLC, 5:21-cv-00050

Plaintiff Brian Elkins bought and used an inversion table in Richmond, KY; a component broke on Jan. 29, 2020, causing alleged serious, permanent injury.
Elkins sued Extreme Products Group, Elite Fitness, and Dunham’s for negligence, strict liability, breach of implied warranty, and unfair claims settlement practices; negligence and breach of warranty are focal here.
The inversion table’s manufacturer is unclear in the complaint: Extreme Products and/or Elite Fitness are named; Elite Fitness has not appeared and may not be subject to the court’s jurisdiction.
Dunham moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing it is immune under the Kentucky Middleman Statute, KRS § 411.340, because it sold the product in its original condition and did not breach an express warranty or know of any defect.
Elkins contends his amended complaint adequately pleads Dunham’s negligence and breach of warranty and that dismissal is premature.
The court denied Dunham’s motion because the pleading does not establish, on its face, that the Middleman Statute applies—chiefly because the manufacturer’s identity and whether it is subject to the court’s jurisdiction remain uncertain.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of Kentucky Middleman Statute (KRS § 411.340)	Elkins says dismissal is premature; complaint alleges potential manufacturer uncertainty and retailer liability.	Dunham says statute bars suit if manufacturer is identified and subject to jurisdiction and retailer sold product unaltered.	Denied — court cannot determine on the face of the complaint that the statute applies because manufacturer jurisdiction is unresolved.
Whether exceptions to Middleman immunity are pleaded (express warranty; knew/should have known)	Elkins asserts negligence and breach of implied warranty adequately alleged.	Dunham argues there are no allegations of express warranty, altered product, or retailer knowledge of defect.	Denied as premature — court did not conclude exceptions inapplicable at pleading stage given factual uncertainties.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (establishes plausibility standard for pleading)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading requires factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim)
G.M. Eng’rs & Assoc., Inc. v. W. Bloomfield Twp., 922 F.2d 328 (6th Cir. 1990) (accept allegations as true and evaluate whether any set of facts would entitle plaintiff to relief at dismissal stage)
Salisbury v. Purdue Pharma, L.P., 166 F. Supp. 2d 546 (E.D. Ky. 2001) (Middleman Statute shields retailers selling unaltered products when manufacturer is subject to jurisdiction)
Flint v. Target Corp., [citation="362 F. App'x 446"] (6th Cir. 2010) (retailer loses Middleman immunity if it breached an express warranty or knew/should have known of the defect)