Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Tecumseh Products Co.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21010
D. Maryland2011Background
- Fireman's Fund paid nearly $100,000 under Mangione's property policy and became subrogee.
- Plaintiff's investigators Thomsen and McLauchlan attributed the fire origin to a heat pump in Room 203 of the Hilton Garden Inn.
- McLauchlan recovered three heat pumps (Subject, Working Exemplar, Damaged Exemplar) and issued two reports asserting a TOP-related failure as the cause.
- Defendant Sensata moved to exclude McLauchlan's testimony and for summary judgment; Aireco and Tecumseh were dismissed from the suit.
- The court granted in part the motion to exclude (McLauchlan) and ordered summary judgment for Defendant; Thomsen's testimony became moot.
- The court held that Plaintiff could prove defect only via circumstantial evidence (indeterminate defect theory) but lacked admissible evidence and testing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McLauchlan's testimony is admissible under Daubert | McLauchlan's methods follow NFPA 921; data supported his hypothesis. | McLauchlan's methodology is unreliable and not properly tested or peer reviewed. | Excluded; McLauchlan's testimony deemed unreliable. |
| Whether Thomsen's testimony remains material after McLauchlan exclusion | Thomsen's fire-pattern analysis supports origin in heat pump. | Without McLauchlan, material dispute collapses. | Moot; not addressed further. |
| Whether the indeterminate defect theory can support recovery | Circumstantial evidence can prove defect in the absence of direct proof. | Plaintiff cannot prove a defect due to lack of expert evidence and testing. | No genuine issue; indeterminate defect theory fails. |
| Whether plaintiff has any remaining admissible evidence to prove a defect | Damaged Exemplar and operator testimony show defect. | No admissible expert testimony; insufficient circumstantial proof. | No admissible evidence; Defendant entitled to summary judgment. |
| Whether summary judgment in favor of Defendant is proper | Indeterminate defect plus circumstantial evidence supports recovery. | Lack of admissible evidence defeats Plaintiff's claim. | Granted; Defendant succeeds on summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (gatekeeping reliability standard for expert testimony)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1999) (flexible Daubert framework; testing and acceptance not mandatory for all fields)
- Bryte v. American Household, 429 F.3d 469 (4th Cir. 2005) (failure to follow NFPA procedures can support exclusion of fire investigator testimony)
- Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. v. Canon U.S.A., 394 F.3d 1054 (8th Cir. 2005) (recognizing failure to adhere to NFPA standards in fire investigations)
- Jensen v. American Motors Corp., 437 A.2d 242 (Md. App. 1981) (indeterminate defect theory requires more than accidents; five-factor test)
- Harrison v. Bill Cairns Pontiac, 549 A.2d 385 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1988) (five-factor framework for indeterminate defect in Maryland)