Grange Mutual Casualty Co. v. Optimus Enterprises, Inc., 1:15-cv-02394

Fire on Nov. 13, 2013 at rental property caused $90,000 in damage; insurer Grange paid landlord Kirby and was subrogated to his rights.
Tenant Hoskins owned and used an Optimus infrared quartz radiant heater (model H-5210/H-5211) at the property; that model had been recalled by the CPSC on May 15, 2013.
Grange sued Optimus in state court (Oct. 14, 2015) asserting product-liability claims under Ohio Product Liability Act (manufacturing defect, design defect, inadequate warning, nonconformance with representations); Optimus removed to federal court on diversity grounds.
Optimus moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) (or for a more definite statement); Grange responded; court considered whether complaint pled sufficient factual detail to state plausible OPLA claims.
The complaint alleged the heater ‘‘failed’’ due to defective components and relied in part on the recall, but did not identify which component failed, how failure caused the fire, what warnings were omitted or inadequate, or what representations were made and relied upon.
Court dismissed all four claims without prejudice for failure to plead plausible facts (legal conclusions and formulaic recitals insufficient); declined to grant a Rule 12(e) motion, instead gave leave to amend.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Manufacturing defect under O.R.C. §2307.74	Heater ‘‘failed’’ due to defective/faulty components; recall supports inference of defect	Complaint lacks identification of specific failed component or facts tying failure to fire; mere conclusory allegation	Dismissed: plaintiff must identify failed/defective part and plead facts to make defect plausible
Design defect under O.R.C. §2307.75	Product was defectively designed causing failure and fire	Complaint fails to identify specific part or how design risk outweighed benefits; conclusory pleading	Dismissed: insufficient factual allegations to state plausible design-defect claim
Inadequate warning under O.R.C. §2307.76	Manufacturer failed to warn about risks (pre- or post-market) that caused harm	Complaint fails to plead that defendant knew/should have known of the risk, what warnings existed, or how warnings were inadequate	Dismissed: no factual showing of knowledge or deficient warnings
Nonconformance with representations under O.R.C. §2307.77	Heater did not conform to manufacturer representations/warranties	Complaint does not identify any representations, reliance, or causation from reliance	Dismissed: merely recites elements without factual support

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plaintiff must plead facts making claim plausible beyond mere labels and conclusions)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (courts accept well-pleaded factual allegations but need not accept legal conclusions; plausibility standard applies)
Tagare v. NYNEX Network Sys. Co., 921 F. Supp. 1146 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (Rule 12(e) motion for more definite statement is disfavored unless pleading is unintelligible and prejudicial)
Cervelli v. Thompson/Ctr. Arms, 183 F. Supp. 2d 1032 (S.D. Ohio 2002) (elements for nonconformity-to-representation claim under OPLA)