Kerin v. Titeflex Corporation
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 21057
1st Cir.2014Background
- Kerin sues Titeflex Corporation t/a Gastite in a diversity action stemming from CSST used in his Florida home.
- Kerin alleges Gastite CSST is vulnerable to lightning-induced failures causing fires.
- District court dismissed for lack of standing, deeming the injury too speculative.
- Kerin asserts four Massachusetts-law claims based on design, manufacture, and warning defects.
- Court addresses whether enhanced risk of future injury can establish standing despite regulatory compliance and no current damage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is enhanced-risk standing viable for a product risk of lightning damage? | Kerin claims enhanced risk creates standing | Titeflex contends risk is too speculative | No standing; risk is too speculative to satisfy injury-in-fact |
| Does regulatory approval of CSST defeat standing despite alleged risk? | Kerin argues regulatory silence or risk shows injury | CSST approved; risk deemed manageable | Regulatory approval weighs against standing; no injury in fact shown |
| Does failure to allege a concrete, present injury defeat standing? | Kerin seeks overpayment/remedy costs without actual damage | No concrete injury without identifiable defect or damage | Standing fails; present injury not adequately pleaded |
Key Cases Cited
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138 (2013) (standing for threat of injury requires actual or imminent injury)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (injury in fact must be concrete and imminent)
- Blum v. Holder, 744 F.3d 790 (1st Cir. 2014) (standing for enhanced risk requires concrete allegations)
- Mountain States Legal Found. v. Glickman, 92 F.3d 1228 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (probabilistic injuries; standing may exist for increased risk)
- Katz v. Pershing, LLC, 672 F.3d 64 (1st Cir. 2012) (disarray over standing for enhanced risk of data breach)
- Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc. v. вним, 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (standing when refraining from use due to risk)
- Baur v. Veneman, 352 F.3d 625 (2d Cir. 2003) (enhanced risk cases; regulatory context important)