943 F. Supp. 2d 844
N.D. Ill.2013Background
- Subrogation action arising from a 2011 fire at Bank of America’s 25-story Chicago banking center caused by an electrical counterfeit currency bill detector.
- Plaintiffs insured BOA’s building and tenants; they reimbursed losses and seek to recover amounts from Accubanker, Office Depot, and BOA.
- Defendant Office Depot removed the case to federal court on December 14, 2012 and moved to dismiss counts for negligence and strict liability.
- Courts apply Rule 12(b)(6) for sufficiency; allegations are viewed in the plaintiff-friendly light with facial plausibility required.
- Court granted Office Depot’s motion to dismiss the negligence and strict liability claims against Office Depot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Office Depot owe a duty in negligence claim? | Plaintiffs allege duty from design, manufacture, testing, inspecting and selling the detector. | Office Depot did not design/manufacture and there was no foreseeability to Plaintiffs as non-users. | Duty not owed; negligence claims dismissed. |
| Whether seller's exception supports dismissal of strict liability claim | Office Depot exercised control or knowledge of defects; defects existed at sale. | Affidavit shows no significant control; satisfies seller's exception. | Seller's exception applicable; dismissal of strict liability claim appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jablonski v. Ford Motor Co., 955 N.E.2d 1138 (Illinois 2011) (duty element in negligence cases)
- Solis v. BASF Corp., 979 N.E.2d 419 (Illinois 2012) (distributor duty to warn and instruct users not purchasers)
- LaRoe v. Cassens & Sons, Inc., 472 F. Supp. 2d 1041 (S.D. Ill. 2006) (non-manufacturer can be dismissed under seller's exception if proper certification)