Peerless Ins Co v. Broan-Nutone LLC
3:10-cv-00868
D. Conn.Feb 22, 2012Background
- Fire occurred March 28, 2009 at a Wallingford warehouse; premises owned by DFP Enterprises and leased to Connecticut Direct Mail.
- Peerless insured the property of DFP Enterprises; Safeco insured Connecticut Direct Mail; subrogation action for property damage.
- Plaintiffs allege fire caused by a defective NuTone ceiling fan (Broan-NuTone) with a Jakel motor (Motor model J239-5138).
- Fan is NuTone Model 696N, manufactured May 2003 by Broan-NuTone; motor identified as Jakel in the post-fire evidence.
- Defendants moved to preclude plaintiffs’ expert Oscar Berendsohn and for summary judgment; court denied preclusion and partially granted summary judgment.
- Court held Counts One, Three, Five, Seven (CPLA claims) remain; Counts Two, Four, Six, Eight (common-law warranty claims) limited to CPLA framework; ruling dated February 22, 2012, by Judge Janet C. Hall.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Berendsohn’s testimony | Berendsohn's methods are reliable and do not require NFPA 921 compliance. | Berendsohn failed to follow NFPA 921 procedures and thus should be precluded. | Berendsohn’s testimony admissible; preclusion denied. |
| Effect of Berendsohn on CPLA vs. common-law claims | Common-law warranty theories are independent of the CPLA. | CPLA exclusivity bars separate common-law warranty claims. | CPLA exclusive; common-law warranty claims dismissed except as CPLA claims; Counts Two, Four, Six, Eight remain under CPLA. |
| Privity and validity of warranty claims under CPLA | Breach of warranty claims based on common law should be allowed alongside CPLA claims. | Without privity (under UCC) or under CPLA exclusivity, warranty claims fail. | Counts Two, Four, Six, Eight can proceed as breach of warranty within the CPLA framework. |
| Summary judgment on the warranty/CPLA claims | Genuine issues of material fact remain; no grounds for full summary judgment. | Lack of admissible expert testimony and privity undermine claims warranting judgment. | Summary judgment granted in part for breach of common-law warranty (dismissed) and denied in part for CPLA claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579 (Supreme Court, 1993) (testimony must have reliable foundation and relevance)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (Supreme Court, 1999) (Daubert factors apply to all expert testimony)
- McCullock v. H.B. Fuller Co., 61 F.3d 1038 (2d Cir. 1995) (emphasizes testing and cross-examination on expert methods)
- Amorgianos v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 303 F.3d 256 (2d Cir. 2002) (Daubert factors apply; focus on methodology, not conclusions)
- Densberger v. United Techs. Corp., 297 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2002) (CPLA exclusivity; product liability framework governs liability)
- Walters v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp., 676 F. Supp. 2d 44 (D. Conn. 2009) (discipline and structure for product liability claims under CPLA)
- Winslow v. Lewis-Shepard, Inc., 212 Conn. 462 (Conn. 1989) (clarifies scope of product liability and warranty theories)
- Lamontagne v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 834 F. Supp. 576 (D. Conn. 1993) (illustrates handling of product liability and warranty claims)