Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. Amazon.com, Inc.
425 F.Supp.3d 158
E.D.N.Y2019Background
- Plaintiff Philadelphia Indemnity sued Amazon as subrogee for property damage caused by an allegedly defective blender purchased on amazon.com by A&K Sushi’s employee from third‑party seller Glantop.
- The blender was sold by Glantop through Amazon’s marketplace and fulfilled via Amazon’s Fulfillment by Amazon (FBA); Amazon processed payment, charged referral/service fees, and shipped the item in Amazon‑branded packaging.
- Amazon did not design or manufacture the blender, did not inspect or test it at its fulfillment center, and—per the BSA—did not take title to the product.
- Plaintiff alleges strict products liability, negligence, and breach of warranty against Amazon; Amazon moved for summary judgment arguing it was not a seller/distributor in the chain and is protected by the CDA.
- The Court applied New York law, relied principally on Eberhart v. Amazon (S.D.N.Y.), and granted summary judgment dismissing all claims against Amazon, concluding Amazon was not within the product’s distribution chain and owed no duty or warranty liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strict products liability: Is Amazon part of the distribution chain? | Amazon functioned as a distributor/retailer and is best placed to police defective products. | Amazon is an online marketplace/service provider that never took title and thus is outside the distribution chain. | Amazon not in distribution chain; summary judgment for Amazon on strict liability. |
| Negligence: Did Amazon owe a duty to purchasers/subrogee? | Amazon negligently onboarded Glantop (no credit/insurance checks) and allowed a dangerous product online. | No duty because Amazon did not manufacture, sell, or distribute the product. | No duty; summary judgment for Amazon on negligence. |
| Breach of warranty: Can Amazon be liable for express/implied warranties? | Amazon made warranty‑type assurances (e.g., "100% brand new" and customer service). | Amazon did not manufacture or sell the blender and thus cannot bear warranty liability. | Amazon outside manufacturing/selling chain; summary judgment for Amazon on warranty. |
| Communications Decency Act (CDA) preemption | (Plaintiff did not rebut) | Claims target Amazon’s publication of third‑party listings and are barred by CDA §230. | Court did not decide CDA issue as claims were resolved on other grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Eberhart v. Amazon.com, Inc., 325 F. Supp. 3d 393 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (online marketplace using FBA not within distribution chain where it did not take title)
- Finerty v. Abex Corp., 27 N.Y.3d 236 (N.Y. 2016) (scope of strict products liability and distribution‑chain analysis under New York law)
- Tyminskyy v. Sand Man Bldg. Materials, Inc., 168 A.D.3d 1118 (N.Y. App. Div.) (manufacturer/wholesaler/distributor liability limited to those in distribution chain)
- Spallholtz v. Hampton C.F. Corp., 294 A.D.2d 424 (N.Y. App. Div.) (no warranty or strict liability for parties outside manufacturing/selling/distribution chain)
- Townley v. Emerson Elec. Co., 269 A.D.2d 753 (N.Y. App. Div.) (no duty where defendant did not manufacture, sell, or distribute product)
- Godoy v. Abamaster of Miami, Inc., 302 A.D.2d 57 (N.Y. App. Div.) (analysis of which distributor/importer is closest to manufacturer for liability purposes)
- Pulka v. Edelman, 40 N.Y.2d 781 (N.Y. 1976) (negligence requires duty)