Safeco Insurance Company Of America v. Air Vent, Inc.
2:20-cv-01579
D. Nev.Jul 25, 2022Background
- Homeowner Roger Himka bought an attic-cooling fan from Home Depot that failed, causing a fire; insurer Safeco paid $250,581.60 and sued fan manufacturer Air Vent for negligence and strict products liability.
- Air Vent impleaded component suppliers/distributors Powermax Electric, Chien Luen Industries, and King of Fans, alleging they are liable if the fan was defective.
- Air Vent moved for summary judgment arguing the loss is a construction defect subject to NRS Chapter 40 pre-suit notice/repair requirements; Safeco argued the fan is a mass-produced product and Chapter 40 does not apply.
- Safeco moved for summary judgment on the products-liability claim, relying on expert reports showing (a) the motor thermal cutoff leads were too long; (b) components were purchased complete from suppliers; and (c) the fire originated in the fan motor.
- The court held the attic fan is a product (not a construction defect), admitted and considered the expert reports under the current FRCP 56 standard, granted Safeco partial summary judgment on the products-liability claim, and denied Air Vent’s summary-judgment motion.
- Powermax (a Chinese manufacturer) moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; the court denied the motion, finding specific jurisdiction based on Powermax’s decades-long targeting of the U.S. market, retailer relationships (including Home Depot), distribution ties, alter-ego evidence with King of Fans, and U.S.-covering insurance; case referred to mandatory settlement conference and trial to proceed on remaining claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the damage is a construction defect subject to NRS Ch. 40 pre-suit notice/repair | The fan is a mass-produced product; strict products-liability law applies, not Chapter 40 | The damage arises from construction/installation, so Chapter 40’s notice/repair requirement bars the claim | Fan is a product, not a construction defect; Chapter 40 does not apply; Air Vent’s MSJ denied |
| Whether Safeco met its burden on strict products liability | Expert reports show defect (thermal cutoff leads too long), defect existed at manufacture, and fire originated in the fan | Air Vent challenges admissibility/adequacy of expert reports | Expert opinions are admissible for summary judgment; Safeco proved all elements; partial SJ granted for Safeco |
| Admissibility of expert reports at summary judgment | Reports’ substance will be admissible at trial via live testimony; thus may be considered now | Some documents may be hearsay/inadmissible in present form | Under amended FRCP 56, substance admissible if the evidence could be presented at trial; reports considered |
| Whether the court has specific personal jurisdiction over Powermax | Powermax has long targeted U.S. market, sold motors into U.S., contracted with nationwide retailers (including ties to Home Depot), and has alter-ego/distribution ties to entities serving Nevada | Powermax argues it is like Asahi—manufactured and sold abroad with no purposeful availment of Nevada | Court found Powermax’s U.S. targeting, distribution contracts, alter-ego evidence, and insurance covering U.S. support specific jurisdiction; dismissal denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Calloway v. City of Reno, 993 P.2d 1259 (Nev. 2000) (buildings excluded from product strict-liability regime)
- Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (personal-jurisdiction limits for foreign manufacturers)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 141 S. Ct. 1017 (2021) (contacts that systematically serve a forum can support specific jurisdiction)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (relationship among defendant, forum, and litigation controls specific-jurisdiction inquiry)