United Fire and Casualty Company v. Whirlpool Corporation
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 1148
| 11th Cir. | 2013Background
- United Fire, subrogee for the Corrals, sued Whirlpool for strict products liability alleging a Whirlpool clothes dryer caused a June 2008 fire.
- The district court excluded United Fire’s two expert witnesses and granted Whirlpool summary judgment on United Fire’s sole claim.
- The fire began in the Corral utility room; a child had started a dryer load around 8:00 pm and the Fire Department investigated the scene late that night.
- Raymond Arms concluded the fire originated in the dryer area using NFPA 921, citing burn patterns and melted wiring behind the dryer as evidence of origin in the dryer and under the unit.
- Arms performed a destructive examination of the dryer and identified a wiring fault at the exhaust tube as the ignition source but did not test exemplars and did not cite published studies supporting his ignition theory.
- Dr. Clarke examined the metal exhaust tube and opined that melting temperatures (around 2800 degrees with forced draft) implicated the dryer’s fan as the source of the ignition; his testimony was initially excluded but later deemed admissible on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the exclusion of Arms’ origin testimony an abuse of discretion? | Arms’ origin testimony rested on NFPA 921 and现场 evidence, a valid methodology. | The ignition theory lacked testing and publication support and was unreliable under Daubert. | Abusive to exclude origin testimony; reversal of exclusion as to origin. |
| Was the exclusion of Clarke’s metallurgical testimony an abuse of discretion? | Clarke used sound metallurgical methods with imaging to assess the metal tube. | Clarke’s methodology lacked published support for his 2800-degree melting claim. | Exclusion of Clarke’s testimony reversed; Dr. Clarke’s testimony admitted. |
| Did the district court properly grant Whirlpool summary judgment after excluding experts? | There remained disputed facts about cause/origin supported by expert testimony. | Without admissible expert testimony, no genuine dispute about defect and no liability. | Summary judgment reversed; dispute about defect survives due to admissible testimony. |
| Does Cassisi inference support a defect claim in this context? | Evidence showed the dryer could have malfunctioned during normal operation, enabling a Cassisi inference. | Cassisi analysis is inapplicable or insufficient to create a defect inference here. | Cassisi inference applies; evidence raises genuine dispute about defect. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cassisi v. Maytag Co., 396 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981) (Cassisi inference for defect when product malfunctions during normal operation)
- City of Tuscaloosa v. Harcros Chem., Inc., 158 F.3d 548 (11th Cir. 1999) (abuse of discretion when excluding admissible testimony in full)
- Weisgram v. Marley Co., 169 F.3d 514 (8th Cir. 1999) (limit of excluding expert testimony; not all related opinions are barred)
- McCorvey v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 298 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2002) (summary judgment standard under Florida law for product defect claims)
- Travelers Prop. & Cas. Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 150 F. Supp. 2d 360 (D. Conn. 2001) (NFPA 921 as standard in fire investigation community)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (Supreme Court 1993) (reliability gatekeeping for expert testimony; flexible factors)
- Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (Supreme Court 1999) (application of Daubert to non-scientific expert testimony)
- Travellers Prop. & Cas. Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 150 F. Supp. 2d 360 (D. Conn. 2001) (NFPA 921 standard in fire investigation community)