Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.
2:15-cv-00500
M.D. Fla.Sep 30, 2015Background
- Universal Property & Casualty (insurer) sued Best Buy after a Toshiba laptop sold by Best Buy allegedly caught fire in an apartment on April 2, 2014, causing roughly $158,500 in insured losses.
- Universal asserts four claims against Best Buy: strict products liability, negligence, breach of express warranty, and breach of implied warranty.
- Best Buy moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing insufficiency of pleading and statute-of-repose/warranty-duration defenses tied to the product delivery date.
- The complaint alleges Best Buy sold the laptop/battery, the laptop/battery was defective (subject to catching fire), investigation tied the fire to the laptop/battery, and Universal paid the insureds’ losses.
- Best Buy did not support its repose/warranty-date pleading requirement with controlling pleading-stage authority; court treated those contentions as better suited to resolution on summary judgment/after discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pleading and Florida statute of repose delivery date | Complaint need not allege sale/delivery date at pleading stage | Fla. Stat. § 95.031(2)(b) and cases require pleading delivery date so repose can be assessed | Court rejected dismissal on this ground; repose timing better for summary judgment/discovery |
| Sufficiency of strict liability claim | Alleged sale by Best Buy, defect (subject to catching fire), and causal link to fire | Complaint fails to allege product condition when sold or how defect caused fire | Court found allegations sufficient to state prima facie strict liability claim |
| Sufficiency of negligence claim | Alleged duty to warn, failure to warn (no adequate warnings), causation, and damages paid | Complaint lacks facts to support elements of negligence | Court held complaint pleaded duty, breach, causation, and damages sufficiently |
| Breach of express/implied warranty pleading | Complaint alleges facts of sale, creation and breach of warranty, notice, and damages; implied warranty language mirrors merchantability statute | Defendant contends plaintiff must plead delivery date and specify warranty type; disclaimers/duration may bar claims | Court denied dismissal; warranty claims sufficiently pleaded and identification of implied merchantability warranty provided fair notice |
Key Cases Cited
- La Grasta v. First Union Sec., Inc., 358 F.3d 840 (11th Cir.) (pleading-documents and factual-acceptance standards on motion to dismiss)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard; conclusory allegations insufficient)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must raise reasonable expectation discovery will reveal supporting evidence)
- Marsh v. Butler County, Ala., 268 F.3d 1014 (11th Cir.) (conclusory allegations not entitled to presumption of truth)
- Pielage v. McConnell, 516 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir.) (motion-to-dismiss factual-acceptance principles)
- Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701 (11th Cir.) (Twombly–Iqbal applied to Rule 12(b)(6) review)
- Speaker v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 623 F.3d 1371 (11th Cir.) (accepting operative complaint allegations as true for dismissal-stage review)
- Curd v. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, 39 So. 3d 1216 (Fla.) (elements of negligence under Florida law)
- Ocana v. Ford Motor Co., 992 So. 2d 319 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.) (warranty discussion; cited by court in evaluating warranty pleading arguments)