Allstate Insurance Company v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Filing
27
MEMORANDUM OPINION signed by the Honorable Charles P. Kocoras on 4/2/2012.Mailed notice(sct, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO.,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC., )
)
Defendant.
)
11 C 7494
MEMORANDUM OPINION
CHARLES P. KOCORAS, District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Allstate Insurance Co.’s
(“Allstate”) motion to strike Defendant Electrolux Home Products, Inc.’s (“Electrolux”)
affirmative defenses. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted in part and
denied in part.
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of a fire at the home of Allstate’s insureds, Ahmed and
Karima Mohamed (collectively, “the Mohameds”). The fire was allegedly caused by
a malfunction in a clothes dryer manufactured by Electrolux, and Allstate allegedly paid
$106,342.84 to the Mohameds for their losses. Allstate then filed a complaint against
Electrolux sounding in products liability and negligence in Illinois state court to recover
this amount. The complaint was removed to this Court on October 21, 2011. Electrolux
answered the complaint on January 20, 2012 and asserted fifteen affirmative defenses.
Allstate now seeks to strike each of these affirmative defenses pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(f).
LEGAL STANDARD
An affirmative defense raises new “facts and arguments that, if true, will defeat
the plaintiff’s or prosecution’s claim, even if all allegations in the complaint are true.”
Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) permits
a court to strike “an insufficient defense of any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or
scandalous matter.” To survive a motion to strike, affirmative defenses must comply
with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which requires a “short and plain statement”
of the defense. Heller Fin., Inc. v. Midwhey Powder Co., 883 F.2d 1286, 1294 (7th Cir.
1989). However, “[b]are bones conclusory allegations” are not permitted. Id. at 1295.
Because motions to strike can be used as delay tactics, they are generally not a favored
part of motion practice. United States v. 416.81 Acres of Land, 514 F.2d 627, 631 (7th
Cir. 1975). However, if legal implications can be drawn from uncontroverted facts
within the pleadings, such motions can be useful tools to examine the sufficiency of
asserted defenses. See id.
DISCUSSION
Electrolux’s first affirmative defense alleges that Allstate cannot prove that the
dryer was unreasonably dangerous at the time it left Electrolux’s possession. A court
-2-
may strike an affirmative defense that “merely raises matters already at issue under a
denial.” Bobbitt v. Victorian House, Inc., 532 F. Supp. 734, 736 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16,
1982). The first affirmative defense amounts to a denial of Paragraph 12 of Allstate’s
complaint, in which Allstate alleged that the dryer was defective and unreasonably
dangerous as manufactured. Because this matter is already at issue, Electrolux’s first
affirmative defense is hereby stricken.
Electrolux’s second, third, sixth, seventh, and twelfth affirmative defenses allege
that the Mohameds’ losses were caused by intervening acts or omissions of third parties
over which Electrolux had no control. Causation is a necessary element of Allstate’s
claims, and these affirmative defenses merely deny this element. Electrolux’s second,
third, sixth, seventh, and twelfth affirmative defenses are therefore stricken. See
Resolution Trust Corp. v. KPMG Peat Marwick, 845 F. Supp. 621, 625 (N.D. Ill. 1994)
(striking affirmative defense alleging a lack of “causation in fact, proximate cause, [and]
intervening cause” because causation was a necessary element of plaintiff’s claim).
Electrolux’s fourth and fifth affirmative defenses both allege assumption of risk.
The fourth affirmative defense alleges that the Mohameds assumed the risk of injury by
inappropriately installing, maintaining, and operating the dryer. The fifth affirmative
defense provides greater particularity and alleges that the Mohameds understood and
appreciated the risk of injury from failing to clean out the lint trap on the dryer. These
-3-
defenses provide sufficient factual detail to withstand a motion to strike and will
therefore stand.
Electrolux’s eighth affirmative defense states that Electrolux’s dryer was “state
of the art” and that Electrolux had no practical or technically feasible alternative
designs. Whether a product was “state of the art” is not a defense to a strict liability
action, and it is “not conclusive of non-negligence since it is merely to be considered
by the jury along with whatever other evidence may be presented in determining that
fact.” Gelsumino v. E.W. Bliss Co., 295 N.E.2d 110, 113 (Ill. App. Ct. 1973).
Moreover, this defense is simply a denial of Allstate’s allegation that the product was
negligently manufactured. Although Electrolux is certainly entitled to provide evidence
that the dryer was “state of the art” at trial, these facts, even if true, do not necessarily
bar Allstate’s recovery and therefore do not constitute a proper affirmative defense.
Electrolux’s ninth affirmative defense alleges in a conclusory fashion that the
Mohameds were contributorily negligent. Contributory negligence is included as an
acceptable affirmative defense under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c). Although
Electrolux does not provide any factual support within this defense regarding what
conduct on the part of the Mohameds was negligent, elsewhere in its answer it asserts
that the Mohameds improperly installed and maintained the dryer and failed to clean out
the lint trap on the dryer. Electrolux’s answer as a whole provides sufficient factual
-4-
support for this affirmative defense, and Electrolux’s ninth affirmative defense will
stand.
Electrolux’s tenth and eleventh affirmative defenses state that Allstate failed to
mitigate its damages. Although the tenth affirmative defense is conclusory, the eleventh
affirmative defense provides more particularity and alleges that Allstate was not
required under the insurance policy to pay the Mohameds the amount that it did. When
viewed together, these defenses provide sufficient facts to place Allstate on notice of
the course of conduct that Allstate was obligated to undertake to mitigate its damages.
Therefore, Electrolux’s tenth and eleventh affirmative defenses will stand.
Electrolux’s thirteenth and fourteenth affirmative defenses allege spoilation of
evidence. Spoilation of evidence “does not ‘give rise in civil cases to substantive claims
or defenses.’” ABC Business Forms, Inc. v. Pridamor, Inc., No. 09 C 3222, 2009 WL
4679477, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 1, 2009) (quoting Silvestri v. Gen. Motors Corp., 271
F.3d 583, 590 (4th Cir. 2001)). Electrolux’s thirteenth and fourteenth affirmative
defenses are therefore stricken.
Finally, Electrolux’s fifteenth affirmative defense states that Electrolux reserves
the right to assert all other affirmative defenses that may be revealed through the course
of discovery. This is not an affirmative defense, and is therefore stricken. Should
-5-
Electrolux seek to amend its answer to include additional defenses, it should request
leave from the Court to do so pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Allstate’s motion to strike Electrolux’s first, second,
third, sixth, seventh, eighth, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth affirmative
defenses is granted. Allstate’s motion to strike Electrolux’s fourth, fifth, ninth, tenth,
and eleventh affirmative defenses is denied.
Charles P. Kocoras
United States District Judge
Dated: April 2, 2012
-6-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?