Homesite Insurance Company v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al.

Filing 27

DECISION and ORDER: It is ORDERED that 1. Defendant's motion to dismiss 24 is DENIED; and 2. Defendant shall file an answer to the second amended complaint on or before April 17, 2024. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on April 3, 2024. (ztc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------HOMESITE INSURANCE COMPANY
A/S/O ADAM LONG,
Plaintiff,
-v-

6:23-CV-981

SHENZHEN LEPOWER
INTERNATIONAL ELECTRONICS
CO., LTD.,
Defendant.
-------------------------------APPEARANCES:

OF COUNSEL:

METHFESSEL & WERBEL
Attorneys for Plaintiff
112 West 34th Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10120

FREDRIC P. GALLIN, ESQ.

HENG WANG & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Attorneys for Defendant
305 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10007

HENG WENG, ESQ.

DAVID N. HURD
United States District Judge

DECISION and ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
On August 11, 2023, Homesite Insurance Company (“Homesite” or
“plaintiff”) filed this action in Supreme Court, Oneida County, against
Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”). See Dkt. No. 2. Thereafter, Amazon removed
the action to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), which authorizes
removal of a civil action from state to federal court if diversity of citizenship
exists. Dkt. No. 1.
On September 14, 2023, Homesite and Amazon filed a joint stipulation,
agreeing to discontinue the claims against Amazon without prejudice and
substitute Shenzhen Lepower International Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Lepower”
or “defendant”) as the party defendant. Dkt. No. 12. In accordance with the
parties’ joint stipulation, plaintiff filed an amended complaint reflecting the
terms of the stipulation. Dkt. No. 13. On September 15, 2023, the parties’
joint stipulation was adopted, and plaintiff’s amended complaint was
accepted. Dkt. Nos. 15, 16.
On November 13, 2023, Lepower moved under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6) to dismiss Homesite’s amended complaint in its
entirety. Dkt. No. 19. In support of their motion, defendant argued that
plaintiff failed to plausibly allege a strict products liability claim—plaintiff’s
-2-

sole basis for liability against defendant. See id. The motion was granted on
February 8, 2024. Homesite Ins. Co. v. Shenzhen Lepower Int’l Elecs. Co.,
2024 WL 532444 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2024). However, plaintiff was given leave
to amend its pleading to cure the defects. Id. at *3. On February 13, 2024,
plaintiff filed a second amended complaint reasserting its strict products
liability claim. Dkt. No. 23.
On February 27, 2024, Lepower moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss
Homesite’s second amended complaint. Dkt. No. 24. In defendant’s view,
plaintiff’s second amended complaint fails to cure the defects identified in
this Court’s previous Order. See id. The motion has been fully briefed and
will be considered on the basis of the submissions without oral argument.
II. BACKGROUND
Homesite is an insurance company. Compl. ¶ 1. Plaintiff insures property
in Rome, New York (the “property”) owned by Adam Long (“Long”). Id. ¶¶ 2–
3. Long purchased a First Power replacement battery (the “battery”) for use
at the property. Id. ¶ 7. Lepower, a business entity based in Shenzhen,
China, manufactured and/or distributed the battery. Id. ¶¶ 8–9.
On September 18, 2022, the battery caught fire at the property. Compl.
¶¶ 4, 10, 12. As a result of the fire, a claim was made to Homesite. Id. ¶ 5.

-3-

By virtue of payments made, plaintiff has become subrogated to the rights of
its insured. Id. ¶ 6.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the complaint’s factual
allegations must be enough to elevate the plaintiff’s right to relief above the
level of speculation. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). So,
while legal conclusions can provide a framework for the complaint, they must
be supported with meaningful allegations of fact. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 679 (2009). In short, a complaint must contain “enough facts to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
To assess this plausibility requirement, the court must accept as true all of
the factual allegations contained in the complaint and draw all reasonable
inferences in the non-movant’s favor. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007). In doing so, the court generally confines itself to the facts alleged in
the pleading, any documents attached to the complaint or incorporated into it
by reference, and matters of which judicial notice may be taken. Goel v.

-4-

Bunge, Ltd., 820 F.3d 554, 559 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting Concord Assocs., L.P.
v. Ent. Props. Tr., 817 F.3d 46, 51 n.2 (2d Cir. 2016)).
IV. DISCUSSION
Homesite’s second amended complaint sets forth one cause of action for
strict products liability. See Compl. ¶¶ 15–29. Lepower seeks dismissal of
plaintiff’s strict products liability claim on the basis that plaintiff “has failed
to proffer sufficient, non-conclusory facts” in support of its claim. Def.’s
Mem., Dkt. No. 24-1 at 12. 1
Under New York law, a manufacturer who places into the stream of
commerce a defective product that causes injury may be held strictly liable.
Reynolds-Sitzer v. EISAI, Inc., 586 F. Supp. 3d 123, 129 (N.D.N.Y. 2022)
(citing Scism v. Ethicon, Inc., 2020 WL 1245349, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 16,
2020)). There are three distinct theories of strict products liability that are
recognized by New York law: (1) a manufacturing defect, which results when
a mistake in manufacturing renders a product that is ordinarily safe
dangerous so that it causes harm; (2) a design defect, which results when the
product as designed is unreasonably dangerous for its intended use; and (3) a
warning defect, which occurs when the inadequacy or failure to warn of a

1 Pagination corresponds to CM/ECF header.

-5-

reasonably foreseeable risk accompanying a product causes harm. Id. (citing
McCarthy v. Olin Corp., 119 F.3d 148, 154–55 (2d Cir. 1997)).
Homesite’s strict products liability claim is premised on a manufacturing
defect. 2 See Compl. ¶¶ 15–29. To sufficiently allege a manufacturing defect,
a plaintiff “must plead ‘that a specific product unit was defective as a result
of some mishap in the manufacturing process itself, improper workmanship,
or because defective materials were used in construction, and that the defect
was the cause of plaintiff’s injury.’” Krulewich v. Covidien, LP, 498 F. Supp.
3d 566, 574 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (quoting Colon ex rel. Molina v. BIC USA, Inc.,
199 F. Supp. 2d 53, 85 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)). Therefore, a strict products liability
claim based on a manufacturing defect will be dismissed if a plaintiff fails to
allege that the specific product was defective as compared to other products
in the same product line. Id. (citation omitted); Scism v. Ethicon, Inc., 2020
WL 1245349, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2020) (citing Oden v. Bos. Sci. Corp.,
330 F. Supp. 3d 877, 890 (E.D.N.Y. 2018)). However, identifying a specific
manufacturing flaw is not always required. Hunter v. Shanghai Huangzhou
Elec. Appliance Mfg. Co., 505 F. Supp. 3d 137, 154 (N.D.N.Y. 2020) (citation
omitted). In fact, a plaintiff “may rely on circumstantial evidence to support

2 Homesite makes clear in its opposition to Lepower’s motion that its strict products liability

claim relies only on the manufacturing defect theory. See Pl’s Opp’n, Dkt. No. 25 at 4–9.
-6-

a manufacturing defect claim if the plaintiff can prove that the product did
not perform as intended and excludes all other causes for the product’s
failure not attributable to the defendant.” Krulewich, 498 F. Supp. 3d at 574
(citation omitted).
Upon review, Homesite has plausibly alleged a strict products liability
claim based on a manufacturing defect. Plaintiff contends that the battery
caught fire while in the ordinary and intended use of being charged. Compl.
¶¶ 10–12, 17. Moreover, plaintiff alleges that experts examined the scene of
the fire and concluded that the fire originated at the battery and excluded all
other possible sources of the fire. Id. ¶¶ 13–17. Thus, plaintiff asserts that
the battery “deviated from the expected performance of like kind and quality
Lepower replacement batteries,” because “it is expected that similar Lepower
units of like kind and quality would not catch fire in the ordinary use of being
charged[.]” Id. ¶ 21.
Drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Homesite, these allegations
provide circumstantial evidence of a manufacturing defect. Indeed, plaintiff’s
allegations sufficiently suggest that the battery did not perform as intended
and exclude all other causes for the battery’s failure not attributable to
Lepower. As a result, dismissal of plaintiff’s strict products liability claim is

-7-

unwarranted at this time. Thus, defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s
second amended complaint must be denied.
V. CONCLUSION
In sum, Homesite has plausibly alleged a strict products liability claim
based on a manufacturing defect. Accordingly, plaintiff’s second amended
complaint shall proceed to discovery.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED; and
2. Defendant shall file an answer to the second amended complaint on or
before April 17, 2024.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 3, 2024
Utica, New York.

-8-