Sagamore Insurance Company v. Volvo Group North America, LLC

Filing 32

MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT. Signed by District Judge Todd J. Campbell on 10/13/2015. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(eh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

SAGAMORE INSURANCE CO.
v.
VOLVO GROUP NORTH
AMERICA, LLC

)
)
) NO. 3-14-1351
) JUDGE CAMPBELL
)
)

MEMORANDUM

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 21),
to which Plaintiff has filed a Response, and Defendant has filed a Reply. For the reasons stated
herein, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 21) is DENIED.
FACTS
This is a products liability action arising from a fire on March 15, 2012, which began in and
consumed a 2007 Volvo VNL tractor truck operated by an employee of GT Truck Line. Plaintiff
Sagamore Insurance Company, pursuant to its insurance policy with GT Truck Line, made payments
to and/or on behalf of GT Truck Line for damages resulting from the fire. Plaintiff has sued
Defendant for the amount of those damages, alleging that the fire was a result of a manufacturer’s
defect in the tractor.
Defendant has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that Plaintiff cannot show that
the fire was caused by a specific error in the product’s design or construction.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and
the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Pennington v. State

Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 553 F.3d 447, 450 (6th Cir. 2009). The party bringing the summary
judgment motion has the initial burden of informing the Court of the basis for its motion and
identifying portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine dispute over material
facts. Rodgers v. Banks, 344 F.3d 587, 595 (6th Cir. 2003). The moving party may satisfy this
burden by presenting affirmative evidence that negates an element of the non-moving party’s claim
or by demonstrating an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case. Id.
In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the Court must review all the evidence, facts
and inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Van Gorder v. Grand Trunk
Western Railroad, Inc., 509 F.3d 265, 268 (6th Cir. 2007). The Court does not, however, weigh the
evidence, judge the credibility of witnesses, or determine the truth of the matter. Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). The Court determines whether sufficient evidence
has been presented to make the issue of fact a proper jury question. Id. The mere existence of a
scintilla of evidence in support of the nonmoving party’s position will be insufficient to survive
summary judgment; rather, there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the
nonmoving party. Rodgers, 344 F.3d at 595.
PRODUCTS LIABILITY
Under the Tennessee Products Liability Act of 1978, a products liability action includes all
actions based upon the following theories: strict liability in tort, negligence, and failure to warn.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28-102 (6). A manufacturer or seller of a product shall not be liable for any
injury caused by the product unless the product is determined to be in a defective condition or
unreasonably dangerous at the time it left the control of the manufacturer or seller. Tenn. Code Ann.
§ 29-28-105(a).

2

“Defective condition” means a condition of a product that renders it unsafe for normal or
anticipatable handling and consumption. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28-102(2). “Unreasonably
dangerous” means that a product is dangerous to an extent beyond that which would by
contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it, with the ordinary knowledge common to
the community as to its characteristics, or that the product because of its dangerous condition would
not be put on the market by a reasonably prudent manufacturer or seller, assuming that the
manufacturer or seller knew of its dangerous condition. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28-102(8).
Plaintiff must prove that the product was defective, regardless of the legal theory upon which
he relies. Fulton v. Pfizer Hospital Products Group, Inc., 872 S.W. 2d 908, 911 (Tenn. Ct. App.
1993). Under Tennessee law, expert testimony is required to establish liability in cases alleging
manufacturing and design defects. Pride v. BIC Corp., 218 F.3d 566, 580 (6th Cir. 2000).
DISCUSSION
Defendant argues that it is entitled to summary judgment because Plaintiff cannot meet its
burden to trace the fire to some specific error in the product’s construction or design. Defendant
contends that Plaintiff’s expert, Mr. Peck, attributes the fire to an electrical short, but he does not
know what caused the short and he does not know which specific wire or circuit failed.
In his deposition, however, Mr. Peck stated that the specific defect was “multiple shorts
occurring in the wiring in the fuse panel and breaker panel area in Volvo trucks that resulted in a
failure of breakers. The breakers failed and then resulted in a fire.” Docket No. 22-1, p. 51. Mr.
Peck also testified that the recall repair proposed by Volvo (replacing the breakers with fuses) would
not eliminate all the failures or the shorts that were occurring. Id. He disagreed with counsel’s

3

statement that the condition that resulted in the recall had been eliminated by the work done as a
result of the recall. Id., p. 97.
Plaintiff has also filed a document produced by Volvo in discovery concerning the recall,
in which Volvo admits to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that “The percentage
of the 125,000 vehicles expected to contain the defect is unknown.” Docket No. 28-1, p.1. Volvo
also admits that “The circuit protection (i.e., automatic circuit breakers) used to protect the vehicle
lighting system may not provide adequate protection. If a short circuit occurs and is left untreated,
components and wiring may be subject to overheating which could potentially result in a vehicle
fire.” Id., p. 2.
In light of these admissions and Mr. Peck’s opinions, Plaintiff has carried its burden to show
genuine issues of material fact which preclude summary judgment. A jury must determine what
credibility and weight to give to this evidence.
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

___________________________________
TODD J. CAMPBELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4