American Family Mutual Insurance Company v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.

Filing 109

ORDER denying the motion for centralization of actions under 28 U.S.C. 1407. Signed by John G. Heyburn II, Chairman of the Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on 10/16/13. (rep)

Case MDL No. 2477 Document 109 Filed 10/16/13 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: ELECTROLUX DRYER PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION

MDL No. 2477

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

Before the Panel:* Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the American Family Mutual Insurance
Company (“American Family”), a plaintiff in three actions, moves to centralize this litigation, which
consists of 35 actions1 pending in 21 districts as listed on Schedule A, in the Northern District of
Illinois. Plaintiffs in 11 subrogation actions support centralization.2 Plaintiffs in two putative class
actions oppose centralization, and plaintiffs in three actions request exclusion of their actions from
transfer. All defendants3 oppose centralization. The actions in this litigation involve fire-related
property damage allegedly caused by defective dryers manufactured by Electrolux.
American Family and other insurers contend that centralization is warranted because common
factual questions predominate on a single alleged common defect – the “ball-hitch” design – which
poses a fire hazard through the same mechanism, accumulation of lint behind the drum near the heat
source. They further contend that discovery on this common issue has been inconsistent across
actions because of numerous discovery disputes. Electrolux contends that centralization is
inappropriate primarily because highly individualized facts concerning the circumstances of each fire
will predominate with respect to variations in the dryer models, installation, venting, compliance with
local building codes, and owner maintenance. Electrolux, along with opposing plaintiffs, also argue
that many of the actions are too advanced to benefit from transfer (i.e., trial-ready or nearing
completion of discovery).

*

Judge Sarah S. Vance took no part in the decision of this matter.

1

There were 52 actions listed on American Family’s motion for centralization, but 17 actions
pending in various districts have been terminated since the motion was filed. Following the hearing
on this matter, the Panel was notified of three related actions.
2

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, State Farm General Insurance Company, and State
Farm Lloyds (“State Farm”); Farmers Insurance Exchange and Fire Insurance Exchange (“Farmers”);
New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Group; and Topa Insurance Company.
3

Electrolux Home Products, Inc.; Electrolux Home Care Products, Inc.; Electrolux North
America, Inc.; Sears Roebuck & Co.; and Sears Holdings Corporation.

Case MDL No. 2477 Document 109 Filed 10/16/13 Page 2 of 5

-2On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we will deny plaintiff’s motion.
Although these actions share factual questions arising out of allegations that dryers manufactured by
Electrolux have a common design defect that has resulted in fires, the Panel is not persuaded that
Section 1407 centralization is necessary either to assure the convenience of the parties and witnesses
or for the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. The litigation over the Electrolux dryers –
primarily, subrogation actions brought by insurers – is at this stage quite mature, involving a product
that has been on the market since the mid-1990s and numerous trials that have reached jury verdicts.
On the present record, it appears that individualized facts concerning the circumstances of each fire,
including installation, repair, and maintenance, will predominate over the common factual issues
alleged by plaintiffs.4 Additionally, many of the actions are procedurally advanced. Discovery is
complete in nine actions, and scheduled to close in the next two months in another ten actions.
Although about 16 actions are in early discovery, Electrolux represents in its brief that existing
discovery sharing agreements pertain “effectively to all cases,” and at oral argument, reiterated its
commitment to sharing common discovery.
We encourage the parties to continue to employ various alternatives to transfer which may
minimize the potential for duplicative discovery and inconsistent pretrial rulings. See, e.g., In re:
Yellow Brass Plumbing Component Prods. Liability Litig., 844 F. Supp. 2d 1377, 1378 (J.P.M.L.
2012); see also Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth, § 20.14 (2004). The record demonstrates
that the parties already have made significant progress in this direction, with State Farm’s joinder of
over 200 claims in a single subrogation action in the Northern District of Illinois and American
Family’s joinder of multiple claims in two other actions.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for
centralization of these actions is denied.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

John G. Heyburn II
Chairman
Kathryn H. Vratil
Marjorie O. Rendell
Lewis A. Kaplan

4

Paul J. Barbadoro
Charles R. Breyer

The putative class actions also raise numerous consumer protection claims (including a
claim for a nationwide recall), which are not at issue in the other 33 actions.

Case MDL No. 2477 Document 109 Filed 10/16/13 Page 3 of 5

IN RE: ELECTROLUX DRYER PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION

MDL No. 2477

SCHEDULE A

Northern District of Alabama
Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., C.A. No. 2:12-01993
Fire Insurance Exchange v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., C.A. No. 7:12-01992
Eastern District of Arkansas
Tammie Humphrey v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., C.A. No. 4:12-00157
Central District of California
TOPA Insurance Company v. Electrolux North America Inc., et al., C.A. No. 5:13-01011
Shawn Roberts, et al. v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., C.A. No. 8:12-01644
Southern District of California
American National Property and Casualty Company v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.,
C.A. No. 3:11-01340
Northern District of Georgia
Mohammad Abu-Abed v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., C.A. No. 1:12-00571
Central District of Illinois
Badger Mutual Insurance Company v. Electrolux North America, Inc.,
C.A. No. 1:13-01207
Northern District of Illinois
Allstate Insurance Company v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., C.A. No. 1:09-06379
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, et al. v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.,
C.A. No. 1:11-08946
American Family Mutual Insurance Company v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.,
C.A. No. 1:12-09309
Thomas White v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., C.A. No. 1:13-01617
Member Select Insurance Company v. Electrolux North America, Inc.
C.A. No. 1:13-03665
Member Select Insurance Company v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 1:13-04097

Case MDL No. 2477 Document 109 Filed 10/16/13 Page 4 of 5

- A2 Northern District of Indiana
Homesite Insurance Company of The Midwest v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc, et al., C.A.
No. 1:11-00042
Indiana Farm Bureau Insurance Company v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.,
C.A. No. 1:13-00028
Justin Alexander v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., C.A. No. 2:12-00047
State Farm Fire & Casualty Company v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.,
C.A. No. 3:08-00436
Southern District of Indiana
Indiana Farm Bureau Insurance Company v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.,
C.A. No. 1:13-00174
Western District of Kentucky
Kentucky Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.,
C.A. No. 3:12-00732
Western District of Louisiana
State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.,
C.A. No. 2:12-02702
Eastern District of Michigan
Citizens Insurance Company of America v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.,
C.A. No. 2:12-13799
District of New Hampshire
Bernard K., et al., v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., C.A. No. 1:12-00195
District of New Jersey
New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Group/ASO Linda Ann Pawlowski v. Electrolux, Inc.,
C.A. No. 2:10-01952
New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Group v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.,
C.A. No. 3:12-01966
New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company, et al. v. Electrolux Home Products,
Inc., C.A. No. 3:12-02815

Case MDL No. 2477 Document 109 Filed 10/16/13 Page 5 of 5

- A3 Eastern District of New York
Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Electrolux Home Products,
Inc., C.A. No. 1:12-05065
State Farm Fire & Casualty Company v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.,
C.A. No. 2:10-03901
Northern District of New York
Broome Co-Operative Insurance Company v. Electrolux North America, Inc.,
C.A. No. 6:13-00132
Southern District of New York
Oleg Cassini, Inc. v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., C.A. No. 1:11-01237
Northern District of Ohio
Allstate Insurance Company v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 1:13-00345
American Family Mutual Insurance Company v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.,
C.A. No. 3:12-03000
Southern District of Ohio
State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.,
C.A. No. 1:12-00843
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
State Farm Fire & Casualty Company v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.,
C.A. No. 2:13-02562
Western District of Wisconsin
American Family Mutual Insurance Company, et al. v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.,
C.A. No. 3:11-00678