Å˽ðÁ«´«Ã½Ó³»­

A federal court in Pennsylvania recently affirmed that plaintiffs seeking to hold a seller or distributor liable for a faulty product must provide clear evidence of where they purchased their product.

In a homeowners insurance subrogation case over water damage caused by a malfunctioning bidet, the court found that since State Farm was unable to point to sufficient evidence that the seller being sued sold or was linked to its insured’s specific bidet, State Farm’s claims failed as a matter of law.

In dismissing State Farm’s claims, the court noted that neither the homeowner nor the purported seller had any receipts or records of the actual sale or delivery of the bidet that malfunctioned. The homeowner testified that the proof of purchase was lost in the water damage. Her “unsubstantiated testimony” regarding her purchase of the bidet over 10 years ago from the defendant Coway USA was insufficient to prove a link to the company.

“Where a verdict in plaintiff’s favor would require the jury to use ‘conjecture, surmise, guess or speculation,’ summary judgment is appropriate,” the court concluded.

Malfunctioning Bidet

This matter arose from damages sustained at the home of Mikyung and Adrian Kim in Bryn Mawr, after a component part to a bidet attached to the Kim’s upstairs toilet failed, causing massive flooding throughout the home. State Farm brought action as a subrogee against Coway USA, Inc. to recover payments made to the Kims for the property damage and additional expenses they claimed under their homeowner’s policy.

State Farm alleged that Coway sold the defective bidet to Mikyung Kim, that the bidet malfunctioned, and that the ensuing damage to the Kims’ home was caused by the failure of the component part.

In October 19, 2022, the federal district court granted Coway’s motion to dismiss State Farm’s negligence claim, but left claims of strict liability, breach of warranties, and breach of contract against Coway.

Mikyung Kim testified that she believed the man she contracted with to install the bidet was a Coway employee because he had what was supposedly a Coway office at a local food market in Philadelphia. According to Kim, the man represented that he was a Coway employee, and “everybody” knew that his store was a Coway store. Kim could not recall the employee’s name. Kim also confirmed that the store was no longer in existence. Moreover, Kim testified that the man never wore a Coway uniform, nor did he drive a Coway vehicle. However, according to Kim, the man did have “all the Coway paper with him” when he came to the house for the installation.

Specific Product

Both parties agreed that neither the faulty part, nor the bidet itself, were manufactured or designed by Coway, but that Coway did engage in the marketing and distribution of the model of the bidet that was in the Kims’ home. The parties disagreed, however, as to whether Coway marketed and sold the specific bidet at issue in this case to the Kims.

Coway testified that it had no record of distributing or selling the product to the Kims and that it did not own or operate any store or office in Philadelphia during the 2009-2010 timeframe.

After paying the Kims’ homeowner’s insurance claim related to the flooding event, State Farm sued Coway, advancing theories of products liability, breach of warranties, and breach of contract. Coway sought a summary judgment, arguing, among other things, that State Farm could not point to sufficient evidence in the record that Coway was in fact the seller of the Kims’ bidet, and therefore the insurer’s claims related to the malfunction of the subject bidet must fail.

Proof Needed

The court stressed that each claim advanced by State Farm required first that it prove that Coway was indeed the seller, marketer, or distributor of the specific bidet at issue. A strict product liability claimant must prove that the supplier or seller is in the product’s chain of distribution. To support a breach of warranty claim, a plaintiff must also provide proof of purchase.

Absent proof that Coway sold the subject bidet—either to the Kims, or to another merchant in the chain of distribution— Coway could not be held liable for any defective component of the bidet, according to the court in identifying what it called a “threshold issue.”

Coway argued —and the court agreed— that no admissible evidence existed to affirmatively link Coway to the sale of the subject bidet. Coway admits that it was one of multiple distributors of the model bidet. But the court said this fact alone cannot withstand a motion for summary judgment, “given that it is just as likely that another company sold or distributed the specific bidet that ended up in the Kims’ home.”

State Farm argued that Coway was the only distributor of the model bidet system at the relevant time period. However, State Farm did not support this contention with any evidence. Instead, State Farm argued only that the absence of proof of another distributor is sufficient to give rise to the requisite inference that Coway must have sold the subject bidet to the Kims.

In effect, because State Farm could not point to evidence in the record to sufficiently support an inference that Coway either sold the subject bidet to the Kims or that Coway was a link in the chain of distribution of the subject bidet, the court found that summary judgment in Coway’s favor was appropriate.

Topics Carriers Liability