Amco Insurance Company v. Broan-Nutone, LLC et al, No. 2:2008cv01355 - Document 36 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER denying 19 Motion for Summary Judgment signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 12/27/09. (Duong, D)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Amco Insurance Company v. Broan-Nutone, LLC et al Doc. 36 1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 AMCO INSURANCE COMPANY, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 7 Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 BROANE-NUTONE,LLC; JAKEL, INC. doing business in California as JAKEL INDUSTRIES, INC., 11 Defendants. 12 2:08-cv-01355-GEB-JFM ORDER 13 On July 22, 2009 Defendants filed a motion for summary 14 judgment on all Plaintiff’s claims in this insurance subrogation 15 action. 16 in the laundry room of Perpetuan and Crispen Soliven’s residence 17 caused a fire in that residence, and whether either or both Defendants 18 defectively designed and/or manufactured the component of that fan 19 alleged to have caused the fire. 20 The parties dispute whether a ceiling exhaust fan installed The motion was heard on September 14, 2009. Subsequent to 21 the hearing, Defendant Broane-Nutone, LLC (“Broan-Nutone, LLC”) filed 22 a notice of bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, 23 staying this case against it. 24 Plaintiff and Defendant Jakel, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Jakel”), have not 25 argued that this stay applies to them. 26 115 F.3d 695, 697 (9th Cir. 1997) (stating a Chapter 11 bankruptcy 27 stay does not ordinarily preclude nonbankrupt parties from proceeding 28 in the case.) However, the remaining parties, Cohen v. Stratosphere Corp., 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 I. 2 BACKGROUND Plaintiff alleges negligence and strict liability claims 3 against Defendant Jackel for a design and manufacturing defect in a 4 ceiling exhaust fan installed in the laundry room of the Solivens’ 5 residence. 6 that residence on September 23, 2006. 7 light fixture, which had a separate on-off switch. 8 Statement of Undisputed Facts (“PSUF”) ¶¶ 7, 42). 9 purchased their home as new construction in 1990 and were the only two Plaintiff contends the alleged defects caused a fire in The fan was installed beside a (Plaintiff’s The Solivens 10 people residing there at the time of the fire. 11 Soliven residence includes two and one-half bathrooms and a laundry 12 room, each containing an exhaust fan.” (Id. ¶ 12.) 13 (Id. ¶¶ 11, 13.) “The Plaintiff contends Jackel manufactured the defective 14 component of the exhaust fan that caused the fire. 15 manufacture, the subject fan was comprised of the following 16 components[:] (1) the electric motor sub-assembly, which includes the 17 thermal cut-out protector and motor windings; (2) the power receiver, 18 which connects the fan to the building power source (the fan plugs 19 into the power receiver in the same manner as an appliance plugs into 20 a wall electrical outlet); (3) the motor plate that attaches to the 21 fan housing; and (4) the fan grille.” (Id. “At the time of ¶ 39.) 22 Jackel argues Plaintiff cannot prove the fan was used, 23 contained a design or manufacturing defect, and caused the fire. 24 (Def’s Mot. 9:18-15:7.) 25 preserve key evidence, and because of this failure Plaintiff’s 26 complaint should be dismissed. 27 [not] presented to . . . the Magistrate Judge during the discovery 28 phase of this case” as required by Local Rule 302(c)(1) and the Jackel also argues Plaintiff failed to However, this dismissal argument “was 2 1 Scheduling Order filed on September 10, 2008. 2 4369312, at *4, n. 1 (S.D.Cal. 2008). 3 Freeman v. Allstate Life Ins. Co., 253 F.3d 533, 537 (9th Cir. 2001) 4 (upholding district judge’s declination to sanction because of party’s 5 “fail[ure] to prosecute the issue before the magistrate judge as 6 required by . . . Local Rule . . . and the court's . . . order”); 7 E*Trade Securities LLC v. Deutsche Bank AG, 230 F.R.D. 582 586 8 (D.Minn. 2005)(revealing that allegations of discovery misconduct, 9 including the spoliation of evidence, concern discovery issues). 10 II. Toomer v. U.S., 2008 WL Therefore, it is waived. See STANDARD 11 “Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings together 12 with the affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any 13 material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a 14 matter of law. 15 favor of the party opposing summary judgment.” Pacific Northwest Venison 16 Producers v. Smitch,20 F.3d 1008, 1013 (9th Cir. 1994)(internal citation 17 and quotations omitted). 18 by the evidence [are drawn] in favor of the non-moving party . . . ” 19 Guidroz-Brault v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 254 F.3d 825, 828 (9th Cir. 20 2001). A material fact is one that might allow judgment in 21 22 23 Further, “all reasonable inferences supported III. A. ANALYSIS Use and Causation Defendant argues since undisputed evidence shows the 24 Solivens never turned on or “used” the fan, Plaintiff cannot prove the 25 “use” or “causation” elements of its claims. 26 7; Def’s Mot. 9:14-15:7.) 27 from each Soliven supporting its position that the laundry room fan (Def’s Not. of Mot. 2:3- Defendant presents deposition testimony 28 3 1 was never turned on. 2 point follows: 3 Q. A. Q. the A. 4 5 Perpetuan Soliven’s deposition testimony on this Have you ever used the laundry room fan? No. During the entire time that you resided at home since 1990, you never used it? No. 6 (Def’s Mot 11:6-13, Ex. E, Perpetuan Soliven Dep. 29:1-9). Crispen 7 Soliven’s deposition testimony is as follows: 8 A. [W]e don’t use that fan. Q. Is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Have you ever turned it on? A. No. 9 10 11 (Def’s Mot 11:6-13, Ex. F, Crispen Soliven Dep. 18:1-5). 12 Defendant also relies on the declaration of Eliot Duncan of 13 Broan-NuTone, LLC who declares, “based on his personal knowledge and 14 expertise” of having “worked in the general area of design, 15 engineering and development of small motorized household products for 16 40 years:” 17 18 19 The subject fan was designed to expel air from the home through ducting, thus it was a source of air for the fire. This air flow in the area of the fan contributed significantly to the damage in the area of the fan. This damage has led plaintiff to the improper conclusion that the fan started the fire. 20 [. . .] 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 The subject fan was turned ‘on’ or ‘off’ by a wall switch. When the switch for the fan was in the ‘off’ position for 16 years, as was testified to by the Solivens, the fan was not energized, i.e. the fan did not have any electricity flowing through any component of the fan, including the motor. Thus, it was impossible for any component of the fan to have allegedly failed when said components were not operational during the entire 16 years that the Solivens resided at the subject residence. (Def’s Mot. 12:19-21, Duncan Decl. ¶¶ 1, 3, 6, 12.) 28 4 1 Plaintiff counters with the following averments from its 2 expert Jeff Goode (“Goode”), an electrical engineer “with 3 specialization in forensic investigation of electrical failure.” 4 (Goode Decl. ¶1). 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 4. I have personal knowledge of the condition of the Subject House because I personally inspected the Subject House several days after the fire. 5. Examination of the electrical branch wiring of the Subject House, and applying the method of arc tracking, I determined that a fire had originated in the ceiling of the laundry room. 6. Three ignition sources were identified in the ceiling space of the laundry room. First, the electrical branch wiring, which was immediately eliminated due to the nature and location of the electrical activity. Second, was ceiling light. Third, was a ceiling ventilation fan (“The Subject Fan.”). I inspected both. 7. The subject light fixture was eliminated for the following: a. No electrical failures were found within the fixtures or surrounding wires, thus leaving overheating as a potential cause. b. Overheating was eliminated due to fact that first the fixture remains showed no abnormal heating, was designed for insulated ceilings, which includes a thermal protective device, and installed in the laundry room ceiling with no insulation. 19 20 21 22 23 24 8. Based on the shape, parts, and metal structure I was able to determine the Subject Fan was most probably the same in style and model to another ceiling fan (“Exemplar Fan”) in the Subject House. The Exemplar Fan suffered minimal damage and was well preserved. The exemplar fan is labled “Mercury” by NuTone which utilized a Jackel Industries electric motor. 27 9. In addition to being able to match the Subject Fan to the Exemplar Fan, I have been involved in several other matters between (past and present) that involve a similar type of fan and motor manufactured by Nutone, and therefore, was also able to identify this subject fan independent of the exemplar fan. 28 [ . . . ] 25 26 5 1 11. The Subject Fan was manufactured by NuTone and is suspected of utilizing a Jackel Industries electric motor. Also, the fan motor windings are suspected to be made of aluminum as copper windings most probably would have survived the fire. 2 3 4 12. Considering the ignition sources, the burn patterns of the remaining ceiling joist materials; the fan was the most probable cause of the fire. 5 6 [ . . . ] 7 20. It is my opinion that the Subject Fan most probably caused this fire due its aluminum motor winding and its known difficulties in connection to the copper lead out wire. The evidence to date supports that the failure starts with an over heating due to a high resistance at the copper/aluminum connection, starting a series of events leading to the fire. Furthermore, one of the signatures of the past fan fires is the melting of the fan cover from the inside. The evidence examined had this signature. 8 9 10 11 12 13 (Goode Decl. ¶¶ 4-9, 11-12, 20)(emphasis added). 14 Defendant objects to Goode’s declaration arguing it lacks 15 foundation, is vague and ambiguous, and fails to counter the testimony 16 that the fan was never used. (Def’s Obj. to Goode Decl. ¶¶ 9, 15.) 17 However, Goode declares he “consider[ed] the ignition sources [and] 18 the burn patterns of the remaining ceiling joist materials [and 19 determined] the fan was the most probable cause of the fire.” (Goode 20 Decl. ¶ 12.) These averments controvert Jackel’s evidence and create 21 a genuine material dispute on the issue whether the laundry room fan 22 was used. 23 Defendant also argues Goode’s declaration should be 24 stricken because he is not qualified to testify as an expert because 25 he is not “a fire investigator trained in determining the cause and 26 origin of fire,” and does not have any experience “in the design and 27 manufacture of electric motors for small appliances, such as exhaust 28 6 1 fans.” (Def’s Obj. to Goode Decl. ¶¶ 1, 18.) “Generally, an expert 2 need not be officially credentialed in the specific matter under 3 dispute.” Thompson v. Whirlpool Corporation, No. C06-1804-JCC, 2008 4 WL 2063549, at *4 (W.D. Wash. May 13, 2008) citing Thomas v. Newton 5 Int'l Enters., Inc., 42 F.3d 1266, 1269 (9th Cir. 1994). Goode has an 6 electrical engineering degree from California State University at 7 Sacramento and has engaged in “forensic investigation of electrical 8 fires [and] electrical failures” from April 1996 to November 2008. 9 (Pl’s Opp’n, Goode’s Decl., Ex. A.) Defendant has not shown Goode’s 10 “lack of particularized expertise goes to [anything other than] the 11 weight accorded [his] testimony . . . ” United States v. Garcia, 7 12 F.3d 885, 890(9th Cir 1993). 13 Defendant also objects to Goode’s method of “arc tracking,” 14 arguing it is “vague and ambiguous” and that Goode’s conclusion that 15 the “fire had originated in the ceiling of the laundry room” is 16 improper. (Def’s Obj. to Goode Decl. ¶ 2.) However, Goode discusses 17 three ignition sources: “First, the electrical branch wiring, which 18 was immediately eliminated due the nature and location of electrical 19 activity. Second the ceiling light. 20 ventilation fan.” (Goode Decl. ¶ 6). Third was the ceiling In light of Goode’s averments 21 the objections are overruled. 22 Defendant also argues Goode’s elimination of the ignition 23 point of “branch wiring” “‘due to the nature and location of the 24 electrical activity’” is “vague and ambiguous.” (Def’s Obj. to Goode 25 Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.) Defendant argues Goode’s elimination of the light 26 fixture due to “‘abnormal heating’” is also “vague and ambiguous” 27 because “abnormal heating” is not explained. Id. However, an 28 affidavit that “d[oes] not describe in detail how [the expert] arrived 7 1 at his conclusions, [but] g[ives] more than a bare conclusion that the 2 defendant[] [was at fault] and that [its fault] caused the accident 3 . . . . [is] admissible to support [P]laintiff[’s] opposition to the 4 motion for summary judgment.” 5 Bieghler, 633 F.2d at 533. Defendant also objects to Goode’s averments that the 6 fan is “suspected of utilizing a Jackel Industries electric motor” and 7 that the “fan motor windings are suspected to be made of aluminum,” 8 contending these statements are speculative and lack foundation. 9 (Def’s Obj. to Goode Decl. ¶ 8.) Goode declares he inspected the 10 subject fan and “based on shape, parts, and metal structure [he] was 11 able to determine the Subject Fan was most probably the same in style 12 and model to another ceiling fan (“Exemplar Fan”) in the Subject 13 House, [which] . . . was well preserved [and] . . . is labled 14 ‘Mercury’ by NuTone [and] which utilized a Jackel Industries electric 15 motor.” (Goode Decl. ¶ 8.) Therefore, these objections are 16 overruled. 17 Defendant also objects to other portions of Goode’s 18 averments and Plaintiff’s other evidence presented in opposition to 19 the motion, but these objections need not be decided because the 20 evidence admitted in opposition to the motion creates a genuine issue 21 of material fact on the issue whether the subject fan was used and 22 caused the fire. 23 B. Design and Manufacturing Defects 24 Defendant also argues Plaintiff has not identified a 25 manufacturing or design defect in its claims, and consequently, cannot 26 prove its negligence or strict liability claims based on these 27 theories of liability. 28 15:7.) (Def’s Notice of Mot. 2:3-7; Def’s Mot. 9:14- Plaintiff counters with the following Goode testimony: 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 22. The Subject Fan was manufactured with an electric motor, which utilized an aluminum motor winding wire. That motor winding wire was coiled around a plastic bobbin and was connected to a copper lead out wire. I believe the fan utilized an aluminum wire as opposed to a copper wire because aluminum has a substantially lower melting point than copper; therefore in a fire it is common for the aluminum motor winding wires to completely melt away, whereas a copper wire will survive a fire unless the fire is exceptionally hot. In this instance, I believe the subject fire was not hot enough to melt the copper because copper electrical wiring leading to the fan was still intact. In this instance, the aluminum motor winding wire was completely absent, which evidences that the motor of Subject Fan was manufactured with an aluminum motor winding. In my experience every fire involving a Nutone Fan was found to use aluminum motor windings. 23. The use of an aluminum motor winding in the electrical motor constituted a defective design for the following reasons: A. It was known that connections to aluminum wire are problematic due to: 14 15 16 17 1. Aluminum wire corrodes when exposed to atmosphere so that the connection area must be cleaned and treated with a oxidation inhibiting compound, “NO-OX,” immediately before connection. Otherwise the oxidation causes a high resistance (HOT) connection. 18 19 20 2. Aluminum expands and contracts due to heat at a higher rate than copper or Aluminum/copper alloys causing initially tight connections to become loose over time. 21 [ . . . ] 22 23 24 25 D. Because of aluminum’s unforgiving nature as to improper connection, (as set forth in Paragraph 23A), the use of aluminum, as opposed to copper, for the motor winding increased the likelihood of a fire caused by a manufacturing defect if there was an imperfect in the crimp connection. 26 27 E. The Subject Fan most probably utilized a crimp connection between the aluminum winding and copper lead out wire 28 9 1 24. For the foregoing reasons and based on my examination of the subject fan and several others like it in past and current cases, the Subject Fan suffered design defects as set forth herein. Use of copper motor windings were a known and inexpensive fix[] to the design defect. 2 3 4 25. Based on my through knowledge of the design defect of the model of the Subject Fan, it is my opinion that the Subject Fan likely suffered from a manufacturing defect which was compounded by the design defect. 5 6 7 26. The subject fan most probably utilized a crimp connection between the aluminum motor winding and the copper lead out wire. As previously stated, the use of aluminum to a copper connection creates the propensity for a fire unless the connection, in this case, a crimp, is properly executed to prevent a loose connection. 8 9 10 11 27. Because a crimp connection between an aluminum solid wire and a larger diameter copper stranded wire must be executed with exact precision, the likelihood is the connection was imperfect leading to a high resistance and resulting in a fire. 12 13 14 28. Based on my experience, education, training, and familiarity with the subject fan model and NuTone fans substantially similar, it is my opinion that when the fan was manufactuered the crimp connection between the aluminum motor winding wire and copper lead wire was not properly executed to manufacturing specifications and manifested itself years later. 15 16 17 18 (Goode Decl. ¶¶ 22, 23A, 23D, 23E, 24-28) (emphasis added). 19 Defendant objects to Goode’s averments arguing Goode’s 20 opinions on design and manufacturing defects are speculative, lack 21 foundation, and are vague and ambiguous. (Def’s Reply 3:7-4:22, 9:522 27, Def’s Obj. to Goode Decl. ¶¶ 17, 18, 22-26.) Defendant argues 23 since the integral fan components do not exist, Goode was never able 24 to examine the components and therefore his opinion that the fan had 25 “aluminum motor winding” and a faulty “crimp connection” has no 26 factual basis and is inadmissible. (Def’s Reply 3:7-12, 4:3-22, 9:23- 27 27.) 28 10 1 However, Goode declares he examined the “copper electrical 2 wiring leading to the fan,” and since the “copper electrical wiring 3 leading to the fan was still intact,” and the “aluminum motor winding 4 wire was completely absent,” this “evidences that the motor of [the 5 fan] was manufactured with an aluminum motor winding” “because 6 aluminum has a substantially lower melting point than copper.” 7 Decl. ¶ 22.) (Goode Since sufficient foundation exists for Goode’s opinion, 8 the objections are overruled. 9 Defendant argues Plaintiff’s evidence on the design and 10 manufacturing defects is insufficient, citing the Ninth Circuit 11 decision in Triton Energy Corporation v. Square D Company, 68 F.3d 12 1216 (9th Cir. 1995), as support for its argument that Goode’s expert 13 testimony lacks sufficient substance to defeat Defendant’s summary 14 judgment motion. In Triton, an entire circuit breaker alleged to have 15 caused a fire was discarded and the Plaintiff’s expert, who gave an 16 opinion that the circuit breaker caused the fire, had never examined 17 the circuit breaker. The Ninth Circuit stated: 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A jury should not be asked to evaluate the credibility of experts concerning the defectiveness of a [product] and its container when it left the hands of [Defendant], which the experts have neither seen nor can see, and which was manufactured more than two decades ago. These circumstances would impose upon the jury the unenviable task of listening to two experts’ opinion unsupported by any physical evidence to bolster either opinion. [Plaintiff, who bears the burden,] has failed to establish the existence of an element essential to its case on which it will bear the burden of proof at trial. 25 68 F.3d at 1222. 26 27 28 Triton, however, is distinguishable, because “neither [party in Triton could] point to any physical evidence that support[ed] their claim[,]” and the plaintiff’s expert “never examined 11 1 the allegedly defect circuit breaker.” Id. at 1221-22. Here, 2 Plaintiff has shown that Goode examined evidence remaining after the 3 fire and examined an exemplar fan in the same residence that had 4 suffered minimal fire damage and was well preserved. Plaintiff has 5 provided sufficient evidence supporting its design and manufacturing 6 defect claims to controvert Defendant’s motion. 7 8 IV. CONCLUSION Therefore, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is 9 DENIED. 10 Dated: 11 12 13 December 27, 2009 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
