Rigby, Petri Win Multimillion-Dollar Product Liability Suit

Phoenix Partner Todd A. Rigby and Associate Shawn M. Petri won a motion for summary judgment on behalf of a top international computer manufacturer facing allegations that one of its computer caused a major fire.

A large commercial facility burned to the ground in May 2008, and the facility’s insurance carrier retained experts to investigate the cause and origin before the firefighters even left the scene. The fire damage was so extensive that most key items were burned beyond recognition.

The carrier and facility owner filed suit in 2010, opting to focus solely on the computer manufacturer’s notebook computer that had been left running in one of the office cubicles after several pre-fire employees stated that the notebook computer “ran hot” while resting on their laps. Despite the existence of numerous potential ignition sources in the area of origin, the plaintiffs’ electrical engineering experts superficially ruled them out and concluded that the notebook more likely than not caused the fire.

During the defense investigation and discovery, however, the plaintiffs’ causation claims ultimately unraveled. It was revealed that the plaintiffs’ employee had installed an aftermarket, non-approved lithium ion battery in the computer several months before the fire. We also established that the plaintiffs’ experts failed to properly rule out other potential ignition sources.

We filed a motion for summary judgment outlining the deficiencies in the plaintiffs’ causation claims. We primarily focused on the plaintiffs’ failure to distinguish between alleged computer unit failures and alleged failures of the aftermarket battery for purposes of proving a design or manufacturing defect claim.

The plaintiffs aggressively opposed the motion, relying heavily on Arizona case law that allows circumstantial evidence to be considered in establishing product liability claims, but the court rejected their arguments and instead granted our motion in its entirety.

In addition to a complete dismissal with prejudice, the client will also be entitled to recover its substantial taxable costs incurred over the four-year litigation period.