Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. MARPAC CORPORATION * * * * * * ***** MEMORANDUM Plaintiff, Hartford Casualty Insurance Co. ("Hartford") has brought a products liability suit against the Marpac Corp. ("Marpac") for the alleged malfunctioning of a sound conditioning device manufactured by Marpac. Now pending before me are cross-motions for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. For the reasons that follow, Marpac's motion will be granted and Hartford's motion will be denied. I. On or about March 28, 1998, a fire occurred at 8555 16th Street, Silver Spring, Maryland, Suite No. 403. Suite 403 was occupied by three doctors. At the time of the fire, the doctors' office was closed. As a result of the fire, the owner of the building, Summit Holdings, LLC, and a tenant of the building, Akman Associates, claimed insurance proceeds with Hartford. Hartford seeks reimbursement for those insurance proceeds. The Montgomery County fire department determined that the fire self-extinguished. The investigators from the fire department determined that the point of origin of the fire was in the waiting room of Suite 403 on the interior wall to the right of the entrance door. The investigators found a plug inserted into an electrical outlet on the wall. Attached to the plug were the burnt

CIVIL NO. JFM-01-918

-1-

remains of an electrical appliance. After speaking to the tenants of the suite, the investigators determined that the only appliance plugged into the wall at the point of origin was a sound conditioning device, Model 900 White Noise Machine, manufactured by Marpac. The tenants of suite 403 confirmed this during their depositions. The Model 900 White Noise Machine that allegedly caused the fire was purchased by one of the tenants in 1989 or 1990 in new condition. On April 2, 1998, Hartford hired Ward Caddington to investigate the cause of the fire. By studying the suite, Caddington determined that the fire was caused by the sound conditioning device. Caddington expressed no opinion and made no determination as to how the sound conditioning device caused the fire. Caddington recovered the remains of the sound conditioning device, the duplex electrical outlet into which the device was plugged, various pieces of copper electrical conductors, and another sound conditioning device that was located on the opposite side of the waiting room. Caddington turned over the sound conditioning devices, the electrical outlet and the wires to Plaintiff's expert, Dr. George McDuffie. Dr. McDuffie examined both sound conditioning devices. Based on these examinations, McDuffie made five conclusions: 1. It is [his] opinion that the damaged noise maker was connected to a source of 120 volt electrical energy at the time of the fire; i.e., plugged in to a source of electricity. This opinion is based on the evidence of electrical arcing found on the line cord. 2. It is [his] opinion that the motor of the damaged noise maker was electrically energized at the time of the fire; i.e., it was turned ON. This opinion is based on the evidence of electrical burning found on the motor field winding. 3. It is further [his] opinion that the damaged noise maker malfunctioned and caused the fire. This opinion is based, in part, on Mr. Caddington's determination of the origin of the fire, the location -2-

of the noise maker in this area of origin, and his elimination of other sources of ignition in the area of origin. It is further based on [his] determination that the noise maker was energized and turned ON at the time of the fire, evidence of electrical arcing on the line cord and motor field winding, and on [his] conclusion that the plastic used in its case was not fire retardant. 4. The exact nature of the malfunction is unknown. Two possibilities have been considered. The line cord may have malfunctioned and ignited something in the case of the device. The location of the arc damage on the line cord indicates that arc damage occurred inside the case. The second malfunction considered in that the rotor of the motor `locked up' for some unknown reason, the field winding of the motor heated up to a temperature at which the insulation on the winding ignited resulting in ignition of the case and other combustible components inside the case. The second possible malfunction is more probable than the first. 5. It is [his] opinion that the heat damaged duplex receptacle did not malfunction and cause the fire. No evidence of electrical damage was found on the receptacle. (McDuffie Report, Pl. Ex. 6 at 4.)1 II. In order to prevail on a strict products liability claim in Maryland, a plaintiff must establish that: (1) the plaintiff was the user or consumer of an alleged defective product; (2) the defendant was the seller of the product and at the time of sale was engaged in the business of selling such a product; (3) at the time of sale the product was defective; (4) the product reached the plaintiff without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold; (5) the defect made the product unreasonably dangerous to the plaintiff; and
1

Defendant's expert, Dr. Richard Martin, completed a report in which he concludes that the fire did not originate inside the sound conditioning device. However, for purposes of this opinion, I must, of course, view the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and assume that Martin's conclusions are incorrect and that McDuffie's conclusions are accurate. -3-

(6) the defect proximately caused plaintiff's injuries. Shreve v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 166 F.Supp.2d 378, 406-07 (D. Md. 2001) (citing Phipps v. Gen. Motors Corp., 363 A.2d 955, 959 (Md. 1976)); see also Restatement (Second) of Torts

Download Hartford Casualty v. Marpac Corporation.pdf

Maryland Law