Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING DEFECTS—HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS—M.D. Pa.: Insurance company has no negligence claim against battery manufacturer, but prevails on strict liability, (Aug 31, 2026)

By Molly Platnick

Insurer’s facts supported malfunction theory, but insufficient for negligence.

The federal district court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part a battery manufacturer’s motion to dismiss in a case brought by an insurance company. The insurance company’s amended complaint alleged the manufacturer was liable for negligence, strict liability, and breach of implied warranty because one of its batteries caught fire, damaging an insured couple’s property. The court agreed with the manufacturer that the insurance company proffered only conclusory allegations, not specific enough facts to state a negligent design, negligent manufacturing, or failure to warn claim. The insurance company’s strict liability claim survived on a “malfunction” theory because the battery spontaneously combusted without “abnormal” use or a reasonable secondary cause (American Strategic Insurance Corp. v. TTI Outdoor Power Equipment, Inc., No. 3:25-CV-01888 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 26, 2026)).

Factual background & procedural history. The couple lived in their Pennsylvania home since 2012. Plaintiff insurance company insured their real and personal property. In 2017, the husband purchased a “self-propelled” lawnmower which ran on a lithium battery. He stopped using the lawnmower in Fall 2023. The battery caught fire in March 2024, damaging the home and other property. The company filed a claim with the insurance company and received a payment of almost $387,000.

The insurance company brought this action against the battery manufacturer in Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas in April 2025. It filed an amended complaint in September 2025, raising three causes of action: Negligence, strict liability based on product defect, and breach of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The manufacturer removed the case to federal court in October 2025.

Insurance company failed to state negligence claim. Pennsylvania follows the common law elements of a negligence claim: (1) the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty; (2) the defendant breached that duty; (3) the breach caused the plaintiff’s injury; and (4) actual damages. The battery manufacturer argued the insurance company did not identify a duty recognized by law. For manufacturers, Pennsylvania recognizes legal duties based on negligent design, negligent manufacturing, or failure to warn theories. The manufacturer contended the insurance company did not point to a specific enough defect in the battery or failure during its manufacturing process to plead negligent design, negligent manufacturing, or failure to warn.

Negligent design. For a “viable” negligent design claim, a plaintiff must show the defendant did not exercise reasonable care in choosing its product design. The allegations must be more than “conclusory statements,” and allegations are per se conclusory if they do not address the availability of feasible safer alternatives. In this case, the insurance company did not meet its burden to offer specific enough issues with the lithium battery to constitute more than conclusory evidence. The company accused the manufacturer of choosing unsafe “materials and/or fittings.” However, it did not name which materials/fittings were unsafe or refer to safer available alternative materials/fittings.

Negligent manufacturing. The insurance company claimed the fire was evidence that the manufacturer was negligent in manufacturing the battery. A plaintiff pleading negligent manufacturing must demonstrate the defendant did not exercise reasonable care in its manufacturing process. Again, conclusory accusations are not enough, and “courts dismiss negligent manufacturing claims where a complaint does not contain any specific allegations concerning the defendant’s actual manufacturing process.” Here, the insurance company’s complaint included nothing “as to what went wrong during the manufacturing process.”

Failure to warn. Pennsylvania courts “dismiss failure to warn claims where the complaint fails to specify what information was missing from the defendant’s warnings.” The insurance company’s complaint stated the manufacturer “was negligent by failing to warn and continuing to fail to warn the Insured of the hazards, dangers, and risks, arising from the use of the battery.” The court rejected this as insufficient because it did not suggest what warnings the manufacturer should have provided.

Insurance company stated a strict liability claim based on the malfunction theory. The insurance company asserted the battery manufacturer was strictly liable under a malfunction theory. The manufacturer countered the company did not introduce specific enough facts to bring a strict liability claim under any theory.

Pennsylvania has adopted the Second Restatement of Torts, and a plaintiff pleading strict products liability must prove (1) the product was defect; (2) that defect caused the injury; and (3) the defect existed at the time the product left the manufacturer’s control. If a plaintiff is “not able to prove the precise nature of the defect,” he may proceed on a “malfunction” theory. That theory requires (1) a malfunction, (2) no “abnormal use,” and (3) no reasonable, secondary causes of the injury. Here, (1) the battery spontaneously combusted when the lawnmower was not in use, (2) the husband was not using the lawnmower “abnormally” and had not used it for months preceding the fire, and (3) an investigation found no reasonable secondary cause. The court was satisfied these facts were enough for the insurance company to state a strict liability claim under a malfunction theory.

Leave to amend granted. The insurance company sought leave to amend any part of its complaint the court dismissed. Third Circuit case law requires district courts to allow leave to amend on a motion to dismiss “unless an amendment would be inequitable or futile.” Lower courts are given “substantial leeway” in making this determination. The court in this case decided it would not be futile to grant the insurance company leave to amend its negligence claim. The court granted the company leave to amend to add more specific allegations about the battery’s design, the manufacturing process, and warnings the manufacturer could have included. The company was given 21 days to file a second amended complaint.

The case is No. 3:25-cv-01888.

Judge: Mehalchick, K.

Attorneys: Ghassan Sara, Jr. (White and Williams LLP) for American Strategic Insurance Corp. William J. Ricci (Ricci Tyrrell Johnson & Grey PLLC) for TTI Outdoor Power Equipment, Inc.

Companies: American Strategic Insurance Corp.; TTI Outdoor Power Equipment, Inc.

MainStory: TopStory DesignManufacturingNews HouseholdProductsNews WarningsNews PennsylvaniaNews