Corporate Counsel Daily, Samsung once again back on the $10M hook for e-cigarette explosion injury, (Jun 25, 2025)

By Chelsea N. Simms, Esq.

Despite trial court’s erroneous findings, Chatham County—where the explosion occurred—was the proper venue for the suit.

The Georgia Court of Appeals has reversed a trial court’s order setting aside a $10 million default judgment against Samsung Electronics America, Inc., imposed after an e-cigarette battery designed and manufactured by Samsung exploded in a consumer’s pocket. In setting aside the judgment, the trial court erroneously determined that venue was improper, mistaking the consumer’s county of residence for the county in which the injury occurred. Additionally, the court of appeals rejected Samsung’s companion appeal, affirming the denial of Samsung’s motion to open default because it was filed after the final judgment (Brewer v. Samsung Electronics America Inc., No. A25A0272 (Ga. App. Jun. 23, 2025).

Background. In 2020, a consumer sued Samsung Electronics, along with two other defendants, in Chatham County Superior Court following an injury after the battery in his e-cigarette—designed and manufactured by Samsung—exploded in his pocket. While the consumer was a resident of Effingham County when he filed the complaint, the device was purchased in Chatham County and the injury occurred in the same.

When Samsung failed to file an answer or any responsive pleading to the complaint, the consumer filed, and was granted, a motion for default judgment against Samsung and moved to drop the remaining defendants. The trial court issued the order declaring Samsung in default on liability and, after a damages hearing, issued a damages judgment in favor of the consumer for $10,860,972. Samsung then filed a motion to set aside the default judgment, which was granted. In its motion, Samsung argued that there were “meritorious grounds” to set aside the default judgment, including that it was the wrong party; the court lacked personal jurisdiction over Samsung because the sole resident defendant had been dismissed from the case; the judgment resulted from fraud and/or mistake; Samsung had not received notice of the damages hearing; and the damages awarded on the default judgment were grossly excessive and violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Granting the motion, the judge found that the significant award of damages should be reconsidered due to the limited evidence in the record, the discrepancy between the special damages and the overall award, and the judgment’s failure to break down the types of damages awarded. After successfully moving to set aside the default, Samsung filed, but was denied, a motion to open the default. Both parties appealed.

Brewer I. On appeal, the Georgia Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s order granting Samsung’s motion to set aside (Case no. A25A0272), concluding that the trial court improperly shifted the burden of proof from Samsung to the consumer by construing the incomplete record and the lack of a transcript of the damages hearing against the consumer rather than Samsung (Brewer I).

Additionally, the appeals court dismissed as premature Samsung’s companion appeal (Case no. A23A0453) challenging the trial court’s order denying its motion to open default. Because the default cannot be opened without first setting aside the judgment, and the appeals court vacated and remanded the case for reconsideration of the judgment, the appeals court found that consideration of the trial court denial of Samsung’s motion to open default was premature.

Remand. After applying the proper burden of proof on remand, the trial court rejected Samsung’s challenge to the amount of the damages award. However, the court agreed with Samsung’s venue challenges, finding that, while Samsung, a nonresident defendant, had admitted all the allegations of the complaint, those admissions were not dispositive because residency venue vanished once the Chatham County defendant was dismissed. Further, it found that the consumer’s allegations did not support a finding that the action otherwise originated in Chatham County; believing that the consumer was injured in Effingham County, the court found that the action originated in Effingham County. Based on these findings, the court again set aside the judgment, this time for improper venue, and indicated that the case would be transferred to a proper venue for further proceedings. The consumer appealed, and the Court of Appeals granted the application for interlocutory appeal for Case no. A25A0272.

Brewer II. In companion appeals, the consumer challenged on numerous grounds the trial court’s order setting aside the judgment due to improper venue, and Samsung challenged the trial court’s denial of its postjudgment motion to open default.

Case No. A25A0272, Venue. Reversing the trial court’s order setting aside the final judgment, the appeals court found that the trial court erred in concluding that Chatham County was not the proper venue for the case. Noting that personal injury product liability causes of action begin at the time of injury, the court concluded that venue was proper in the county that the explosion and injury occurred—in this case Chatham County. In the complaint, the consumer provided the address of his residence where the explosion and injury occurred; taking judicial notice of the fact that the address was located within Chatham County, the court of appeals determined that Chatham County was the proper venue. In reaching this conclusion, the appeals court noted that at the time the consumer filed the complaint, he was a resident of Effingham—not Chatham—County, and the trial court erroneously found that the e-cigarette exploded at the consumer’s home in Effingham County.

Arguing that the court could affirm the trial court’s order setting aside final judgment under the “right for any reason rule,” Samsung unsuccessfully argued that the trial court abused its discretion by declining to set aside the judgment because (a) Samsung was an improper party; (b) Samsung did not receive notice of the damages hearing; and (c) the amount of damages was excessive.

Because Samsung failed to provide the trial court and the appeals court with a meritorious reason why it did not present the improper party defense at the time it was required to do so, the appeals court declined to disturb the trial court’s rejection of this argument. Further, the court found that, because Samsung initially failed to file any responsive pleadings when required to do so, it was not entitled to receive notice of the final damages hearing. And, as for the argument that the damages were excessive, the appeals court agreed with the trial court that, because the record did not contain a transcript of the damages hearing, it was impossible to ascertain what testimonial evidence regarding damages was presented at the hearing.

Case No. A25A0292, Motion to Open Default. The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s order denying Samsung’s motion to open default. The default statute states that the court may allow the default to be opened “at any time before final judgment.” Because Samsung filed the motion to open default after the trial court’s initial order setting aside default, and because the order setting aside default had been reversed, the motion to open default was untimely.

The case is No. A25A0272.

Judge Davis, J.

Attorneys: William J. Hunter (Oliver Maner LLP) for Jordan Brewer. Jessica Cabral Odom (Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP) for Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

Companies: Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

MainStory: TopStory JurisdictionNews ElectronicProductsNews GeorgiaNews GCNNews