Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, SUPPLY CHAIN LIABILITY ISSUES—INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT—D.N.J.: Motion to dismiss product liability claims succeeds for one company but fails for second, (Jul 30, 2026)

By Susan L. Smith, JD, MA

The action will proceed against the installer of a solar power system with an allegedly faulty rapid shutdown device.

In an insurance-subrogation action stemming from a warehouse fire, a federal district court in New Jersey dismissed products liability and negligence claims brought against one Defendant, but denied the insurer’s request to dismiss a second Defendant. The insurance company, Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (Travelers), brought the action to recover amounts it paid to its insured, Food Sciences Corporation (FSC), for property damage caused by a fire. Travelers contended that a rapid shutdown device (RSD) installed on FSC’s roof was defective and started the fire. Travelers brought overlapping products liability and negligence claims against the RSD’s manufacturer, Tigo Energy, Inc. (Tigo), and its distributer, Consolidated Electrical Distributors, Inc. Travelers also brought products liability claims under the New Jersey Products Liability Act (NJPLA) and negligence claims under New Jersey common law against (1) Shore Holdings 2020, LLC, alleging that Shore Holdings owned, controlled, and/or operated the solar power system at the time of the fire; and (2) Solar Landscape, LLC, alleging that Solar Landscape engineered, designed, advertised, sold, installed, tested, and/or maintained the system. The court dismissed Travelers’ claims against Shore Holdings after determining that the Complaint failed to provide sufficient facts explaining Shore Holdings’ role in the alleged defective RSD or the resulting fire. Solar Landscape challenged the NJPLA claim asserted against it, contending that it could not be strictly liable for damages caused by a defective product it did not manufacture. The court, however, concluded that the pleadings established that Solar Landscape was a product seller subject to strict liability under the NJPLA. Therefore, the court denied Solar Landscape’s motion to dismiss (Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Tigo Energy, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-16136-KMW-AMD (D.N.J. July 27, 2026)).

Background. According to the Complaint, the fire originated in the solar power system that was installed on the roof of the warehouse leased by FSC, specifically, near one of the system’s RSD. FSC submitted an insurance claim for the property loss caused by the fire. Travelers alleged it paid at least $4.9 million. On September 30, 2025, Travelers commenced this action to recover the payments.

Shore Holdings’ motion to dismiss. Shore Holdings moved to dismiss the two claims brought against it, asserting that the Complaint failed to satisfy the minimal pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires that a complaint provide fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. Specifically, Shore Holdings contended that the Complaint substituted labels for facts, asserted the same allegations against it as against other Defendants, and supplied no facts explaining its role in either the allegedly defective RSD or the resulting fire. According to Shore Holdings, the allegations did not give fair notice of the grounds for Travelers’ claims or support a plausible inference of liability.

The court agreed with Shore Holdings’ arguments, finding that the Complaint contained only one nonconclusory allegation specific to Shore Holdings stating that it owned, controlled, and/or operated the rooftop solar power system. All other allegations against Shore Holdings merely recited the elements of product liability and negligence. The court stated that Shore Holdings’ mere ownership or control over the system did not support a plausible inference of any wrongdoing or liability. Thus, the court granted Shore Holdings’ motion to dismiss without prejudice, with leave to amend the Complaint.

Solar Landscape’s motion to dismiss. The court construed Solar Landscape’s motion as one for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Solar Landscape challenged the NJPLA claim asserted against it, contending that it could not be strictly liable for damages caused by a defective product it did not manufacture. Solar Landscape characterized its role as an innocent rooftop developer and installer of solar power products, not a manufacturer. Solar Landscape stated that the allegedly defective RSD was manufactured by Tigo and that it did not have significant control over the design, manufacturing, packaging, or labeling of Tigo’s products. It also contended that because the NJPLA does not impose strict liability on mere installers of a defective product, it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The court stated that Solar Landscape’s argument was contradicted by the statute’s plain text. The NJPLA imposes strict liability not only on the manufacturer of a defective product, but also on its seller. A product seller is defined to include any person who, in the course of business conducted for that purpose, installs a product or otherwise is involved in placing a product in the line of commerce. The court stated that an entity does not fall outside of the NJPLA simply because someone else manufactured the product. The pleadings placed Solar Landscape within that definition. The Complaint alleged that Solar Landscape was responsible for assembling, installing, and/or testing the solar power system, including the allegedly defective RSD. Thus, the court concluded that the pleadings established that Solar Landscape was a product seller subject to strict liability under the NJPLA. Therefore, the court denied Solar Landscape’s motion to dismiss, finding that the Complaint allegations placed Solar Landscape squarely within the ambit of the NJPLA.

The case is No. 1:25-cv-16136-KMW-AMD.

Judge: Williams, K.

Attorneys: Melissa Sullivan (Gwertzman Lefkowitz & Sullivan, PLLC) for Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America a/s/o Food Sciences Corp. Brian William Franklin (Gartner + Bloom PC) for Tigo Energy, Inc. Bradley D. Remick (Marshall Dennehey P.C.) for Solar Landscape, LLC. John H. King (Thompson Becker, L.L.C.) for CPV Shore Holdings, LLC. Laurie Tascione (Hannum Feretic Prendergast & Merlino, LLC) for Consolidated Electrical Distributors, Inc. Dennis Monaco (Molod Spitz & Desantis, PC) for Also Energy, Inc.

Companies: Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America a/s/o Food Sciences Corp.; Tigo Energy, Inc.; Solar Landscape, LLC; CPV Shore Holdings, LLC; Consolidated Electrical Distributors, Inc.; Also Energy, Inc.

Cases: CourtDecisions SCLIssuesNews IndustrialCommercialEquipNews NewJerseyNews