Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, SUPPLY CHAIN LIABILITY ISSUES—MOTOR VEHICLES—E.D. Mo.: Polaris’ sales subsidiary wins summary judgment in worker’s ATV injury action, (Oct 28, 2026)

By Pankhuri Bhatnagar, B.A. LL.B.

A downstream seller was entitled to dismissal under the innocent seller statute as the statute applied to federal diversity actions and the company showed good cause for its delay in invoking the doctrine.

In an action brought against an all-terrain vehicle’s (ATV) manufacturer and its seller for injuries sustained by a man while operating the ATV, a federal district court in Missouri granted summary judgment to the seller under Missouri’s innocent seller statute, finding that its potential liability rested solely on its status as a seller, that the manufacturer was properly before the court and could satisfy any reasonable judgment, and that the required affidavit disclaimed any other basis for liability. The court also held that the statute’s dismissal provisions apply in federal diversity actions and that Polaris Sales had shown good cause to invoke the statute after the negligence claims were withdrawn (Chapple v. Polaris Industries Inc., No. 1:25-cv-00095-SNLJ (E.D. Mo. Oct. 22, 2026)).

Background. In June 2020, a worker was injured while operating a 2015 Polaris Sportsman Touring 570 ATV in the course of his employment with Asplundh Tree Expert, LLC. The injured worker initially asserted negligence and strict products liability claims against Rolla Cycles d/b/a Stahlman Powersports; Polaris Industries Inc., which manufactured and designed the vehicle; and Polaris Sales Inc., which sold the vehicle. After discovery closed, he abandoned the negligence claims and proceeded under Missouri’s strict products liability statute. Polaris Sales sought dismissal or summary judgment under Missouri’s innocent seller statute, § 537.762 RSMo. The worker argued that the statute was untimely invoked, did not apply in federal court because it was procedural, and did not protect Polaris Sales against his failure-to-warn claim. The court resolved the dispute on the summary judgment motion and terminated the overlapping motion to dismiss as moot.

Timeliness. Missouri’s innocent seller statute generally requires a motion within the period for filing an answer or other responsive pleading, unless the court permits a later motion for good cause. Here, the original negligence claims prevented Polaris Sales from invoking the statute earlier because its potential liability was not then based solely on its status as a seller. In Davis v. Dunham’s Athleisure Corp., 2017 WL 1329475, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 11, 2017), the court had likewise declined to apply the statute where negligence claims remained pending. Because the worker withdrew the negligence claims only after discovery, Polaris Sales’ later invocation of the statute was arguably timely. In any event, the court found good cause for raising innocent seller status in its summary judgment motion and subsequently in its response to the second amended complaint.

Federal applicability. The worker argued that § 537.762 was procedural and therefore inapplicable in federal court. Applying the Erie framework, the court distinguished the earlier decision in Drake v. North American Phillips Corp., 204 F. Supp. 2d 1204 (E.D. Mo. 2002), which predated the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision in Gramex Corp. v. Green Supply, Inc., 89 S.W.3d 432, 445-46 (Mo. banc 2002). In Gramex, the Missouri Supreme Court held that the statute’s dismissal provisions are substantive. They permit a downstream seller whose liability rests solely on its position in the stream of commerce to be dismissed when another defendant, including the manufacturer, is before the court and can satisfy the plaintiff’s entire claim. Later federal decisions, including Miravalle v. One World Technologies, Inc., 2018 WL 3643722, n.1 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 1, 2018), and Andrews v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 2020 WL 9397559, at *3 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 18, 2020), had applied the statute on that basis. The court therefore rejected the argument that the statute was unavailable in this diversity action.

Innocent seller. Under § 537.762, a seller seeking dismissal must establish that its liability is based solely on its status in the stream of commerce, that another defendant is properly before the court and can satisfy the entire claim, and that it has submitted a sworn affidavit stating it knows of no facts or circumstances supporting a verdict against it beyond its status as a seller. The worker contended that his failure-to-warn claim prevented dismissal. The court rejected that argument, distinguishing strict liability for failure to warn from negligent failure to warn. The former focuses on the product and its characteristics, rather than the seller’s conduct. Because the worker’s failure-to-warn claim was asserted under strict products liability, it remained product-focused and did not independently establish conduct-based liability against Polaris Sales.

The undisputed record also established that Polaris Industries designed and manufactured the ATV and was self-insured in an amount sufficient to cover any reasonable judgment. The two Polaris entities shared an excess insurance policy, so retaining Polaris Sales would not increase the available excess coverage. Whether Polaris Sales sold the ATV directly to Asplundh or to Stahlman Powersports was immaterial to the statutory analysis. Finally, the seller submitted a sworn affidavit from a senior staff engineer stating that, apart from selling the ATV and being named as a defendant, Polaris Sales knew of no facts or circumstances upon which a verdict could be reached against it. Taken together, these facts satisfied all statutory requirements. The court accordingly granted the seller summary judgment on the strict products liability claim and terminated its motion to dismiss as moot.

The case is No. 1:25-cv-00095-SNLJ.

Judge: Limbaugh, S.

Attorneys: Jeffrey M. Hensley (Beckett and Hensley LC) for Michael Chapple. Casey L. Miller (Bradley Arant LLP) for Polaris Industries, Inc. Johnathon Carl Brereton-Hubbard (Childress Ahlheim Cary LLC) for Rolla Cycles, Inc. d/b/a Stahlman Powersports.

Companies: Polaris Industries, Inc.; Rolla Cycles, Inc. d/b/a Stahlman Powersports

MainStory: TopStory CourtDecisions SCLIssuesNews MotorVehiclesNews WarningsNews MissouriNews