In American Family Mutual Insurance v. Wood Stoves Etc., Inc., No. 83528-9-I (Wash. App., October 17, 2022), a Washington appellate court reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff subro-carrier based upon Washington’s Product Liability Act (WPLA). The case involved a defective wood pellet stove that caught fire twice and caused the insurer to shell out $115,355.88 under a homeowner’s insurance policy. American Family then filed a lawsuit against Wood Stoves under WPLA to recover damages. In October, 2021, the insurer moved for summary judgment, which was granted.
On appeal, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings because American Family failed to present evidence to establish a basis for suing a product seller, in lieu of the manufacturer, under the WPLA. The WPLA is Washington’s exclusive remedy for product liability claims and it preempts common law liability. Under the WPLA, a retailer may be held liable only if one of the express conditions are met, such as where “[n]o solvent manufacturer who would be liable to the claimant is subject to service of process under the claimant’s domicile or the state of Washington,” or if “[t]he court determines that it is highly probable that the claimant would be unable to enforce a judgment against any manufacturer.” RCW 7.72.040(2)(a), (b).
The court determined that the requirements of the WPLA are statutory elements that the claimant must prove, rather than an affirmative defense based upon the plain language of the statute and the legislature’s expressions of intent. Because American Family failed to demonstrate that either the Italian manufacturer Ravelli was not subject to service of process under the laws of Washington, or that it was highly probable it could not enforce a judgment against Ravelli, the Court reversed the trial court.