State Farm Fire & Cas. Co v. Waterbury Kitchen & Bath, Inc.

1

STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY CO., Plaintiff v. WATERBURY KITCHEN AND BATH, INC. et al. Defendants

Civil Action No. 22-447

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

August 25, 2023

MEMORANDUM

GENE E. K. PRATTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Lora and Peter Seeley returned home from a vacation to find that their refrigerator had sprung a leak, causing water damage to their house. The Seeleys' insurer, State Farm, sued Waterbury Kitchen and Bath, LLC, Breakwater Plumbing, LLC and SJM Appliance, claiming that each defendant had been negligent, breached their contracts with the Seeleys, and breached their warranties, which caused the property damage. But State Farm's argument as to whether it has established causation on each of these claims does not hold water, so the Court will grant the defendants' motion for summary judgment in full.

Background

In early 2018, Lora and Peter Seeley hired Waterbury Kitchen and Bath LLC to design and renovate the kitchen in their recently purchased home. They bought a new refrigerator to be installed for the renovation. Either a Waterbury worker or the plumber hired by Waterbury, Breakwater Plumbing, LLC installed the refrigerator and made the connection to an existing water line that was already in place instead of the new water line that came with the refrigerator. The renovation was completed in April 2018.

The refrigerator and water dispenser operated without issue for over a year. In August 2019, a technician for SJM Appliance which uses the trade name “Mr. Appliance of the Delaware Valley,” installed a new water filter for the refrigerator. A few days later, the Seeleys called Mr Appliance again after noticing a leak around the refrigerator. The Mr. Appliance technician returned and found that a compression nut that held the hose from the water supply to the refrigerator needed to be replaced, and performed the work that day. Mrs. Seeley testified that after that repair, the refrigerator operated without any issue until the discovery of the leak that is the source of this litigation, 25 months after the repairs made by Mr. Appliance.

State Farm claims that on September 29, 2021, the Seeley's water supply line catastrophically failed, causing a sudden and substantial water release, and this incident occurred as a direct and proximate result of each of the defendants' improper acts and omissions, in particular a negligent failure to identify a worn-out water-supply line that caused or contributed to the catastrophic leak.

After the September 2021 leak, State Farm sent a property adjuster to review the damages to the Seeleys' house. State Farm then requested that the Seeleys send the subject hose and attachment to State Farm, which in turn sent the subject parts to Donan CTL in Tennessee for examination. A Donan engineer authored a report on the possible cause of the hose failure, but State Farm indicated it has no intention of offering that report into evidence at trial or offering the author of the report as an expert witness. The report does not definitively identify the cause of the leak or draw conclusions as to the responsibility of any of the defendants, See Donan Report, Ex, D to Mot. for Sumin. J. at 5, 10 (“All potentially responsible parties should be placed on notice and provided with the opportunity to witness any further test efforts. .. . Due to the tubing's discoloration, condition of the received tubing, and brittle fractures at the leak location, abuse associated with subjecting the tubing to an excessive heat source cannot be eliminated as a potential cause of failure,”), State Farm commenced a lawsuit against Waterbury on February 3, 2022. Waterbury then filed a third-party complaint against Breakwater. The case was referred to arbitration, and an arbitration hearing was set for November 30, 2022. On November 29, 2022, State Farm filed an Amended Complaint adding Breakwater and Mr. Appliance as defendants. The amendment of the complaint necessitated the continuance of the arbitration hearing. State Farm asserts claims for negligence, breach of contract, and breach of implied warranties related to the failure of the refrigerator water supply line against each defendant. State Farm's allegations against the defendants include improper “actions of their own, and/or proper worker selection, oversight, direction, training, and work inspection,” Am. Compl. ¶¶ 20,22; negligently failing to competently perform the water supply line installation, or use the new line provided, Am. Compl. ¶ 24(a); failing to warn the Seeleys as to their negligent performance as to the water supply line, Am. Compl. ¶ 24(b); and failure to retain competent, qualified, or able agents, employees subcontractors, or servants to perform the tasks described. Am. Compl. ¶ 24(e). On January 9, 2023, Mr. Appliance filed an answer with affirmative defenses denying liability for the leak. An arbitration hearing was held on March 3, 2023, and a complete defense verdict was entered on State Farm's claims. On March 6, 2023, State Farm appealed the arbitration award for a trial de novo. Mr, Appliance filed its motion for summary judgment, and State Farm filed its response in opposition.^[1] Waterbury and Breakwater joined in Mr. Appliance's motion. Thereafter, the Court heard oral argument. Thus, the defendants' motion for summary judgment is now ripe for resolution

Legal Standards

I. Summary Judgment

For a court to grant summary judgment, the movant must prove “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). To be “material,” the fact must have the potential to “affect the outcome of the suit.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). For a dispute about that fact to be “genuine,” there must be enough evidence such that a reasonable jury could find for the non-movant on that fact. Id. “When considering whether there exist genuine issues of material fact, the court is required to examine the evidence of record in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment, and resolve all reasonable inferences in that party's favor.” Wishkin v. Potter, 476 F.3d 180, 184 (3d Cir. 2007). The court does not itself “weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. Instead, the court looks for “sufficient evidence” on which a reasonable jury could decide for the non-movant. Id.

“The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the [non-moving party's] position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the [non-moving party].” Id., at 252. Further, the non-moving party must present more than “bare assertions, conclusory allegations or suspicions.” Fireman's Ins. Co. of Newark, N.J. v. DuFresne, 676 F.2d 965, 969 (3d Cir. 1982). “[T]he plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp, v Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1)(A)-(B) (“A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by . . . citing to particular parts of materials in the record . . . or . . . showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute . . . .”).

II. Diversity Jurisdiction

“In a diversity action, the court must apply the choice of law rules of the forum state to determine what substantive law will govern.” Huber v. Taylor, 469 F.3d 67, 73 (3d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted), Here, the parties are diverse, and the incident giving rise to the present lawsuit occurred in Pennsylvania. The parties do not dispute that Pennsylvania law applies.

Discussion

State Farm sues all defendants for negligence (Count I), breach of contract (Count II), and breach of implied warranties (Count III).

To prevail on each of these claims at trial, State Farm must prove causation by a preponderance of the evidence. In Pennsylvania, “(t]o prevail in a negligence action, a plaintiff must show that (1) the defendant owed a duty of care, (2) the breach of which (3) caused (4) damages.” Wright v. Ryobi Techs., Inc., 175 F.Supp.3d 439, 454 (E.D. Pa. 2016) (emphasis added); see also Krentz v. Consol. Rail Corp., 910 A.2d 20, 27 (Pa. 2006). “[T]he mere happening of an accident or an injury does not establish negligence nor raise an inference or a presumption of negligence nor make out a prima facie case of negligence,” Amon v, Shemaka 214 A.2d 238, 239 (Pa. 1965); accord Mitchell v Milburn, 199 A.3d 995, 1002 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2018). To support a breach of contract claim, the plaintiff must show “(1) the existence of a contract, including its essential terms; (2) a breach of a duty imposed by the contract; and (3) resultant damages.” Fortunato v. CGA L. Firm, No. 17-CV-201, 2018 WL 4635963, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 27, 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added); see also Logan v. Mirror Printing Co. of Altoona, Pa., 600 A.2d 225, 448 (Pa. Super, Ct. Dec. 18, 1991) (“In order to recover for damages pursuant to a breach of contract, the plaintiff must show a causal connection between the breach and the loss.”) “To establish a breach of [an] implied warranty . .,, [a] [p]laintiff must show: 1) the existence of the implied warranty; 2) breach of the implied warranty; 3) a causal connection between the defendant's breach and the plaintiff's injury or damage; and 4) the extent of loss proximately caused by the defendant's breach.” Byrd v. Essex...