Amazon may face strict liability for defective third-party product

For the first time, an appeals court has subjected the online retail giant to strict liability for the products it sells but does not make.

Online retail giant Amazon can be subject to strict products liability for allegedly defective products that it sells through its virtual marketplace, a California appeals court has ruled.

The decision, which reversed a San Diego trial court’s ruling, marked the first time an appeals court has subjected Amazon to strict liability for the products it sells but does not make.

A three-judge panel of the State of California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District ruled Thursday that Amazon can be held strictly liable for an allegedly defective battery manufactured by a third-party company, Lenoge Technology, but purchased by the plaintiff, Angela Bolger, through Amazon’s website.

The ruling further said that the Communications Decency Act, which generally bars internet service providers from being liable for a third-party’s content, does not shield the company from liability.

Reversal of prior ruling

The panel’s decision reversed a ruling from the Superior Court of San Diego County, which had tossed out the case on summary judgment in Amazon’s favor. The appeals court opened the door for Bolger to pursue her claims that Amazon and Lenoge should both be deemed liable for a faulty laptop battery that injured her in an explosion.

“Whatever term we use to describe Amazon’s role, be it ‘retailer,’ ‘distributor,’ or merely ‘facilitator,’ it was pivotal in bringing the product here to the consumer,” Guerrero wrote.

Banking Litigation & Regulation Forum 2020EVENT

Delivers the key insights and practical solutions to acutely address the complex minefield of UK banking litigation & regulation.

Get More Information

Amazon can now either appeal the ruling to California’s Supreme Court or allow the case to go back to the lower court for a trial.

Ruling is a new first for Amazon

According to Robinson, the ruling is the first appellate-level decision to find Amazon subject to strict liability laws, and it could provide guidance to other courts that may face the issue.

“Every state’s product liability law is a little different, so every state is going to have to look at this in terms of what their own law requires, but in terms of the policy reasons behind why it should be held responsible, I think it lays a road map out for that,” he said. “This is a significant win for consumers in the United States. Previously Amazon had managed to escape liability for these transactions, and the injured consumers got nothing.”

Perkins Coie attorneys Julie Hussey, Julian Feldbein-Vinderman and W. Brendan Murphy represented Amazon. Hussey did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

In a statement emailed Friday, an Amazon spokeswoman said the company planned to appeal.

“The court’s decision was wrongly decided and is contrary to well-established law in California and around the country that service providers are not liable for third party products they do not make or sell,” the spokeswoman said. “We will appeal this decision.”

Judge weighs in

According to Judge Patricia Guerrero, who wrote the court’s 47-page opinion, Bolger used Amazon’s website to buy a replacement laptop battery from a company believed to be based in China; however, Bolger alleged that the battery exploded several months later, causing severe burns.

Bolger sued Amazon and the Chinese-based company, Lenoge Technology, that listed itself on the website as the seller, alleging product liability, breach of warranty and negligent undertaking. Although Lenoge was served, it did not appear and the court entered a default judgment.

After the lower court dismissed the case on summary judgment, finding that Amazon could not be liable as an online marketplace, Bolger appealed, arguing that strict liability should ally. Specifically, Bolger contended that Amazon accepted the product from Lenoge, stored it, accepted payment for the item and set the terms for its relationship with Lenoge.

Wading into the issue, Guerrero said the relationship between Bolger and Amazon is “a new transaction now in widespread use,” and then turned to longstanding principles underlying the application of products liability.

Ultimately, she determined strict liability would not be an injustice to Amazon and would provide maximum protection to Bolger.

“As noted, Amazon is a direct link in the chain of distribution, acting as a powerful intermediary between the third-party seller and the consumer,” Guerrero said. “Amazon is the only member of the enterprise reasonably available to an injured consumer in some cases, it plays a substantial part in ensuring the products listed on its website are safe, it can and does exert pressure on upstream distributors (like Lenoge) to enhance safety, and it has the ability to adjust the cost of liability between itself and its third-party sellers.”

Regarding the Communications Decency Act, Guerrero said it did not apply because Bolger’s claims depended on the company’s own activities, not as its status as a speaker or publisher of Lenoge’s content.

Specific Technologies Driving Insurtech Investment in 2024

Understanding the Funding Decline The decrease in funding does not necessarily spell trouble for the insurance sector but instead highlights a strategic shift, the report suggests. “The insurance industry, like many sectors, is focusing on the most promising ventures with substantial insurance potential,” the report explains. “Insurers are directing their investments toward key areas and current trends such as embedded insurance, employee benefits, and cyber risk management. This strategic investment approach signals a forward-looking mindset within the industry.” Three Key Insurtech Trends for 2024 The report identifies three major trends shaping insurtech investments in 2024: Public Insurtech Companies: Financial and Growth Strategies The report also notes that public insurtech companies are prioritizing revenue growth as their main goal. These firms are restructuring their financial strategies to boost cash flow and capitalize on rising revenue streams. Their growth prospects are supported by expanding asset portfolios and strong market demand. “Public insurtech companies are focusing on revenue growth and optimizing their financial frameworks to increase cash flow,” the report states. “The growth potential for these companies is driven by increasing revenue opportunities, broadening asset bases, and a robust market for their services.” In summary, while global insurtech funding saw a decline in 2023, the industry’s focus on GenAI, digital process management, and connected insurance technologies is setting the stage for a dynamic and forward-looking 2024.

Business

Insurer Secures Unanimous Supreme Court Victory in New York Choice of Law Dispute

In the world of sports, a clean sweep, a shutout, or a perfect game is the ultimate achievement. In the legal arena, a unanimous decision from the U.S. Supreme Court is equally rare and significant. In a notable legal triumph, Great Lakes Insurance SE achieved a unanimous 9-0 victory in the Supreme Court on February 21, 2024. This victory follows a protracted legal battle that began in the District Court of Pennsylvania, advanced to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and culminated in the Supreme Court’s decisive ruling. Background of the Case: Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Company The heart of the dispute was the insurance contract’s clause selecting New York law to govern any future legal conflicts. Although the financial implications of this case were relatively minor compared to the broader marine insurance industry, the insurer’s determination to uphold a crucial maritime legal principle has significant long-term implications for marine insurance. Faced with the insured’s counterclaims—including allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, insurance bad faith, and violations of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices Law—the insurer was confronted with serious risks. Such claims could lead to the shifting of attorney’s fees, treble damages, and more, which might normally encourage insurers to settle rather than risk pursuing justice. However, Great Lakes Insurance, supported by The Goldman Maritime Law Group, opted to challenge the Third Circuit’s decision and seek clarity from the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Ruling: A Landmark Decision In a landmark ruling, Justice Brett Kavanaugh affirmed that choice of law provisions in maritime contracts should be upheld by default. This ruling is a major victory for establishing a consistent federal standard in maritime law and avoiding a patchwork of state laws that could complicate marine insurance disputes. The Supreme Court’s decision overturned the Third Circuit’s earlier judgment, which had questioned whether Pennsylvania’s public policy concerns might override the insurance contract’s choice of New York law. By upholding the New York choice of law clause, the Supreme Court eliminated the extra-contractual bad faith claims under Pennsylvania law, thereby ensuring that the dispute could be resolved based on the merits of the insurance claim itself. Significance of the Supreme Court’s Decision This ruling represents a significant advancement in maritime law, affirming that choice of law clauses in maritime contracts are generally enforceable. The decision establishes a clear, uniform legal framework for resolving maritime contract disputes, which will streamline the process and ensure fair adjudication of future insurance claims. Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion was particularly notable for its criticism of the 1955 Wilburn Boat v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance decision, which had previously influenced maritime insurance law. Thomas argued that Wilburn Boat was incorrectly decided and stressed that a uniform and enforceable set of rules is essential for the development of maritime law. Impact on the Marine Insurance Industry The Supreme Court’s decision sets a “bright-line” rule affirming that choice of law clauses are valid unless there is a strong argument against the selected jurisdiction. By endorsing New York’s insurance laws as a reasonable choice, the ruling supports a more consistent and predictable legal environment for marine insurers. This decision represents a major step forward in maritime law, helping insurers better assess risks, determine premiums, and ensure fair and efficient resolution of maritime insurance disputes.

Amazon may face strict liability for defective third-party product