A Washington state appeals court denied an insurance company’s summary judgment motion that attempted to hold the seller of a defective product liable instead of the product’s manufacturer, saying the insurer’s wrongheaded interpretation of Washington’s product liability act “would produce an absurd result.”

A three-judge panel of Washington’s Court of Appeals reversed a lower court’s grant of summary judgment to American Family Mutual Insurance Co. in a case involving 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.