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.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]