Allstate subro win over Electrolux for ball-hitch design dryers

In a recent products liability action, a Pennsylvania federal jury unanimously found Electrolux Home Products, Inc. liable to Allstate for $830,000.00 stemming from eight separate “ball-hitch” dryer fire claims that occurred in Pennsylvania over a two-year period. Allstate Insurance Co., et al. v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., 16-cv-04276-EGS (EDPA 2019).

Allstate’s Amended Complaint, which aggregated eight subrogation claims in one lawsuit, alleged that the underlying property damage for which it paid was caused by defects common to all of the “ball-hitch” clothes dryers at issue.

The trial of the case lasted four weeks. During trial, testimony from lay and expert witnesses established that, by design, “ball-hitch” clothes dryers produced by Electrolux between 1996 and 2011 under various brand names (including Frigidaire, Kenmore and GE) accumulated and ignited lint behind the drum notwithstanding ordinary installation, maintenance and use. The evidence further demonstrated that Electrolux’s combustible plastic construction of the blower housing, which is located in the base of the cabinet beneath the drum, substantially increased the risk that fire could escape the cabinet during use. Further, the “ball-hitch” dryer’s center support bearing could fail and ignite combustibles within the dryer cabinet as a result of ordinary wear and tear.  Safer designs existed at the time that the subject dryers were manufactured and sold, according to expert testimony presented by Allstate. 

In finding for Allstate, the jury rejected Electrolux’s claim that the property damage was caused by improper dryer installation, maintenance and use. Electrolux unsuccessfully argued that interior lint accumulation was the fault of users not having their dryer interiors professionally cleaned every eighteen months as recommended in its product literature. The jury also rejected Electrolux’s argument that Allstate’s failure to preserve dryer exhaust vent system components meant that the insurer could not prove its case. 

Instructed on Pennsylvania law, the twelve-member jury found that the “ball-hitch” dryers at issue were “defective in design” pursuant to both the Consumer Expectations Test and Risk-Utility Test. Judgment on the verdict was subsequently entered by United States District Judge Edward G. Smith in the amount of $830,000.00, which the parties had stipulated was the amount recoverable by Allstate in the action. According to court dockets, Electrolux’s subsequent appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on October 1, 2019.

—-NASP Amicus Committee update