The manufacturer of the stove is located in Italy, but under Washington’s Product Liability Act, the insurer has the burden of proof to establish that it would have been impossible or nearly impossible to successfully sue it. The three-judge panel said that AmFam didn’t do enough to pursue legal action against the Italian manufacturer, thus reversing the lower court’s ruling.
The case and its $115,000 verdict were remanded for further proceedings. Judges Cecily C. Hazelrigg, Lori K. Smith, and Beth M. Andrus concurred in their opinion, that under the 1981 Product Liability Act, a product seller can only be held liable over a manufacturer if one of four specific elements are met, which include being unable to enforce a judgment against them.
The panel found that AmFam failed to show evidence proving that it would be unable to effectuate the service of process of the complaint or to successfully prosecute a case against the Italian manufacturer, Ravelli Group.
Judge Cecily C. Hazelrigg wrote for the panel, and noted that “AmFam must do more than make conclusory statements about the difficulty of suing the manufacturer, Ravelli, in order to obtain a judgment against the retailer, Wood Stoves, under WPLA.” The court said, “To reduce AmFam’s burden is contrary to the legislative intent of WPLA and our long-standing summary judgment standards.”
