AmFam is represented by George M. Shumsky and Brent J. Hardy of Shumsky & Backmab, who had argued the act’s requirements are affirmative defenses that Wood Stoves must prove. However, the panel said that the plain language of the statute ind
Judge Hazelrigg wrote, “AmFam’s proposed interpretation would produce an absurd result, as language narrowing product seller liability to a handful of conditions would require a seller to disprove those conditions, rather than requiring a claimant to prove them.”
The panel held that in order for AmFam to prevail on summary judgment, AmFam needed to prove that there weren’t any factual disputes between it and the seller. However, attorneys for Wood Stoves, Francis S. Floyd and Amber L. Pearce of Floyd Pflueger & Ringer PS argued that AmFam could have served the Italian manufacturer under The Hague Convention, which AmFam did not dispute.
According to court records, this dispute arose in 2019 when a Washington couple purchased the pellet stove from Wood Stoves Etc, Inc., which caught on fire two days after it was installed. The record shows that AmFam paid the couple in excess of $115,000 for damage caused to their home as a result of the fire. AmFam then filed a lawsuit against Wood Stoves to recover the payments made to the couple. At the district level, AmFam successfully obtained an order for summary judgment against Wood Stoves in October 2021.
