Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Haier US Appliance Solutions

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: December 13, 2022
• Docket: CUMcv-21-351
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss CIVIL ACTION PORSC-CV-21-351

UNION MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION V. FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

HAIER US APPLIANCE SOLUTIONS,

Defendant

Before the court is a Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant Haier US Appliance

Solutions ("Hai er") on Plaintiffs complaint.

Background

The complaint alleges that insureds of Plaintiff Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company

("Union Mutual") suffered a property loss when a Baier-manufactured dishwasher

malfunctioned causing extensive flooding in their home. Union Mutual covered the damages in

the amount of $72,000.82. Union Mutual brought this action for subrogation against General

Electric Company on 9/23/21 and, with court approval, amended its complaint on 5/25/2022 to

replace General Electric with Haier as the Defendant. Union Mutual alleges negligence and

breach of warranty and seeks $72,000.82 in damages, plus interest and costs.

Haier moves for summary judgment on the grounds that Union Mutual carmot show

necessary elements of its claims. Haier originally based its motion, in part, on the lack of an

expert witness designation. The parties now agree that Union Mutual did notify Haier of its

expert witness, Tom Zarek. The issue is whether Union Mutual put forth competent evidence

necessary to avoid summary judgment. 1 Legal Standard

A party seeking to recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim or to obtain a

declaratory judgment may move with or without supporting affidavits for summary judgment in

the party's favor upon all or any part thereof. M.R. Civ. P. 56(a). A motion for summary

judgment shall be granted if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and

admissions on file, together with the affidavits referred to in the Rule 56(h) statements show that

there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a

matter oflaw. M.R. Civ. P. 56(c). The court may not decide any genuine issue of fact on a

summary judgment motion. Cottle Enters., Inc. v. Town ofFarmington, 1997 ME 78, ,r 11, 693

A.2d 330. A factual dispute is material ifit may affect the outcome of the litigation. Stewart­

Dore v. Webber Hosp. Ass 'n, 2011 ME 26, ,r 8, 13 A.3d 773. The facts must be considered in

the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and the court will resolve factual disputes

against the moving party. Mahar v. Stone Wood Transp., 2003 ME 63, ,r 8, 823 A.2d 540.

A party opposing summary judgment 'must establish a prima facie case for each element

ofthecauseofaction."' Murdockv. Thorne,2017ME 136,,rll, 166A.3d 119. Todoso,they

must provide the court with sworn testimony providing competent, admissible, evidence.

M.R.Civ.P. 56(e),(h); Searles v. Trustees ofSt. Joseph's College, 1997 ME 128, Jr 9, n. 2. The

court does not consider hearsay testimony. Searles, Jr9, n. 2.

Discussion

After review of the record, the court finds that the motion for summary judgment should

be granted. The parties' briefs demonstrate that they have agreed that Union Mutual successfully

2 designated Zarek as an expert. However, they still disagree about whether his testimony would

enable a factfinder to decide that Union Mutual has shown ce1iain elements of its claims.

Union failed to generate a genuine issue of material fact. The Additional Statements of

Material Fact referenced a report of Tom Zarek, an engineer. SMF lrlr 4-7. They indicate that

Zarek determined the source of a leak was a water inlet valve. The valve guide tube was

fractured. As a result, there was an uncontrolled release of water into the dishwasher chest.

The report was attached to an affidavit of counsel. There was no affidavit from Zarek.

The report is hearsay and is inadmissible. Therefore, the court should disregard it. Without it,

the Statement of Material Facts do not generate any factual issue in dispute.

Even if the report were admissible evidence that could support Union Mutual's opposing

statement of material facts, the report does not contain sufficient information to support a finding

that Haier breached a duty or that the dishwasher was defective when sold. An expert report

stating that after twelve years of use a leak occurred in a water inlet valve is insufficient to show

negligeijce. There is no evidence that it was a design defect or a manufacturing defect. See

Walker v. Gen. Elec. Co., 968 F.2d 116, 119 (1st Cir. 1992) (affirming district court's dismissal

of negligence claim where plaintiffs did not present evidence establishing defendant violated the

standard of care in manufacture or design of a toaster). The repo1i also does not support a breach

of warranty claim. There is also no evidence that any defect existed at the time the unit was sold.

The expert did not make any effort to rule out ordinary wear or tear or explain why the current

leak was the result of a defect that existed 12 years ago. Suminski v. Me. Appliance Warehouse,

Inc., 602 A.2d 1173, 117 5 (Me. 1992) (insufficient evidence on breach of warranty claim where

no evidence that the product was defective at the time it was sold.).

3 After review of the undisputed record, the court finds that Haier is entitled to judgment as

a matter of law on Union Mutual' s claims. Therefore, it grants Haier' s motion.

The entry is:

Defendant Haier's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

The clerk may enter this Order on the docket by reference. M.R. Civ. P. 79(a).

Date ;Z// I]/ yL-

Thomas R. McKeon Justice, Maine Superior Court