Erie Insurance Company v. W.M. Barr & Company, Inc.
| Decision Date | 05 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 20-0917 (RC) |
| Citation | 523 F.Supp.3d 1 |
| Parties | ERIE INSURANCE COMPANY a/s/o Constance Drew, Plaintiff, v. W.M. BARR & COMPANY, INC., Weiman Products, LLC, and Uptown Office Inc. d/b/a Robert Green, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Matthew J. Youssef, Niles, Barton & Wilmer, LLP, Baltimore, MD, for Plaintiff.
Patrick Kevin Burns, Philip Thomas Abbruscato, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, Alexandria, VA, Jay Philip Lefkowitz, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant Weiman Products LLC.
Jon James Hernan, Bowman and Brooke LLP, Lake Mary, FL, Sandra Giannone Ezell, Bowman & Brooke, LLP, Richmond, VA, for Defendant W.M. Barr & Company, Inc.
Uptown Office Inc., pro se.
DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT W.M. BARR & COMPANY , INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT; DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT WEIMAN PRODUCTS LLC'S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT ; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT W.M. BARR & COMPANY , INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT ; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT WEIMAN PRODUCTS LLC'S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Erie Insurance Company, on behalf of its subrogee Constance Drew, has brought this action against W.M. Barr & Company, Inc., Weiman Products LLC, and Uptown Office Inc., doing business as Robert Green. Erie alleges that Defendants’ negligence caused an explosion at Ms. Drew's rental home, resulting in significant property damage. W.M. Barr & Company, Inc. and Weiman Products LLC have each moved to dismiss, contending that Erie has failed to state a claim of negligence or a breach of an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose against either entity. For the reasons stated below, the Court finds that while the Amended Complaint properly states a negligence claim against W.M Barr & Company, Inc. and Weiman Products LLC, its implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose claims must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Plaintiff Erie Insurance Company ("Erie") has filed the instant action as a subrogee of Constance Drew, pursuant to the insurance policy between them. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 19–20, ECF No. 24. Erie asserts that Ms. Drew suffered damages in the amount of $149,352.19 at her Washington D.C. rental property due to an explosion that occurred while repairs were being made to the property. Id. Erie has reimbursed Ms. Drew for the full amount of these damages. Id. It now seeks to recover this amount from the defendants, who include W.M. Barr & Company, Inc. ("Barr"), a Tennessee corporation that manufactures commercial and residential cleaning products, id. ¶ 5, Weiman Products LLC ("Weiman") a Delaware limited liability company that also manufactures commercial and residential cleaning products, id. ¶¶ 7–8, and Defendant Uptown Office Inc., doing business as Robert Green ("Green"), a sole proprietor engaged in residential construction and renovation located in Washington D.C., id. ¶¶ 9–10. Erie contends that each of the defendants is liable for the explosion that damaged Ms. Drew's rental property.
In the summer of 2018, Ms. Drew's rental property in Washington D.C. began to experience water leakage in its basement. Am. Compl. ¶ 11. She hired Green "to perform repairs and renovations to the exterior and interior walls of the [p]roperty as a result of water intrusion." Id. ¶ 12. Green repaired the leak, and then coated the interior basement walls with exterior epoxy that was not designated for indoor use. Id. ¶ 13. Next, he directed his staff to use Klean Strip Acetone, a product manufactured by Barr, and Goo Gone 24oz Original Spray Gel, a product manufactured by Weiman, to "clean up the epoxy" that remained on the floor. Id. ¶ 14. Green assisted with the application of these products to the walls and floor of the property. Id. ¶ 15. During this cleaning process, Green and or his employees noticed a flame—and then an explosion occurred. Id. ¶ 16.
Upon Erie's information and belief, the explosion "was caused when the fumes, gases, byproducts and contents of the Klean Strip Acetone ... and Goo Gone 24oz Original Spray Gel ... were ignited by the activation of an electrical circuit or open flame within the mechanical equipment" of the basement. Id. ¶ 17. The explosion caused damages to the recently made repairs of Ms. Drew's property, and also blew out the property's windows. Id. ¶ 18. Erie alleges that as a direct and proximate result of this explosion, Ms. Drew "sustained real and personal property losses and damages in the amount of $149,352.19". Id. ¶ 19. Pursuant to Erie's insurance policy with Ms. Drew, it has already reimbursed her for this full amount of damages and asserts that it is fully subrogated to Ms. Drew's right of recovery against Defendants. Id. ¶ 20.
Erie initially filed this action in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia on March 2, 2020. The case was removed to this Court on April 6, 2020, on diversity jurisdiction grounds. Id. ¶ 57. A little over a month later, Defendant Barr and Defendant Weiman filed separate motions to dismiss the original complaint. See Def. W.M. Barr & Company, Inc.’s Mot. to Dismiss Counts I and IV of Pl.’s Compl., ECF No. 18; Def. Weiman Products LLC's Mot. to Dismiss Pl.’s Compl, ECF No. 22. Erie responded by filing an Amended Complaint on May 21, 2010, see Am. Compl., ECF No. 24, and requesting that the Court deny Defendant Barr and Defendant Weiman's motions to dismiss as moot. See Pl.’s Resp. to Def. W.M. Barr & Company, Inc.’s Mot. to Dismiss Counts I and IV of Pl.’s Compl., ECF No. 25; Pl.’s Resp. to Def. Weiman Products LLC's Mot. to Dismiss Pl.’s Compl., ECF No. 26. Given that the original complaint is no longer operative, the Court agrees and accordingly will deny as moot Defendant Barr and Defendant Weiman's motions to dismiss Erie's First Complaint.
Erie's Amended Complaint asserts that Barr, Weiman, and Green, through their "negligence and negligent acts and/or omissions" caused the explosion and resultant damages to Ms. Drew's property. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 21–47 (Counts I–III). In addition, Erie claims that Barr and Weiman violated a duty to Ms. Drew to "exercise due care in the manufacturing and application instructions and guidelines" provided with their products. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 23, 32. Erie also brings a breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose claim against Barr and Weiman concerning the use of their products in the explosion. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 48–65.
Two motions to dismiss are currently before the Court. On June 4, 2020, Barr again moved to dismiss the relevant counts against it in the Amended Complaint. See Def. Barr's Mot. Dismiss Counts I and IV of Pl.’s Am. Compl. ("Barr's Mot."), ECF No. 27. On the same day, Weiman filed its own motion to dismiss targeting the claims brought against it. See Mot. to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim ("Weiman's Mot."), ECF No. 28. Both motions are opposed (in near-identical briefing) by Erie. See Pl.’s Resp. Mem. Opp'n Defs.’ Mot. Dismiss Pls.’ Am. Compl. ("Pl.’s Barr Opp'n"), ECF No. 30; Pl.’s Resp. Mem. Opp'n Def's Mot. Dismiss Pl.’s Am. Compl. ("Pl.’s Weiman Opp'n"), ECF No. 29. Both Barr and Weiman have filed a reply. See Def. Weiman's Reply Supp. Mot. Dismiss Pl.’s Am. Compl. ("Weiman Reply"), ECF No. 31; Def. Barr Reply Supp. Mot. Dismiss Counts I and IV of Pl.’s Am. Compl. ("Barr Reply"), ECF No. 32. These two motions are now ripe for consideration.
To prevail on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a plaintiff need only provide a "short and plain statement of the claim," Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), that "give[s] the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests," Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) () (quoting Conley v. Gibson , 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957) ). A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) does not test a plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits, but rather "tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint" by asking whether the plaintiff has properly stated a claim for which relief can be granted. Browning v. Clinton , 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002). In considering such a motion, the complaint must be construed "liberally in the plaintiff's favor with the benefit of all reasonable inferences derived from the facts alleged." Stewart v. Nat'l Educ. Ass'n , 471 F.3d 169, 173 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (citing Kowal v. MCI Commc'ns Corp. , 16 F.3d 1271, 1276 (D.C. Cir. 1994) ).
"To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ " Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). This means that a plaintiff's factual allegations "must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)." Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555–56, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (citations omitted). "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements," are therefore insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. Moreover, a court is not obligated to accept a plaintiff's legal conclusions as true, see id. , nor must a court presume the veracity of the legal conclusions that are couched as factual allegations. See Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955.
"In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim, [the Court] may consider only the facts alleged in the complaint, any documents either attached to or incorporated in the complaint and matters of which [the Court] may take...
To continue reading
Request your trial