Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc.
Decision Date | 19 November 2014 |
Docket Number | No. 17 MAP 2013,17 MAP 2013 |
Citation | 628 Pa. 296,104 A.3d 328 |
Parties | Terrence D. TINCHER and Judith R. Tincher, Appellees v. OMEGA FLEX, INC., Appellant. |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Leon F. DeJulius Jr., Esq., Laura E. Ellsworth, Esq., Margaret Caitlin Gleason, Esq., Charles H. Moellenberg Jr., Esq., Jones Day, Pittsburgh, for Sherwin–Williams Co., U.S. Steel Corp., Calgon Carbon Corp., Procter & Gamble Co., amicus curiae.
William J. Conroy, Esq., Katherine Ann Wang, Esq., Campbell Campbell Edwards & Conroy, P.C., Berwyn, Christopher Landau, Esq., Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, for Omega Flex, Inc.
James Michael Beck, Esq., Reed Smith LLP, Philadelphia, for Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc., amicus curiae.
Thomas J. Finarelli, Esq., William Jude Ricci, Esq., Lavin, O'Neil, Ricci, Cedrone & DiSipio, Philadelphia, for PA Defense Institute, amicus curiae.
Mark Edward Jakubik, Esq., Jakubik Law Firm (The), Philadelphia, for Pacific Legal Foundation, amicus curiae.
Martin S. Kaufman, Esq., for Atlantic Legal Foundation, amicus curiae.
Joseph Edward O'Neil, Esq., Lavin, O'Neil, Ricci, Cedrone & DiSipio, Philadelphia, for International Association of Defense Counsel, amicus curiae.
Michael James Ross, Esq., K&L Gates LLP, Pittsburgh, for Crane Co., amicus curiae.
Sean Peter Wajert, Esq., Shook Hardy & Bacon, L.L.P., Philadelphia, for Pennsylvania Business Council et al., amicus curiae.
Mark Elliot Utke, Esq., Cozen O'Connor, Philadelphia, for Terrence D. Tincher and Judith R. Tincher.
Clifford Alan Rieders, Esq., Pamela L. Shipman, Esq., Williamsport, Rieders, Travis, Humphrey, Harris, Waters, Waffenschmidt & Dohrmann, for Pennsylvania Association for Justice, amicus curiae.
OPINION
Omega Flex, Inc., appeals the decision of the Superior Court to affirm the judgment on the verdict entered in favor of Terrence D. Tincher and Judith R. Tincher (the “Tinchers”) by the Chester County Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division. We reverse the Superior Court decision in part, upon reasoning different from that articulated by the courts below, and we remand to the trial court for further action upon Omega Flex's post-trial motions, consistent with the principles elucidated in this Opinion. We hold that:
Around 2:30 a.m. on June 20, 2007, neighbors reported a fire that had erupted at the home of the Tinchers in Downingtown, Pennsylvania. The residence was the central unit of a two-story triplex built in 1998–99, and purchased by the Tinchers in 2005. The fire was eventually extinguished and no persons were harmed. Subsequently, investigators concluded that a lightning strike near the Tinchers' home caused a small puncture in the corrugated stainless steel tubing (“CSST”) transporting natural gas to a fireplace located on the first floor of the residence. The CSST installed in the Tinchers' home was manufactured and sold by Omega Flex as part of a gas transportations system marketed as the TracPipe System. The heat attending the melting of the CSST caused by the lightning strike ignited the natural gas and fueled a fire estimated to have burned for over an hour. The fire caused significant damage to the Tinchers' home and belongings.
After the fire, the Tinchers reported the incident to their insurer, United Services Automobile Association (“USAA”). USAA compensated the Tinchers for their loss up to the limit of their policy and received an assignment of liability claims. The Tinchers suffered an additional out-of-pocket loss because a portion of their claimed loss exceeded the limits of the USAA policy.
In January 2008, the Tinchers filed a complaint against Omega Flex in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas.1 USAA prosecuted the claims in the name of the Tinchers to obtain reimbursement of the insurance proceeds payout, but the Tinchers retained an interest in the litigation to recover the losses exceeding their insurance coverage. The Tinchers asserted claims premised upon theories of strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty.
In relevant part, the Tinchers' complaint relies upon the theory of strict liability articulated in Section 402A of the Second Restatement of Torts, but as followed and construed in Pennsylvania. Complaint, 3/18/2008, at ¶¶ 19–25 (citing Restatement (2d) of Torts § 402A ). The Tinchers alleged that Omega Flex is liable for damages to their home caused by the placement on the market and sale of the TracPipe System. According to the Tinchers, the CSST incorporated into the TracPipe System is defective, and unreasonably dangerous to intended users, because its walls are too thin to withstand the effects of lightning. The Tinchers requested compensatory damages, interest, fees, and costs of litigation. Omega Flex answered the complaint denying the Tinchers' allegations. The matter was assigned to the Honorable Ronald C. Nagle, Senior Judge of the Chester County Court of Common Pleas. The parties proceeded with discovery and the filing of dispositive motions, which the trial court denied.
In September 2010, in anticipation of trial, Omega Flex filed a motion in limine requesting the application of Sections 1 and 2 of the Third Restatement of Torts to the Tinchers' strict liability claim. Omega Flex also proposed jury instructions and findings of fact consistent with the provisions of the Third Restatement. The Tinchers opposed Omega Flex's motion in limine and offered proposed jury instructions and findings of fact consistent with the Second Restatement and Azzarello, supra. The trial court did not resolve Omega Flex's motion before trial. See Notes of Testimony, 8/12/2011, at 17–22.
In October 2010, the parties proceeded to trial before a jury. At trial, the Tinchers offered evidence regarding the events of June 20, 2007, the subsequent investigation into the cause of the fire, the losses sustained by the Tinchers, and USAA's process of adjusting the insurance claim. The parties generally agreed that lightning had caused the fire, although they disagreed as to the sequence of events or the cause of ignition in the area of the fireplace. The Tinchers offered evidence that lightning transferred an electrical charge to parts of the home, including the TracPipe System; the electrical current then sought ground and created different electrical charges in the various metal components of the structure. The Tinchers' expert witnesses testified that a flow of energy between a differently charged TracPipe and another metal component of the home caused an electrical arc, and the accompanying heat punctured the CSST and ignited the natural gas that the CSST transported. According to the Tinchers' expert, the perforation in the corrugated stainless steel tubing from the Tinchers' home was “characteristic of a lightning strike, not anything else.” By comparison, Omega Flex's witnesses testified that lightning measured near the Tinchers' home on the night of the fire did not carry sufficient energy to puncture the CSST. According to these witnesses, once lightning entered the house, lightning-related high voltages—although with low energy—broke down the insulation on electrical wires and, if the circuit breakers did not interrupt the current, the electrical current caused the fire. Omega Flex also responded that the conditions of the Tinchers' home after the fire and after the investigation, during which part of the evidence had been removed from its original location, made it impossible to confirm the Tinchers' theory. Finally, Omega Flex offered evidence that an attempt had been made to bond the TracPipe System to the cold water pipe at the Tinchers' residence which, if successful, would have prevented the electrical arc—and the resulting fire—from occurring. Witnesses testified that, after the fire, a bonding clamp had been found connected to the CSST and near but disconnected from the cold water pipe. The parties offered competing testimony as to whether the clamp had been attached to the cold water pipe before the fire.
Relevant to their strict liability theory, the Tinchers offered testimony regarding a defect in the TracPipe from experts in electrical engineering and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bifolck v. Philip Morris, Inc., SC 19310
... ... The Third Restatement is, in fact, contrary to this state's prior precedent."); Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc. , 628 Pa. 296, 415, 104 A.3d 328 (2014) ("[T]he Third Restatement does not ... ...
-
Spear v. Fenkell
... ... : Barbie Spear, in her capacity as trustee of the Alliance Holdings, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan (Spear); Alliance Holdings, Inc ... Tincher v ... Omega Flex , Inc ., 104 A.3d 328, 354 (Pa. 2014) ("Moreover, because ... ...
-
Schwartz v. Abex Corp., E.D. PA CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05-CV-02511-ER
... ... 2009) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986)). A fact is "material" if proof of its ... Court, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court just recently clarified in Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc. that, under Pennsylvania law, Section 402A governs ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Monsanto Co.
... ... MONSANTO CO., Solutia Inc., and Pharmacia LLC, Defendants No. 668 M.D. 2020 Commonwealth Court of ... Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc. , 628 Pa. 296, 104 A.3d 328, 388 (2014) ... ...
-
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Poised To Address One Unanswered Aspect Of Product Liability Law Left In Tincher's Wake
...in a strict product liability action. In so doing, it noted that while the Supreme Court's 2014 decision in Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 104 A3d 328 (Pa. 2014), overruled Pennsylvania's longstanding separation of negligence and strict liability standards in product liability cases, that dec......
-
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Directs A New Approach To Product Liability Claims
...developed and answered as trial and appellate courts are asked to implement the Supreme Court's new guidance. Tincher v Omega Flex, Inc., 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your......
-
Ruling On Motion To Dismiss In A Pennsylvania (Prescription) Device Case Takes Us Back
...among other courts addressing the issue—the court looked to a footnote in Lance and general language from Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 104 A.3d 328, 396 (Pa. 2014), a case about steel tubing used as a gas line. Without analysis, the court stated “Given these decisions, there is little to su......
-
TORT LAW AND CIVIL RECOURSE.
...LIABILITY 39-63 (3d ed. 2020). Much of the ensuing discussion in this Section is drawn from this book. (63.) Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 104 A.3d 328, 385 (Pa. (64.) Costs and benefits cannot be determined until the associated legal entitlements have first been specified; that baseline the......