Background
A Broan-Nutone bathroom ventilation fan installed in a Minnesota gas station sparked a fire on November 20, 2021, causing more than $2.5 million in damage. The fan had been installed before Lakes Community Cooperative acquired the property in 2009. After paying the Cooperative’s insurance claim, Berkley National Insurance Company sued Broan as the Cooperative’s subrogee.
Berkley’s expert concluded that heat produced in the fan’s motor winding ignited nearby combustible material and that the thermal protection device failed to disconnect power. But the expert could not identify why the motor operated at an abnormally high temperature or offer admissible evidence showing how the damaged fan differed from a properly manufactured fan. The district court granted Broan summary judgment on Berkley’s strict-liability manufacturing-defect claim under Minnesota law.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. It explained that a Minnesota manufacturing-defect plaintiff need not always identify a specific flaw or produce a flawless exemplar for comparison. A defect may instead be established through circumstantial evidence, but the plaintiff must still present evidence permitting a reasonable inference that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer’s control.
Even assuming Berkley’s evidence showed that the fan was defective when the fire occurred, it did not show that the defect more likely than not existed when the fan left Broan’s control. The fan had been installed for more than a decade, creating substantial opportunity for its condition to change. Evidence that dust and lint had accumulated inside the fan—and the expert’s theory that lint insulated the thermal protection device—did not connect the alleged defect to the time of manufacture. Berkley could not shift to Broan the burden of proving post-manufacture mishandling or another later cause.
Key Takeaways
- A Minnesota manufacturing-defect plaintiff may rely on circumstantial evidence and need not invariably identify the product’s precise flaw.
- The plaintiff must nevertheless show that the alleged defect more likely than not existed when the product left the manufacturer’s control; evidence of a malfunction alone is insufficient.
- A product’s age, opportunity for changes after distribution, and evidence of accumulated debris may prevent a jury from inferring an original manufacturing defect without speculation.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes proof that a product malfunctioned from proof of a legally actionable manufacturing defect. Particularly when an older product has remained in service for years, plaintiffs need evidence connecting the harmful condition to the time the manufacturer relinquished control.
The court also reinforced the boundary between manufacturing- and design-defect theories. Berkley’s contention that Broan knew its fan design would accumulate dust and lint could not substitute for evidence supporting the manufacturing-defect claim actually before the court.