Indiana Farm Bureau Insurance v. Shenzhen Anet Technology Co., Ltd.

2020 WL 7711346 (2020)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D provides a marketplace website, where approved third-party sellers offer their products for sale to retail customers, including those in Indiana. Vendors go through an application process, which includes D's vetting to confirm their identity and assess their financial risk and online reputation. If approved the vendors then provide product details, descriptions, images, and so on for their listings. On a product's listing page, a disclaimer informs customers that the vendor provided this information (and that D has not verified it) and that the vendor is selling and shipping the product. D mostly requires third-party vendors to handle all cancellations, returns, refunds, and customer service adjustments. For providing this marketplace environment D receives a referral fee. The Terrys purchased a 3D printer sold on the site by CNMODLE and manufactured by China-based Anet (D). D's website did not provide product content details, description, images, or any other information about the 3D printer-that information was furnished by CNMODLE, which also stored and shipped the product to the Terrys. This information was disclosed on the product listing page. The 3D printer caught fire and caused significant damage to real and personal property owned by the Terrys. P, as the Terrys' insurer, paid the Terrys for their loss under their homeowner's insurance policy, but now subrogates Ds for the damages. P made claims under the Indiana Product Liability Act (IPLA) for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under Indiana Code § 26-1-2-314, and for various negligence allegations related to the marketing, promotion, advertisement, distribution, and sale of the 3D printer. D is one of the four Defendants to be successfully served and to appear. D has moved for summary judgment on all claims. D argues (1) that it 'is neither a seller or manufacturer of the allegedly defective product such that P can recover against it' under IPLA, (2) that it cannot be held liable for any warranty or negligence claims when IPLA subsumes those claims, and (3) that, even if the warranty claim proceeds independently, it still fails. D notes that it 'never purchased, possessed, took title, shipped, or distributed the 3D printer kit.'