State Appellate Court docket Says Insurer’s Interpretation of Product Legal responsibility Act Would ‘Produce an Absurd Consequence’

A Washington state appeals courtroom denied an insurance coverage firm’s abstract judgment movement that tried to carry the vendor of a faulty product liable as a substitute of the product’s producer, saying the insurer’s wrongheaded interpretation of Washington’s product legal responsibility act “would produce an absurd consequence.”

A 3-judge panel of Washington’s Court docket of Appeals reversed a decrease courtroom’s grant of abstract judgment to American Household Mutual Insurance coverage Co. in a case involving a faulty wooden pellet range that caught fireplace twice and prompted the insurer to shell out $115,355.88 below a home-owner’s insurance coverage coverage.