## Facts

- Donald and Julie Crawford purchased a clothes dryer manufactured by Electrolux Home Products (Electrolux).
- The dryer was accompanied by an owner’s manual that included Electrolux’s written express-warranty language stating that, in normal use, the dryer would provide a long lifetime of efficient service.
- The Crawfords did not read the warranty language in the owner’s manual.
- The dryer later “blew up,” and the Crawfords’ house was destroyed.
- Fire Insurance Exchange (Fire Insurance) insured the Crawfords’ home, paid the covered loss, and brought suit against Electrolux as the Crawfords’ subrogee.
- Fire Insurance pursued recovery on product-liability and warranty-based theories tied to an alleged dryer defect and alleged fire causation.
- Electrolux moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal of Fire Insurance’s claims.

## Issues

1. Whether an express-warranty claim based on statements contained in an owner’s manual can proceed when the purchasers never read the warranty language and therefore did not rely on it as part of the purchase.
2. Whether Fire Insurance produced sufficient evidence of a defect and causation—beyond the fact that the dryer malfunctioned and a fire occurred—to create a genuine dispute of material fact and avoid summary judgment.

## Decision

- The court granted Electrolux’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Fire Insurance’s claims.
- On the express-warranty theory, the court reasoned that warranty language the Crawfords never read did not become part of the basis of the bargain for their purchase and therefore could not support a breach-of-express-warranty claim.
- On the product-liability theories, the court concluded that Fire Insurance failed to present evidence from which a reasonable jury could find a specific defect attributable to Electrolux and a causal link between any such defect and the loss, rather than an inference drawn from the occurrence of the fire itself.
- Because Fire Insurance sued as a subrogee, it could not obtain greater rights than the Crawfords possessed; deficiencies that would defeat the Crawfords’ claims likewise defeated the insurer’s claims.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is proper when the record shows no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; the nonmovant must present admissible evidence from which a reasonable jury could find in its favor.
- An express warranty must be part of the basis of the bargain; where the buyer never reads or otherwise becomes aware of the alleged warranty promise, the buyer cannot show that the promise formed part of the purchase agreement.
- In a fire-loss products case, a plaintiff must offer evidence supporting both defect and causation; proof that a product was involved in a fire, without more, is not enough to impose liability.
- A subrogated insurer “stands in the shoes” of the insured and is subject to the same defenses and proof problems that would apply to the insured’s own claims.

## Conclusion

Fire Insurance Exchange v. Electrolux Home Products involved an insurer’s subrogation suit after an Electrolux dryer “blew up” and destroyed the insureds’ home; the court granted summary judgment for Electrolux, concluding that the manual’s express-warranty language could not support recovery because the homeowners never read it and that the insurer’s proof of defect and causation did not raise a triable fact issue.


Fire Insurance Exchange v. Electrolux Home Products, 2006 WL 2925286 (2006)