## Facts

- Homeowners purchased a 3D printer through an online marketplace operated by Wal-Mart.com; the listed third-party seller was CNMODLE, which shipped the product directly to the buyers.
- The marketplace platform processed payment and transmitted the order to the third-party seller but did not take title to, possess, package, or ship the printer.
- The printer allegedly malfunctioned and caused a fire in the home, resulting in property damage.
- The homeowners’ insurer paid the loss and sued as subrogee, asserting Indiana Product Liability Act (IPLA) claims and related theories, including breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.
- Wal-Mart.com moved for summary judgment, arguing it was neither a statutory “seller” nor “manufacturer” and thus not liable for the alleged product defect.

## Issues

1. Whether Wal-Mart.com qualified as a “seller” or “manufacturer” under the Indiana Product Liability Act for a product sold and shipped by a third-party vendor through its online marketplace.
2. Whether implied-warranty and negligence-type claims could proceed against Wal-Mart.com, or were barred because Wal-Mart.com was not in the chain of distribution (and/or were displaced by the IPLA for physical-harm product-defect claims).

## Decision

- The court granted Wal-Mart.com’s motion for summary judgment on all claims asserted against it.
- Wal-Mart.com was not a “seller” under the IPLA because the third-party vendor was the identified seller, fulfilled the order, and shipped the product; Wal-Mart.com did not take title, possess the product, or transfer ownership.
- Wal-Mart.com was not a “manufacturer” under the IPLA because it did not design, produce, assemble, label, or otherwise create the product.
- The implied warranty of merchantability claim failed because the warranty runs from a merchant-seller of the goods to the buyer, and Wal-Mart.com was not the seller of the printer.
- Negligence and other defect-based theories could not proceed because they depended on Wal-Mart.com being a seller/manufacturer in the distribution chain and, to the extent seeking recovery for physical harm from a defective product, were treated as governed by the IPLA.

## Legal Principles

- Under the IPLA, strict product-liability exposure generally attaches to entities that are “manufacturers” or “sellers” within the product’s chain of distribution.
- An online marketplace operator that facilitates transactions, processes payment, and transmits orders, but does not take title or possession and does not ship the product, is not a “seller” for IPLA purposes when a third-party vendor is the actual contracting seller and fulfiller.
- A party that does not design, produce, assemble, or label a product is not a “manufacturer” under the IPLA.
- Implied warranty of merchantability liability generally requires a merchant-seller relationship for the goods at issue; a non-seller marketplace operator is not liable on that theory for defects in a third-party product.
- Indiana product-defect claims seeking recovery for physical harm are commonly treated as governed by the IPLA, limiting parallel negligence and warranty theories where the defendant is not a qualifying seller or manufacturer.

## Conclusion

The court held that Wal-Mart.com’s role as an online marketplace intermediary did not make it a statutory “seller” or “manufacturer” under Indiana product-liability law, and it entered summary judgment for Wal-Mart.com on IPLA, implied-warranty, and related defect-based claims arising from a third-party vendor’s 3D printer sale.


Ind. Farm Bureau Ins. v. Shenzhen Anet Tech. Co., Ltd., No. 4:19-cv-00156-TWP-DML, 2020 WL 7711346 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 29, 2020)