Court: District Court, D. Maine; November 6, 2018; Federal District Court
The court, presided over by Judge David S. Doty, granted the motion for partial dismissal filed by Northern States Power Company (d/b/a Xcel Energy). The background details a 2016 incident where Susan F. Strohn and her husband purchased an electric stove from Home Depot, which was delivered with the existing gas stove removed. The installer failed to properly cap the disconnected gas line, which was obscured by the new stove. Subsequently, Ploog Electric installed an electrical outlet but also did not address the uncapped gas line. On May 20, 2017, a fire resulting from a natural gas leak severely injured and ultimately caused the deaths of Steven Strohn and his mother. Susan Strohn filed a lawsuit alleging wrongful death and various claims against all defendants, including several strict liability claims and negligence.
Northern States Power Company sought to dismiss claims against improperly named entities, the survival claim, strict liability claims, and the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose claim. Home Depot and associated defendants supported this motion concerning the survival claim. The court's discussion outlined the standard for a motion to dismiss, emphasizing that a complaint must present sufficient factual matter to demonstrate a plausible claim for relief, moving beyond mere speculation or formulaic recitation of legal elements.
Plaintiff has named several Northern States Power entities, including Xcel Energy, Inc., as defendants. Northern States Power (NSP) contends that it is the sole proper defendant, asserting it is the only entity providing natural gas to Minnesota residents. NSP claims the other named entities are either not involved in the case or do not exist as corporate entities. NSP requests dismissal of the improperly named defendants, and the court agrees, dismissing Xcel Energy, Inc., Northern States Power Company, and Northern States Power Company-Wisconsin, while renaming Northern States Power Company-Minnesota to Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota Corporation (d/b/a Xcel Energy). The court allows for potential amendments if it is later determined that a dismissed entity should remain in the action.
On the survival claim, NSP argues it should be dismissed under Minnesota law, which prohibits such claims, while Plaintiff contends Nebraska law applies, allowing for predeath pain and suffering claims. The court acknowledges that a choice of law analysis is necessary due to the conflict between Minnesota and Nebraska laws, particularly as Nebraska recognizes survival actions for pain and suffering and related expenses, unlike Minnesota. The court will evaluate factors including predictability of results, maintenance of interstate order, simplification of judicial tasks, advancement of governmental interests, and the better rule of law to determine which state's law applies.
The court evaluates several factors to determine the applicable law in this case, concluding that Minnesota law prevails. The first factor, predictability of results, is deemed irrelevant for torts, while the third factor, simplification of the judicial task, holds little weight since the court can easily apply either state's law. The second factor, maintenance of interstate order, favors Minnesota due to significant connections between Minnesota and the case, including that NSP is a Minnesota company and the alleged injuries occurred in Minnesota, unlike Nebraska, which has minimal relevance aside from the Strohns' residency.
The fourth factor, advancement of state interests, also supports Minnesota law, as the plaintiff's arguments for Nebraska law do not align with Minnesota's interests, and dismissal of the survival claim does not preclude the plaintiff from seeking damages. The fifth factor, better law, is not considered since other factors either favor or are neutral towards Minnesota law. Consequently, the court concludes that Minnesota law applies, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiff's survival claim.
Regarding strict liability claims, NSP argues for their dismissal based on Minnesota law, which requires exclusive control over the harmful instrumentality for liability to attach. The plaintiff fails to demonstrate NSP's exclusive control over the gas line, as other parties had access to it. Therefore, the court dismisses the strict liability claims against NSP.
The court has dismissed the plaintiff's claim for breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose against NSP, agreeing that the plaintiff did not allege the Strohns intended to use the gas for a specific purpose beyond its ordinary use of fueling a gas stove. Under Minn. Stat. 336.2-315, an implied warranty exists only if the seller knows of a particular purpose for the goods, which was not demonstrated in this case. The court also denied the plaintiff's request to amend the complaint, stating that the dismissed claims are not legally viable and re-pleading would not alter that conclusion. The court ordered the following: (1) grant of NSP's motion for partial dismissal; (2) dismissal of Xcel Energy Inc., Northern States Power Company, and Northern States Power Company-Wisconsin from the case; and (3) renaming of Northern States Power Company-Minnesota to Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota Corporation (d/b/a Xcel Energy). The court confirmed that Minnesota law applies to the remaining claims and noted that it is unclear which defendant delivered the electric stove.
