State Farm Sues Apple For Over $75,000, Claims Defective iPhone Caused House Fire

[macdragonfl]

You're basing this on what? A feeling?


Take a look at the question you're asking. Can you spot the problem?

On topic: We are a seriously litigious society. 10-1 if the plaintiff won, State Farm would take 60% of the payout, lawyers another 30%, and Thou would get 10%. State Farm would then raise her rates.
[doublepost=1500644012][/doublepost]
Where did you see she bought a 4S in 2016? Also, why do you keep specifying Apple Store? The vast majority of iPhones aren't purchased in an Apple Store.

No State Farm cancels you when you make claims. They are the worst for that.

 

[BvizioN]

LOL at people so quick to defend Apple as if it's not possible the battery is faulty. Apple has lawyers on payroll for that, don't need ya'll to do it for free.

I am not one of them but what exactly or how do you want people in a forum board to comment on a subject like this? Sure some will doubt the legitimacy of the claim. Some others will agree with it. And some others like you will come up with snarky comments. Typical stuff we read everyday around here.... nothing new or unusual.

 

[44267547]

No State Farm cancels you when you make claims. They are the worst for that.

Can you elaborate on this more? I have never heard of this before with State Farm.

 

[macs4nw]

As you say, nothing widespread. So if it was the iPhone 4s's battery at fault in this case (yet to be proven in court) that would make it an "isolated incident", no? Like the very next sentence after the one you quoted says, right?

You don't know for sure what happened any more than the rest of us at this point. If the claimant did use a faulty 3rd-party charger/cable/replacement battery then hopefully that will come out in court, but I think it's wrong to just assume this person is lying simply because there isn't a widespread problem known with iPhone 4s batteries. Apple is a huge company, they can take it, they get crazy law suits hurled at them all day, it's not a major personal disaster for them. *If* this person suffered major property damage through no fault of their own and they weren't using a faulty 3rd-party charger/cable/replacement battery then they deserve recompense from Apple.

Add to that the fact this doesn't sound like a greedy cash grab lawsuit for millions from a wealthy company. Really not too hard to rack up 75 grand in a house fire.

This sounds much more like a barebones damages-recovery lawsuit that could very well have merit, based solely on the few scant details released so far, and the known realities of Li-ion batteries if and when they fail.

 

[alexgowers]

The issue here is, how extensive was the house fire? Could the fire have been started by something else and caused the phone to also combust in the surrounding heat and flames.

Such an old phone is likely to have been used and abused, it can't be ruled out that the user damaged the phone or pierced the battery to cause the fire in the first place hoping to claim insurance on the loss. I mean batteries do explode but not on an old phone without reason and that model shows no signs of any model defects.

I really don't understand the insurance company joining in on this! I mean the home owner pays them to protect their losses in the event of a fire regardless of whether apple is actually possibly guilty. The owner should pursue compensation from insurance, then the insurance company should pursue apple if they feel apple are at fault! I don't get why it's been allowed to be joined together or why the home owner would even allow it. If insurance are willing to sue apple then they are admitting that the home owner is due compensation from them for their losses.

 

[danckwerts]

What the complainant hasn't said, apparently, is whether the charging cable is original. There have been a number of iPhone fires caused by knock-off chargers.

 

[kdarling]

The issue here is, how extensive was the house fire? Could the fire have been started by something else and caused the phone to also combust in the surrounding heat and flames.

Fire investigators must've already determined that the phone was the origin. Otherwise the suit wouldn't have been brought.

...I mean batteries do explode but not on an old phone without reason and that model shows no signs of any model defects.

Statistically, some batteries will eventually fail like this. Just as with mid-air collisions, it's the rarity that makes this news.

I really don't understand the insurance company joining in on this! I mean the home owner pays them to protect their losses in the event of a fire regardless of whether apple is actually possibly guilty. The owner should pursue compensation from insurance, then the insurance company should pursue apple if they feel apple are at fault!

Simple. It sounds like the damage was more than the insurance covered.

Therefore both the company and the owner would want reimbursement.

 

[BurgDog]

The issue here is, how extensive was the house fire? Could the fire have been started by something else and caused the phone to also combust in the surrounding heat and flames.

House fires get investigated. Some likely competent forensic fire investigator determined it wasn't arson and identified the phone as the initiator of the fire. These people are really good at this. State Farm likely employs some too. There will be a report offered in evidence. Apple will likely get one of their own people to investigate if they want to contest this.

Such an old phone is likely to have been used and abused, it can't be ruled out that the user damaged the phone or pierced the battery to cause the fire in the first place hoping to claim insurance on the loss. I mean batteries do explode but not on an old phone without reason and that model shows no signs of any model defects.

Fire investigator likely covered all that and has phone and battery as evidence. Assume didn't find evidence of physical abuse. Batteries do explode and can cause fires.

I really don't understand the insurance company joining in on this! I mean the home owner pays them to protect their losses in the event of a fire regardless of whether apple is actually possibly guilty. The owner should pursue compensation from insurance, then the insurance company should pursue apple if they feel apple are at fault! I don't get why it's been allowed to be joined together or why the home owner would even allow it. If insurance are willing to sue apple then they are admitting that the home owner is due compensation from them for their losses.

Insurance company already paid owner, minus the deducible, to cover the owner's loss. Insurance company sues product manufacturer of defective product that caused the fire to cover the insurance company's loss in making the payment to the home owner. Home owner joins suit to get their deductible back. Home owner permits Insurance Company to do this because they signed an agreement as part of getting their insurance in the first place to give them the right to do so.

State Farm legal staff probably does dozens of these type of recovery actions daily, it is part of their normal process. It hits the news because Apple, otherwise nothing special about this. Doubt it will get to trial. Apple will see the evidence the phone caused the fire due to a manufacturing defect and quietly settle.

 

[Mw0103]

I really don't understand the insurance company joining in on this! I mean the home owner pays them to protect their losses in the event of a fire regardless of whether apple is actually possibly guilty. The owner should pursue compensation from insurance, then the insurance company should pursue apple if they feel apple are at fault! I don't get why it's been allowed to be joined together or why the home owner would even allow it. If insurance are willing to sue apple then they are admitting that the home owner is due compensation from them for their losses.

Look up "subrogation."

 

[BurgDog]

Somewhat related learning from all this, and something my family does already, is try to keep anything with a lithium battery in it away from easily flammable stuff when you are not around to watch things. Insurance may cover the cost of repairs, but some things in a home are irreplaceable and insurance recovery and house repairs are a major hassle.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

A claim for only $75000? Heck, for that measly amount the State Farm lawyers are sending in boilerplate lawsuits, and spending minimal time on them. If they win, great. If not, they're not out but for a few hours of payroll for their lawyers. Any more time spent, and it'd be a net loss for them.

 

[I7guy]

?!

It doesn't say the phone was purchased in 2016, does it? It says the fire happened in 2016.



I'm sure it will be thoroughly investigated. If the battery was indeed the cause, I hope the claimant gets some money, house fires are awful (plus if there is a risk of this happening again, Apple and everyone else needs to know). It's sadly natural many will suspect a cash-grab/scam but that's why in some of our countries we fortunately still have something approaching proper due process and evidence-based law suits thank goodness.

Or, the phone was disassembled and reassembled improperly or the battery was replaced with a dud. Or the phone was damaged in some way. Or there were warnings the battery was going defective and said warning ignored. That will come out also. Yes one off incidents do happen and the courts not Mac rumors will decide this.
[doublepost=1500735929][/doublepost]

If it makes it to trial, discovery will be used to answer the questions you asked? State Farm just want's to mitigate it's payout. If Apple settles for any amount above State Farm's legal cost State Farm will consider it a win.

Or Apple might force a trial. Or maybe the battery manufacturer should be sued.

 

[IJ Reilly]

State Farm Insurance Company is using their internal legal staff (not likely to be quack lawyers) to get reimbursement from Apple for a claim they paid out for damage caused by a defective product that Apple sold. The home owner wants their deductible back. Nobody is getting rich here. They want to break even.

Exactly. Anyone who hasn't heard of this concept has never been involved with a significant insurance claim. Insurance companies don't make money by paying claims, they make money by avoiding paying claims. If they can find anyone who might have contributed to the loss, they will try to collect back some or all of the claim from them or their insurance company. Probably this claim was elevated to a lawsuit because State Farm talked to Apple (or their liability carrier) and they refused to pay. Obviously the issue is not the $75k or any portion of this pocket-change but the allegation that a defective Apple product caused the loss. That could be worth far more to Apple than $75k.

 

[macdragonfl]

Can you elaborate on this more? I have never heard of this before with State Farm before.

I had SF for twenty years never a claim, had an at fault accident. Canceled on renewal. My brother had them for homeowners a hail storm damaged his roof he made a claim, on renewal he was canceled. Other family and friends had similar issues. To many to list. In other cases the raise your rates so high that you do cancel. Their claims people were rude, accusatory, took forever to pay compared to other companies. They were totally unprofessional. It’s not the company it used to be.

 

[I7guy]

Exactly. Anyone who hasn't heard of this concept has never been involved with a significant insurance claim. Insurance companies don't make money by paying claims, they make money by avoiding paying claims. If they can find anyone who might have contributed to the loss, they will try to collect back some or all of the claim from them or their insurance company. Probably this claim was elevated to a lawsuit because State Farm talked to Apple (or their liability carrier) and they refused to pay. Obviously the issue is not the $75k or any portion of this pocket-change but the allegation that a defective Apple product caused the loss. That could be worth far more to Apple than $75k.

If it can be proven the phone was defective and not abused, disassembled improperly or repaired improperly.

 

[AZhappyjack]

Ok... a couple of thoughts from the peanut gallery... admittedly, I did not read through this thread, but a couple of things that jumped out to me...

1. The phone is 6 years old... the 4S was released in 2011. It's now 2017...
2. Had this user never experienced any issues with the device or battery in the ensuing 6 years?
3. House/possessions burned down to the ground - total loss, and he's suing for $75K.
   
4. I wonder how much of the $75K is for lost possessions and how much is for mental anguish.

I guess you can't make this stuff up.

 

[BurgDog]

Ok... a couple of thoughts from the peanut gallery... admittedly, I did not read through this thread, but a couple of things that jumped out to me...

1. The phone is 6 years old... the 4S was released in 2011. It's now 2017...
2. Had this user never experienced any issues with the device or battery in the ensuing 6 years?
3. House/possessions burned down to the ground - total loss, and he's suing for $75K.
   
4. I wonder how much of the $75K is for lost possessions and how much is for mental anguish.

I guess you can't make this stuff up.

1. Age of phone irrelevant, manufacturer is on the hook indefinitely for situations like this one.
2. If fixed by Apple, Apple is still liable for damage if shown they fixed it wrong.
3. He is not suing, State Farm is and for some amount over $75,000, whatever they paid out as a claim settlement plus the homeowners deductible that the homeowner gets back.
4. I doubt mental anguish is covered by the insurance policy. Damage to house and possessions likely is and likely all fixed by now with the insurance settlement.

Doesn't look made up to me. More like standard insurance company business practices to get reimbursed from the company at fault for causing them to pay on a claim.

 

[Amazing Iceman]

An aftermarket charger could cause this.
Also, some cases could cause an iPhone to overheat in excess. I had that problem with my 5s, reporting overheating while only running the Maps app.
And I have seen people charge their electronic devices on top of a bed, carpet or other flammable surfaces.

 

[IJ Reilly]

If it can be proven the phone was defective and not abused, disassembled improperly or repaired improperly.

Not necessarily. If the UPS guy trips on your walkway delivering a package to your front door, you would be liable because it happened on your property, even if you did nothing to contribute to the accident. If you did contribute to the accident through the maintenance of unsafe conditions, it could be additional damages for negligence. Obviously Apple doesn't want to be found to be negligent. Since this is a straight property damage case I suspect they will settle out of court with Apple admitting no fault.

 

[I7guy]

Not necessarily. If the UPS guy trips on your walkway delivering a package to your front door, you would be liable because it happened on your property, even if you did nothing to contribute to the accident. If you did contribute to the accident through the maintenance of unsafe conditions, it could be additional damages for negligence. Obviously Apple doesn't want to be found to be negligent. Since this is a straight property damage case I suspect they will settle out of court with Apple admitting no fault.

Maybe, about the ups guy, if the shoelaces were untied it might be the case the owner is not liable. Same for this scenario, if it were found the battery is not an oem battery why would apple be liable? Of course this is all conjecture until the case progresses further.

 

[MC6800]

Somewhat related learning from all this, and something my family does already, is try to keep anything with a lithium battery in it away from easily flammable stuff when you are not around to watch things. Insurance may cover the cost of repairs, but some things in a home are irreplaceable and insurance recovery and house repairs are a major hassle.

I've been thinking about this-- what's needed is a "charging crucible": a phone cradle made of ceramic or firebrick, with optional smoke alarm. Insurance companies might give them out for free.

 

[Neepman]

Sounds like a nuisance "payout to go away" case. if it were a serious one, you would see a few more zeros on the right.

 

[BurgDog]

Sounds like a nuisance "payout to go away" case. if it were a serious one, you would see a few more zeros on the right.

State Farm is not playing games, they just want to be reimbursed for the claim payment they made for a house fire that was determined by them and some fire investigator to be Apple's fault. Home owner wants his deductible back.

 

[MH01]

Stop trying to make it happen, it’s not going to happen.

The iPhone 4s has been and gone for a long time and didn’t cause any widepread issues.

It's not like batteries are done in batches.... seriously drop this agenda that people are comparing any iPhone device to what happened to note 7.

There have always been isolated issues with all phones that use batteries . So , to yourself stop trying to make it happen.....there are no conspiracy theories that any iPhone is compared to note 7 battery issues, just people's comprehension ability to find key words and twist what was written.

Especially as the very next sentence after the one you quoted , states exactly what you wrote! Please stop !

 

[kdarling]

A claim for only $75000? ...

Sounds like a nuisance "payout to go away" case. if it were a serious one, you would see a few more zeros on the right.

To all those mentioning that $75,000 seems low, it's just the way it's reported...

No, sues "for over" $75,000 is coded language. It's a Federal case, and the minimum amount you can sue for is $75,000. The actual amount is not known, but could be much higher. Journalists use this trick all the time when the actual amount is being kept confidential.

So the amount could be a quarter , half, or a million dollars or more. Depends on the house and its contents. Also, this case is between a citizen of Wisconsin and Apple in California.

The law involved is:

28 U.S. Code § 1332 - Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs

(a)The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between—
(1) citizens of different States;

( a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of (the) State ... (in) which it has been incorporated ...)