Case 1:20-cv-O3287-ELH Document 1 Filed 11/12/20 Page 1 of 10
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
`
`NORTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`ELECTRIC INSURANCE COMPANY
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`75 SAM FONZO DRIVE
`
`BEVERLY, MA 01915
`
`and
`
`SHEILA ROSS
`770 FAIRVIEW AVENUE, UNIT C
`ANNAPOLIS MD 21403
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.
`
`1 INFINITE LOOP
`
`MS: 38—3TX
`
`CUPERTINO, CA 95014
`
`
`
`Defendant
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiffs, Electric Insurance Company and Sheila Ross (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), by and
`
`through their attorneys, Roderick R. Barnes and Rollins, Smalkin, Richards & Mackie, LLC,
`
`hereby submit their Complaint and Jury Demand against Defendant, Apple Inc., and in support
`
`thereof aver as follows:
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff, Electric Insurance Company (“Electric”) is a corporation organized and
`
`existing under the laws ofthe State of Massachusetts, with its principal place of business located
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-O3287-ELH Document 1 Filed 11/12/20 Page 2 of 10
`
`at 75 Sam Fonzo Drive, Beverly, MA 01915. At all times relevant hereto, Electric was duly
`
`authorized to engage in the business of insurance in Maryland.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff, Sheila Ross (“Ross”) is an individual who resides at 770 Fairview
`
`Avenue, Unit C, Annapolis, MD 21403 (the “subject property”). Ross’s residence is a
`
`Condominium Unit within the Severn House Condominium.
`
`3.
`
`At all times relevant hereto, Electric provided property insurance to Ross in
`
`connection with her Condominium Unit, under a policy of insurance that was in full force and
`
`effect on all relevant dates, and at all relevant times.
`
`4.
`
`As a result of a fire that occurred on or about November 24, 2017 at the Severn
`
`House properties, a claim was made on said insurance policy and, upon payment, Electric became
`
`subrogated to certain recovery rights and interests of Ross for monies paid thereunder, including
`
`the claims giving rise to the within cause of action. Electric’s insurance policy did not cover all
`
`ofRoss’s losses arising out of the fire including the claims giving rise to the within cause of action.
`
`5.
`
`At all times relevant hereto, Defendant, Apple Inc. (“Apple” or “Defendant”), upon
`
`information and belief, was and is a California corporation with its principal place of business
`
`located at 1 Infinite Loop, MS: 38—3TX, Cupertino, CA. Apple’s registered agent for service of
`
`process is CT Corporation System, 818 W 7th Street, Suite 930, Los Angeles, CA 95014.
`
`6.
`
`Defendant is in the business of designing, manufacturing, testing,
`
`inspecting,
`
`assembling, marketing, selling, distributing, programming and/or updating laptop computers, and
`
`component parts, including the Apple laptop (the “subject computer”) at issue in the instant case.
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-O3287-ELH Document 1 Filed 11/12/20 Page 3 of 10
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`7.
`
`This action is commenced in the United States District Court for the District of
`
`Maryland pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as there is diversity of citizenship between each of the
`
`Plaintiffs and the Defendant and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00.
`
`8.
`
`Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § l391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving
`
`rise to the claims occurred in this district and a substantial part of the property that is the subject
`
`of this action is situated in this district.
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat the allegations set forth in the prior paragraphs of this Complaint as
`
`though they were set forth at length herein.
`
`10.
`
`Prior to November 24, 2017, Defendant designed, manufactured, tested, inspected,
`
`assembled, marketed, sold, distributed, programmed, updated, and placed into the stream of
`
`commerce the subject computer that was equipped with an electrical system, battery system
`
`containing lithium—ion batteries, as well as a software system that was capable of being remotely
`
`updated by Defendant even after the date of purchase.
`
`11.
`
`Prior to November 24, 2017, Ross, the owner of the subject computer and resident
`
`of the Severn House Condominium, purchased the subject computer.
`
`12.
`
`Prior to November 24, 2017, the subject computer had the original operating system
`
`in place, as well as expected authorized updates downloaded onto the computer.
`
`13.
`
`Prior to November 24, 2017, Ross operated and used the subject computer in a
`
`foreseeable, normal, ordinary, and intended manner.
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-O3287-ELH Document 1 Filed 11/12/20 Page 4 of 10
`
`14.
`
`On or about November 24, 2017, a fire erupted at the subject property as a direct
`
`result of an overheating event internal to the battery system in the subj ect computer.
`
`15.
`
`Prior to the fire, the subject computer had not been modified, changed, altered,
`
`misused or abused by Ross in any way beyond What was authorized, provided or anticipated by
`
`Defendant after it had placed the subject computer into the stream of commerce.
`
`16.
`
`The fire caused extensive damage to Ross’ real and personal property, and caused
`
`other consequential and incidental damages including clean—up costs, repair, and other associated
`
`expenses and hardship besides, for some of which Electric was compelled to reimburse Ross.
`
`17.
`
`As a result of the aforementioned fire, Plaintiffs sustained damages in an amount
`
`well in excess of $75,000.
`
`COUNT I — STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY
`
`18.
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding averrnents as though the same
`
`were set forth at length herein.
`
`19.
`
`Defendant
`
`is engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing,
`
`testing,
`
`inspecting, assembling, marketing, selling, distributing, programming and/or updating laptop
`
`computers (where each is equipped with an operating system and software that can be updated
`
`remotely after purchase).
`
`20.
`
`Furthermore, Defendant specifically designed, manufactured, tested, inspected,
`
`assembled, marketed, sold, distributed, programmed, updated and placed into the stream of
`
`commerce the subject computer at issue in this case, which was itself equipped with an operating
`
`system and software that can be updated remotely after purchase.
`
`21.
`
`The subject computer was not improperly modified, changed, altered, misused, or
`
`abused after Defendant placed the product into the stream of commerce.
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-O3287-ELH Document 1 Filed 11/12/20 Page 5 of 10
`
`22.
`
`Defendant knew, and intended,
`
`that the subject computer would be used by
`
`members of the general public, and furthermore knew of the specific uses, purposes and
`
`requirements for which said product would be utilized, including that Defendant intended to
`
`authorize, facilitate and provide necessary future updates for the operating system and software
`
`installed on the computer that might affect the operation of the subject computer.
`
`23.
`
`Defendant designed, manufactured, tested, inspected, assembled, marketed, sold,
`
`distributed, programmed, updated, and placed into the stream of commerce the subject computer
`
`in a defective and unreasonably dangerous condition, which ultimately led to a catastrophic failure
`
`and/or malfunction.
`
`24.
`
`Defendant knew, or should have known, that the computer would, and did, reach
`
`Ross without substantial change in the condition in which it was originally selected and sold.
`
`25.
`
`The subject computer was not altered in any manner after the product originally left
`
`the possession of Defendant (other than as authorized, recommended and/or facilitated by
`
`Defendant) that caused or contributed to the fire.
`
`26.
`
`Ross operated the computer in a foreseeable, normal, ordinary and intended manner
`
`at all relevant times.
`
`27.
`
`The fire and its resulting property damage were caused by the defective and
`
`unreasonably dangerous condition of the subject product at the time it left the hands of Defendant,
`
`including design defects, manufacturing defects, programming defects, and improper warnings
`
`and instructions.
`
`28.
`
`The fire and its resulting property damage were caused by the defective and
`
`unreasonably dangerous condition ofthe product, including design defects, manufacturing defects,
`
`programming defects, and improper warnings and instructions.
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-O3287-ELH Document 1 Filed 11/12/20 Page 6 of 10
`
`29.
`
`The aforementioned defects, and/0r unreasonably dangerous conditions, existed at
`
`the time Defendant placed the subject computer into the stream of commerce and were foreseeable
`
`then; as well as after when Defendant may have facilitated the updating of the subject computer’s
`
`operating system and software.
`
`30.
`
`The subject computer was dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be
`
`contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it, with the ordinary knowledge common
`
`to the community of its characteristics.
`
`31.
`
`The probability of injury times the gravity of injury under the design of the subject
`
`computer was and is more than the cost of an alternative reasonable design plus the diminished
`
`utility resulting from modifying the design.
`
`32.
`
`Common experience teaches that the fire would not have occurred in the subject
`
`computer in the absence of such a defective and unreasonably dangerous condition.
`
`33.
`
`The foreseeable risks associated with the design of the subject computer exceed all
`
`benefits.
`
`34.
`
`The defective and unreasonably dangerous conditions of the subject computer were
`
`direct and proximate causes of the damages sustained by Plaintiffs.
`
`35.
`
`The defective and unreasonably dangerous conditions of the subject computer
`
`proximately caused a fire to occur at the subject property, which resulted in damages to Plaintiffs;
`
`thus, Defendant is strictly liable under the common law and statutory products liability laws of
`
`Maryland, Section 402A of the Restatement (2d) of Torts; and/or Restatement (3 d) of Torts.
`
`36.
`
`For these reasons, Defendant is strictly liable to Plaintiffs as a result of the
`
`aforementioned fire wherein Plaintiffs sustained damages in an amount well in excess $75,000.
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-O3287-ELH Document 1 Filed 11/12/20 Page 7 of 10
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request judgment against Defendant in an amount
`
`well in excess of $75,000 plus costs incident to this suit, delay damages, and such other relief as
`
`this Honorable Court may deem appropriate under the circumstances.
`
`COUNT II - NEGLIGENCE
`
`37.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat the allegations set forth in the prior paragraphs of this Complaint
`
`as though they were set forth at length herein.
`
`38.
`
`Defendant owed a duty of reasonable care to purchasers and users and the like with
`
`regard to the designing, manufacturing,
`
`testing,
`
`inspecting, assembling, marketing, selling,
`
`distributing, programming, updating, and placing into the stream of commerce the subject
`
`computer; and breached said duty.
`
`39.
`
`Defendant knew, and intended,
`
`that the subject computer would be used by
`
`members of the general public, and furthermore knew of the specific uses, purposes and
`
`requirements for which said product would be utilized, including that Defendant intended to
`
`authorize, facilitate and provide necessary future updates for the operating system and software
`
`installed on the computer that might affect the operation of the subject computer.
`
`40. When the subject computer was distributed and sold, Defendant was aware that the
`
`subject computer could be updated remotely with authorized software and operating system
`
`updates, and it is likely that Defendant intended to facilitate such updates and in fact did facilitate
`
`such programming updates.
`
`41.
`
`The aforementioned damages were the direct and proximate result ofthe negligence
`
`and careless conduct and/or acts or omissions of Defendant, by and through its employees, agents,
`
`technicians, vendors, subcontractors, suppliers and/or servants, more specifically failing to
`
`exercise reasonable care described as follows:
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-O3287-ELH Document 1 Filed 11/12/20 Page 8 of 10
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`0.
`
`d.
`
`6.
`
`f.
`
`inspect,
`test,
`carelessly and negligently failing to design, manufacture,
`assemble, market, sell, distribute, program, update and/or place into the
`stream of commerce a properly functioning and defect—free computer,
`which after
`reasonable
`and foreseeable use malfunctioned and/or
`
`catastrophically failed;
`
`carelessly and negligently failing to properly design, manufacture, test,
`inspect, assemble, market, sell, distribute, program, update and/or place into
`the stream of commerce the subject computer free from defects, including
`but not limited to batteries and a battery system capable of functioning in a
`safe and appropriate manner - originally, as well as after Defendant may
`have facilitated authorized updates to the operating system and software of
`the subject computer;
`
`carelessly and negligently failing to properly determine that the computer,
`including its component parts, were not in a safe condition, and free of all
`material defects, including but not limited to batteries and a battery system
`capable of functioning in a safe and appropriate manner — originally, as well
`as after Defendant may have facilitated authorized updates to the operating
`system and software of the subject computer;
`
`carelessly and negligently designing, manufacturing, testing, inspecting,
`assembling, marketing, selling, distributing, programing, updating and/or
`placing into the stream of commerce the subject computer when it knew, or
`should have known, that the product was unsafe and unfit for its intended
`use, including but not limited to batteries and a battery system that was
`unsafe and unfit — originally and after Defendant may have facilitated
`authorized updates to the operating system and software of the subject
`computer;
`
`carelessly and negligently designing, manufacturing, testing, inspecting,
`assembling, marketing, selling, distributing, programing, updating and/or
`placing into the stream of commerce the subject computer when Defendant
`knew, or should have known, that the product would be inadequate for the
`reasons for which it was purchased — originally and after Defendant may
`have facilitated authorized updates to the operating system and software of
`the subject computer;
`
`carelessly and negligently designing, manufacturing, testing, inspecting,
`assembling, marketing, selling, distributing, programing, updating and/or
`placing into the stream of commerce the subject computer that had
`unreasonably dangerous electrical components (and/or programming as to
`the use of such components) that caused the product to catastrophically fail
`and/or malfunction — originally and after Defendant may have facilitated
`authorized updates to the operating system and software of the subject
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-O3287-ELH Document 1 Filed 11/12/20 Page 9 of 10
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`k.
`
`1.
`
`m.
`
`carelessly and negligently designing, manufacturing, testing, inspecting,
`assembling, marketing, selling, distributing, programing, updating and/or
`placing into the stream of commerce the subject computer that had
`um‘easonably dangerous battery components (and/or programming as to the
`use of such components) that caused the product to catastrophically fail
`and/or malfunction — originally and after Defendant may have facilitated
`authorized updates to the operating system and software of the subject
`computer;
`
`carelessly and negligently designing, manufacturing, testing, inspecting,
`assembling, marketing, selling, distributing, programing, updating and/or
`placing into the stream of commerce a dangerous and defective computer
`that Defendant knew, or reasonably should have known, exposed users to
`an unreasonable risk of harm - originally and after Defendant may have
`facilitated authorized updates to the operating system and software of the
`subject computer;
`
`carelessly and negligently failing to properly and adequately design,
`manufacture,
`test,
`inspect, assemble, market, sell, distribute, program
`and/or update the subject computer prior to introducing the product into the
`stream of commerce and/or after facilitating authorized updates to the
`operating system and software of the subject computer and altering the
`functioning of the computer, including but not limited to the battery system;
`
`carelessly and negligently failing to provide adequate and sufficient
`warnings and instructions with respect to the product, which rendered it
`defective and unreasonably dangerous — originally and after Defendant may
`have facilitated authorized updates to the operating system and software of
`the subject computer;
`
`carelessly and negligently authorizing, recommending, programming and
`facilitating updates to the operating system and software so as to allow them
`to be downloaded to the subject computer which altered the functioning of
`the computer, including but not limited to the battery system;
`
`carelessly and negligently authorizing, recommending, programming and
`facilitating updates to the operating system and software that Defendant
`knew, or should have known, rendered the product unsafe and unfit for its
`intended use;
`
`carelessly and negligently authorizing, recommending, programming and
`facilitating updates to the operating system and software that Defendant
`knew, or should have known, were not free from defects and were not
`compatible with the computer and/or battery system already installed on the
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-O3287-ELH Document 1 Filed 11/12/20 Page 10 of 10
`
`n.
`
`carelessly and negligently failing to provide adequate and sufficient
`warnings and instructions with respect to the authorized updates to the
`operating system and software and the impact on the subject computer,
`which rendered it defective and unreasonably dangerous at the time of sale.
`
`42.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s aforementioned negligent and
`
`careless actions and/0r omissions, the aforementioned fire occurred, and Defendant is liable to
`
`Plaintiffs for the damages sustained.
`
`43.
`
`For these reasons, Defendant is liable to Plaintiffs as a result of the aforementioned
`
`fire, for which Plaintiffs each sustained damages in an amount well in excess of $75,000.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request judgment against Defendant in an amount
`
`well in excess of $75,000, plus costs incident to this suit, delay damages, and for such other relief
`
`as this Honorable Court may deem appropriate under the circumstances.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
`
`ROLLINS, SMALKIN, RICHARDS & MACKIE, LLC
`
`
`
`
`Ruerick R. ar es, Esquire
`:1deral Bar No. 24795
`Rollins, Smalkin, Richards & Mackie, LLC
`300 E. Lombard Street, Suite 900
`
`Baltimore, MD 21202
`410—727—2443
`
`410—727—4497 (fax)
`rbarnes (QI‘SI‘H’LCOIH
`
`Dated:
`
`