Skip to Navigation
The Collaborative Clearinghouse for Lawsuits and Other Claims Against ACE Group Insurance Companies

BANKERS STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY v. ELECTROLUX NORTH AMERICA, INC. et al

ATTENTION: It is possible that this information may no longer be current and therefore may be inaccurate. The index contains both open and closed cases and is not a complete list of cases in which an ACE Insurance Group company is involved. This information is provided to give interested persons an idea of the issues disputed in the indexed cases. For a full understanding of a case, one should read the rest of the court file, including the response. For the most up-to-date and complete information on a case, visit www.pacer.gov or contact the clerk of the relevant court.

Case Number: 
1:14-cv-05047 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Northern District of Illinois
Date Filed: 
Jul 2 2014

COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Bankers Standard Insurance Company, as subrogee of Richard and Susan
Hybiak, by and through its undersigned attorneys, Cozen O'Connor, and for its Complaint
against Defendants Electrolux North America, Inc. and Electrolux Home Products, Inc., alleges
the following:

PARTIES
1. Plaintiff, Bankers Standard Insurance Company ("Bankers"), is a Pennsylvania
corporation duly licensed to do business in the State of Illinois, with its principal place of
business located at 436 Walnut Street, P. O. Box 1000, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19105.
2. At all times material herein, Richard and Susan Hybiak ("The Hybiaks") were the
owners and/or inhabitants of the property located at 335 Cedar Street, Park Ridge, Illinois 60068.
3. At all times material herein, the Hybiaks were insured through a policy of
insurance issued by the Bankers, policy number 267920578, which insured them against, inter
alia, damages to real and personal property, as well as additional living expenses, loss of use and
extra expense.
4. Defendant, Electrolux North America, Inc., is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of Delaware, with a principal place of business located at 10200 David
Taylor Drive, Charlotte, North Carolina, 28262. At all times material herein, Electrolux North
America, Inc., was engaged in the design, manufacture, assembly, sale and/or supply of clothes
dryers for the distribution in the United States.
5. Defendant, Electrolux Home Products, Inc., is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of Delaware, with a principal place of business located at 2715
Washington Road, Augusta, Georgia. At all times material herein, Electrolux Home Products,
Inc. was engaged in the design, manufacture, assembly, sale and/or supply of clothes dryers for
the distribution in the United States. For the remainder of the complaint, Electrolux North
America, Inc. and Electrolux Home Products, Inc. will be referred to collectively as
"Electrolux."

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6. The jurisdiction of this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as this
action is between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest
and costs, exceeds the sum of $75,000.00.
7. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391, as a substantial part
of the events giving rise to the claims at issue occurred within this District and Defendants,
Electrolux North America, Inc. and Electrolux Home Products, Inc. are subject to personal
jurisdiction within this District.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
8. On or about April 16, 2013, the Hybiaks were the owners of a Frigidaire gas
clothes dryer that was manufactured, designed, assembled and/or supplied by Electrolux.
9. The dryer was installed in the house located at 335 Cedar Street, Park Ridge,
Illinois 60068.
10. On April 16, 2013, a fire originated in the dryer due to the defective condition of
the Electrolux dryer, which fire caused extensive damage to the real and personal property of the
Hybiaks and caused them to sustain extra expenses.
11. At all times material herein, the Hybiaks used the Electrolux dryer for the use for
which it was intended, in the absence of any abuse and/or misuse.
12. As a result of the fire referred to above, and pursuant to the aforesaid policy of
insurance, Plaintiff has paid the Hybiaks the fair and reasonable cost of repairing and/or
replacing the damaged real and personal property, as well as the additional living and extra
expenses they incurred on account of the fire.
13. As a result of said payments, Bankers is both legally and equitably subrogated to
any and all claims that the insureds may have against the defendants.

COUNTI
NEGLIGENCE v. ELECTROLUX
14. Plaintiff incorporates by reference herein the averments in paragraphs 1 through
12 as though each were fully set forth at length herein.
15. The fire referred to above and consequent damage and destruction to the Hybiaks'
property was caused by the negligence, carelessness, gross negligence and negligent omissions
of the defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees in:
(a) improperly designing a dryer which allowed lint to come in contact with a
competent ignition source;
(b) designing a dryer that allows the lint from clothes to collect in areas within
the dryer cabinet, where it can then be ignited by the flame produced by
the burner assembly;
(c) designing a dryer that allows lint to collect in an area where it cannot be
cleaned by a user, and where the accumulated lint is potentially ignitable
by the flame from the burner assembly;
(d) failing to include appropriate and necessary warnings, including warnings
on the dryer cabinet that the interior cabinet must be professionally
cleaned every 18 months;
(e) failing to include warnings on the rear of the dryer cabinet that flexible
foil ducting should not be used as an exhaust duct;
(f) failing to include warnings in the dryer user manual that lint can
accumulate between the deflector and the rear heat diffuser, and about the
need to remove lint from this area; and
(g) supplying a defectively manufactured and/or designed product which it
knew or should have known subjected insureds' property to an
unreasonable risk of harm.
16. By reason of the aforesaid negligence, carelessness, gross negligence and
negligent omissions of defendants, the fire referred to in paragraph 9 took place and resulted in
damage and destruction to plaintiff's insureds' property.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Bankers Standard Insurance Company as subrogee of Richard
and Susan Hybiak, respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgment against Defendants
in the amount of or in excess of $154,295.16, plus costs and other relief that this Court deems
just.

COUNT n
PRODUCTS LIABILITY v. ELECTROLUX
17. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the averments in paragraphs 1 through 12 as
though each were fully set forth at length herein.
18. Defendants, Electrolux, by and through their agents, employees, and/or servants,
are the manufacturer, designer, assembler and seller of the subject dryer, and as such, is strictly
liable for any defects or unreasonably dangerous conditions with respect to the subject dryer.
19. The subject dryer was defective and in an unreasonably dangerous condition at
the time it left the Electrolux's possession and control insofar as it:
(a) was defectively designed to allow lint to come in contact with a competent
ignition source;
(b) was defectively designed to allow the lint from clothes to collect in areas
within the dryer cabinet, where it can then be ignited by the flame
produced by the burner assembly;
(c) was defectively designed to allow lint to collect in an area where it cannot
be cleaned by a user, and where the accumulated lint is potentially
ignitable by the flame from the burner assembly;
(d) failed to include appropriate and necessary warnings, including warnings
on the dryer cabinet that the interior cabinet must be professionally
cleaned every 18 months;
(e) failed to include warnings on the rear of the dryer cabinet that flexible foil
ducting should not be used as an exhaust duct;
(f) failed to include warnings in the dryer user manual that lint can
accumulate between the deflector and the rear heat diffuser, and about the
need to remove lint from this area; and
(g) was a defectively manufactured and/or designed product that subjected
insureds' property to a foreseeable unreasonable risk of harm.
20. The subject dryer reached the Hybiaks without substantial alteration or change in
its condition.
21. At the time of the occurrence, the subject dryer was being used in a reasonably
expectable and anticipated way, as was intended by Defendants, Electrolux, and all reasonable
consumers.
22. The defective and unreasonably dangerous condition and subsequent
malfunctioning of the subject dryer was the direct and proximate cause of the real and personal
property damages sustained by the Hybiaks.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Bankers Standard Insurance Company as subrogee of Richard
and Susan Hybiak, respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgment against Defendants
in the amount of or in excess of $154,295.16, plus costs and other relief that this Court deems
just.

COUNT m
BREACH OF WARRANTIES v. ELECTROLUX
23. Plaintiff incorporates by reference herein the averments in paragraphs 1 through
12 as though each were fully set forth at length herein.
24. In designing, manufacturing, assembling and/or selling the subject dryer,
Defendants, Electrolux, either expressly and/or impliedly warranted that the subject dryer would
be merchantable and/or fit for a particular purpose.
25. Defendants, Electrolux, breached the warranties of merchantability and/or fitness
for a particular purpose as heretofore set forth in Counts I and II of the Complaint, which are
incorporated herein as though fully set forth.
26. Plaintiff has notified Electrolux North America, Inc. and Electrolux Home
Products, Inc. of this fire and requested that Defendants, Electrolux, honor their warranty, but
Defendants, Electrolux, have not done so.
27. The breaches of warranty by Defendants, Electrolux, were the direct and
proximate cause of the real and personal property damages sustained by the Hybiaks.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Bankers Standard Insurance Company as subrogee of Richard
and Susan Hybiak, respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgment against Defendants
in the amount of or in excess of $154,295.16, plus costs and other relief that this Court deems
just.

The provided text is an excerpt from a document filed in this case. For a full understanding of the case, one should read the complete court file, including the response.

Javascript is required to view this map.