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

BANKERS STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY v. HANSGROHE, INC.

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-01552 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
District of Maryland
Date Filed: 
May 12 2014

COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Bankers Standard Insurance Company, as subrogee of David and Amy
Bosserman, by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby files this Complaint against
Defendant, Hansgrohe, Inc., and in support thereof avers as follows:

PARTIES
1. Plaintiff, Bankers Standard Insurance Company ("Bankers"), is a corporation duly
organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with its principal
place of business located at 436 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and at all times
material hereto, was authorized to do business in the State of Maryland as an insurance company.
2. Defendant, Hansgrohe, Inc. ("Hansgrohe"), is a corporation duly organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Georgia, with its principal place of business located at
1490 Bluegrass Lakes Parkway, Alpharetta, Georgia.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. The jurisdiction of this Court is based upon diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §1332. The matter in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds the sum of
$75,000.
4. Venue is proper in the District of Maryland under to 28 U.S.C. §1391 as the
events giving rise to the claims at issue occurred in this district.
FACTS
5. At all times material hereto, David and Amy Bosserman ("the Bossermans")
owned the real and personal property located at 5385 Morgans Point Drive, Oxford, Maryland
("the property").
6. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff Bankers provided insurance coverage to the
Bossermans with respect to the property.
7. Before October 17, 2012, Defendant Hansgrohe designed, manufactured,
distributed, supplied and/or sold plumbing materials, including a sink faucet valve that was
installed at the property ("the subject valve").
8. On or about October 17, 2012, the subject valve failed, allowing water to flood
the property (hereinafter "the subject water discharge").
9. The subject water discharge caused severe and extensive damage to the property.
10. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of its contract of insurance, Plaintiff Bankers
has made payments to the Bossermans in an amount in excess of $75,000.
11. As a result of the aforesaid payments, and pursuant to the contract of insurance
and by operation of law, Plaintiff Bankers is subrogated to the rights of the Bossermans against
all parties responsible for the occurrence of said damages.

COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE
12. Bankers incorporates by reference the allegations in the paragraphs above as
though fully set forth at length herein.
13. The failure of the subject valve and the consequent damage to the Bossermans'
property was caused by the negligence, carelessness and negligent omissions of Defendant
Hansgrohe, its agents, servants and/or employees acting within the course and scope of their
employment in:
(a) failing to properly and adequately design the subject valve;
(b) failing to properly and adequately manufacture the subject valve;
(c) using improper materials in the manufacture of the subject valve;
(d) failing to properly and adequately distribute, supply and/or sell the subject
valve;
(e) failing to provide proper and adequate warnings and/or instructions for the
subject valve;
(f) failing to provide proper and adequate safeguards to prevent the subject
valve from malfunctioning;
(g) causing or allowing the defectively designed subject valve to be placed in
the stream of commerce;
(h) causing or allowing the defectively manufactured subject valve to be
placed in the stream of commerce; and/or
(i) causing or allowing the subject valve to fail.
14. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiff Bankers sustained
damages as aforesaid, for which Defendant Hansgrohe is liable.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Bankers demands judgment against Defendant Hansgrohe for an
amount in excess of $75,000, together with interest and the costs of this action.

COUNT II - BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY
15. Plaintiff Bankers incorporates by reference the allegations in the paragraphs
above as though fully set forth at length herein.
16. Defendant Hansgrohe breached its implied warranty that the subject valve was
hazard-free and proper for the purposes for which it was intended.
17. Defendant Hansgrohe breached its implied warranty that the subject valve was of
good and merchantable quality.
18. Plaintiff Bankers' damages were caused by the aforesaid breaches of warranties
made by Defendant Hansgrohe.
19. Upon discovery of the aforesaid breaches and loss, Plaintiff Bankers gave prompt
and reasonable notice to Defendant Hansgrohe of same.
20. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid breaches of warranties, Plaintiff
Bankers sustained damages as aforesaid, for which Defendant Hansgrohe is liable.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Bankers demands judgment against Defendant Hansgrohe for an
amount in excess of $75,000, together with interests and the costs of this action.

COUNT III - STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY
21. Plaintiff Bankers incorporates by reference the allegations in the paragraphs
above as though fully set forth at length herein.
22. Defendant Hansgrohe designed, manufactured, distributed, supplied and/or sold
the subject valve in a defective and unreasonably dangerous condition which caused damages to
plaintiff as aforesaid and at the time of the incident the subject valve was substantially in the
same condition as of the time the subject valve left defendant's care, custody and control, for
which defendant is strictly liable pursuant to the Restatement (Second) of Torts §402A.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Bankers demands judgment against Defendant Hansgrohe for an
amount in excess of $75,000, together with interest and the costs of this action.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff respectfully requests a trial by jury in the above-captioned matter.

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.