
New York has joined a growing number of jurisdictions ruling that Amazon can be liable for defective products sold by third-party sellers on its website. The rationale for New York’s recent ruling is based upon Amazon’s level of control over the sale of the product. There are three ways which products are sold on Amazon: (1) Amazon sells, processes and ships the product; (2) a third-party sells, processes and ships the product (i.e., Amazon does not take possession of the product); and (3) a third-party sells the product and Amazon “fulfills” the order by storing, processing and shipping the product through its “Fulfillment by Amazon” (FBA) logistical program. The FBA program has been the lynchpin in many of the recent decisions decided against Amazon, including a recent New York case. Under the FBA, the sellers store their inventory at Amazon’s warehouse until the product is purchased, at which time Amazon retrieves the product from its warehouse shelf, packages it, and ships it to the consumer. Accordingly, Amazon has significant control over products “fulfilled” through the FBA.
In State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Amazon.com Servs., Inc., 2020 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 10352, 2020 NY Slip Op 20326 (Sup. Ct.), a subrogating carrier filed a product liability lawsuit against Amazon.com Services, Inc. (Amazon) for property damages resulting from a fire caused by a defective thermostat ordered through Amazon, which was fulfilled through the FBA. Amazon filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that it could not be liable for subrogation damages because Amazon never took title of the thermostat, but rather merely provided “temporary storage” for the product in its warehouse. The Supreme Court of Onondaga County, New York disagreed.
In New York, anyone in the distribution chain of a defective product may be held liable, including retailers and distributors. The court in State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. ruled that Amazon exercised “sufficient control” over the product through the FBA program and could face liability as a retailer or distributor. As noted by the court, Amazon physically stored the product on the shelf in its warehouse, Amazon maintained possession of the product, and Amazon packaged and shipped it to the consumer. Additionally, Amazon’s contract with the seller includes an indemnification clause, whereby Amazon can seek indemnification from the seller for claims arising from defective products sold on the website.
The tide has begun to shift against Amazon in the product liability landscape. However, it is significant to note that the State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. decision has limited value as controlling precedent in New York because a New York trial court, rather than an appellate court, issued the decision. In addition, it is important to note that there are currently two contrary federal decisions in New York in favor of Amazon, both of which Amazon relied upon in support of its motion for summary judgment. See Eberhart v. Amazon.com, Inc. 325 F.Supp.3d 393 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (holding that Amazon was outside the chain of distribution because it never took title of the product and, therefore, could not be subject to product liability); Phila. Indem. Ins. Co. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 425 F.2d Supp.3d 158 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (relying upon Eberhart and holding that Amazon was not a seller because it never took title to the product and, thus, was outside the chain of distribution). As Amazon continues to argue that it is not a “seller” based upon the fine print in its third-party contracts, the courts are recognizing that Amazon has sufficient control over third-party products to hold them accountable for defects. As the court noted in State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.: “Amazon seeks to have all of the benefits of the traditional brick and mortar storefront without any of the responsibilities.”
The pandemic has caused Amazon’s sales to skyrocket and it is anticipated that e-commerce sales will continue to rise into the foreseeable future. The string of decisions against Amazon have all been decided within the past two years. Even though the tide has begun to shift against Amazon, it is anticipated that Amazon will continue to spar with insurance companies over defective product claims involving third-party sellers. Accordingly, subrogation professionals must strive to understand the recent favorable decisions regarding Amazon and the rationales for potential liability for third-party products, especially when they are “fulfilled” through the FBA.
Recent Posts
Categories
- Products Liability
- CPSC Recalls
- Subrogation
- Construction Defects
- New York
- Statute of Limitations-Repose
- Evidence
- Minnesota
- Experts – Daubert
- Maryland
- Jurisdiction
- Rhode Island
- CPSC Warning
- Experts - Reliability
- Podcast
- Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Workers' Compensation
- Uncategorized
- Negligence
- Contracts
- Cargo - Transportation
- Landlord-Tenant
- Sutton Doctrine
- Waiver of Subrogation
- Arbitration
- Texas
- Pennsylvania
- AIA Contracts
- Florida
- Economic Loss Rule
- Malpractice
- Wyoming
- Spoliation
- Tennessee
- Water Loss
- Indiana
- Michigan
- Comparative-Contributory Negligence
- Contribution-Apportionment
- Assignment
- Missouri
- Parties
- Public Policy
- Civil Procedure
- Arkansas
- New Jersey
- Res Judicata
- Product Liability
- Damages
- Damages – Personal Property
- Arizona
- Certificate of Merit
- Litigation
- West Virginia
- Oklahoma
- Georgia
- Limitation of Liability
- Builder's Risk
- Contractual Subrogation
- Equitable Subrogation
- Illinois
- Insurable Interest
- Mississippi
- Made Whole
- Delaware
- Settlement
- Subrogation – Equitable
- Construction
- Premises Liability
- Joint or Several Liability
- Montana
- Duty
- Privity
- New Mexico
- Right to Repair Act
- Massachusetts
- Landlord
- Tenant
- Building Code
- Causation
- Architects-Engineers
- California
- Condemnation
Tags
- Products Liability
- Subrogation
- New York
- Construction Defects
- Product Liability
- Circumstantial Evidence
- Evidence
- Malfunction Theory
- Podcast
- Minnesota
- Experts
- Subro Sessions
- Jurisdiction
- Maryland
- Texas
- Statute of Repose
- Jurisdiction - Personal
- Waiver of Subrogation
- Experts – Daubert
- Rhode Island
- Contracts
- CPSC Recalls; Products Liability
- Statute of Limitations - Accrual
- Negligence
- Landlord-Tenant
- Civil Procedure
- Pennsylvania
- Georgia
- Experts - Reliability
- Certificate of Merit
- Amazon-eBay
- Louisiana
- Made Whole
- Economic Loss Doctrine
- Florida
- Construction Contracts
- Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Illinois
- New Jersey
- Parties
- Experts – Qualifications
- Ohio
- Right to Repair Act
- Statute of Limitations - Tolling
- Contracts - Enforcement
- Indiana
- Sutton Doctrine
- Arizona
- West Virginia
- Design Defect
- Spoliation
- Water Damage
- Connecticut
- Evidence - Hearsay
- Damages
- Privity
- Condominiums
- Massachusetts
- Tennessee
- Statute of Limitations
- Limitation of Liability
- workers' compensation subrogation
- Apportionment
- Exculpatory Clause
- Expert Qualifications
- Arbitration
- Negligence – Duty
- Amazon
- Wisconsin
- Workers’ Compensation
- Public Policy
- Missouri
- Negligent Undertaking
- Statute of Limitations - Contractual
- Delaware
- Indemnification
- Architects-Engineers
- Loss of Use
- Vehicles
- Washington
- AIA Contract
- Warranty - Implied
- Res Judicata
- Settlement
- Statute of Limitations - Repose
- Improvement
- Michigan
- Malpractice
- Idaho
- Internet Sales
- Non-Party at Fault
- Spoliation – Fire Scene
- Gross Negligence
- Malfunction Theory; Design Defect
- Mississippi
- Statute of Limitations – Discovery Rule
- Independent Duty
- Cargo-Transportation
- Contribution
- Implied Warranty of Habitability
- Warranty - Construction
- North Carolina
- Utah
- Standing
- Comparative Fault
- Res Ipsa
- New Mexico
- Contracts - Formation
- Unconscionable
- Failure to Warn
- Manufacturing Defect
- Pleading
- Removal
- Entire Controversy Doctrine
- Motion to Intervene
- Subrogation; High-Net-Worth; Damages; Art; Cargo-Transportation; Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Nevada
- Virginia
- Products Liability – Risk-Utility
- Lithium-ion battery
- Burden of Proof
- Anti-Subrogation Rule; Wyoming; Landlord-Tenant; Sutton Doctrine
- New Hampshire
- Oklahoma
- Sanctions
- Builder’s Risk
- Contractual Subrogation
- Equitable Subrogation
- Insurable Interest
- Joint-Tortfeasors
- Arkansas
- Kentucky
- Daubert
- Fire - Cigarettes
- Colorado
- Causation
- Discovery-Sanctions
- Third Party
- Accepted Work
- Montana
- Independent Contractor
- Privilege
- Betterment
- Damages-Code Upgrades
- Insurance Coverage
- First Party Claims
- Forum-Venue
- Warranty – Express
- AIA Contracts
- Anti-Indemnity Statutes
- Products Liability - Foreseeability
- Discovery - Experts
- MCS-90
- Substantial Completion
- Reimbursement
- Assignment
- Counterclaim
- Products Liability; Malfunction Theory
- Economic Loss Rule
- Unfair Trade Practices
- Evidence – Probative Value
- Parties – Real Party in Interest
- Status of Repose
- Evidence - Public
- Construction Defects - Fixtures
- Subrogation – Equitable
- Additional Insured
- Trespass
- Contract
- COVID-19
- Incorporation by Reference
- Damages – Emotional Distress
- Oregon
- Products Liability; Mississippi
- Third Party Spoliation
- No-Fault Subrogation
- Food and Beverage
- Jury Instructions
- South Carolina
- California Court of Appeals Holds Subrogating Carrier Cannot Assert Claims of Its Suspended Insured
- Debt Collection
- Montreal Convention
- Medical Benefits
- Immunity
- Products Li
- Wyoming
- Release
- Liens
- Kansas
- California
- Condemnation
- Inverse Condemnation
Authors
Archives
- April 2025
- March 2025
- February 2025
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- December 2013
- August 2013
- May 2013
- February 2013