In State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. a/s/o Miriam Perez v. Pentair Flow Techs., LLC No. 7:21-CV-6679, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36875, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (District Court) reconsidered whether the plaintiff established sufficient circumstantial evidence to move forward with its product liability claim against the defendant. The District Court, again, denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the circumstantial evidence presented by the plaintiff satisfied the two-prong test for establishing products liability through a circumstantial approach.

The plaintiff, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (Insurer), brought this subrogation action after its insured, Miriam Perez (Perez), sustained a fire loss at her home. The fire originated in the area of a Simer Submersible Utility Pump in the basement of the home. Perez made a claim to the Insurer, who investigated the origin and cause of the fire. After paying Perez over $285,000 for the damage, the Insurer filed a subrogation lawsuit against the defendant, the designer and manufacturer of the utility pump. The Insurer asserted a claim under New York’s strict product liability law. The Insurer relied on statements from witnesses of the pump emitting sparks, and evidence of arcing within the pump in support of its product defect claim. The defendant removed the case to federal court, and after extensive discovery, filed a motion for summary judgment.