Plaintiffs v. Jury Demanded

Transcription

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Joseph & Melody Konowitz Plaintiffs v. Jury Demanded Titeflex Corporation d/b/a Gastite Defendant Complaint Plaintiffs Joseph and Melody Konowitz bring this lawsuit timely against Defendant Titeflex Corporation, and allege the following: Parties 1. Plaintiffs Joe and Melody Konowitz are Tennessee citizens who reside in Crossville, Cumberland County, Tennessee. 2. Defendant Titeflex Corporation ( Titeflex ), is a Connecticut corporation with a principal place of business at 603 Hendee Street in Springfield, Massachusetts. This defendant may be served through its registered agent, CT Corporation System, at 800 South Gay Street, Suite 2021 in Knoxville, Tennessee. Jurisdiction and Venue 3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit because the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. See 28 U.S.C. 1332(a). 4. This Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant because it resides, transacts business, and/or committed one or more of the acts that give rise to Case 2:13-cv Document 1 Filed 01/22/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1 1/8

2 this lawsuit, in Tennessee. In other words, the defendant has purposefully availed itself of this forum such that it should reasonably anticipate proceedings against it here, and the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant is reasonable and comports with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. 5. Venue is proper in this district because this cause of action arose in Crossville, Cumberland County, Tennessee. See 28 U.S.C. 1391(a)(2). Factual Allegations 6. In the early morning hours of January 21, 2012, a fire occurred at the home of Joe and Melody Konowitz ( the Fire ). That home is located at 110 Northridge Drive in Crossville, Cumberland County, Tennessee. 7. The Konowitzes were home and awakened by the Fire. Fortunate though they were to escape, they did witness the damage the Fire ultimately caused to their home and personal effects. 8. Construction of the home was complete on or before May As part of its original construction, the home was outfitted with the defendant s product, Gastite CSST. 9. CSST stands for corrugated stainless steel tubing. It is an ultrathin, flexible piping used to transport natural gas within structures, including homes. It was developed as an alternative to the much thicker, more durable black iron pipe that has been used for more than a century. 10. It is well documented that CSST, including the Gastite version at issue here, can fail catastrophically in the presence of lightning. Its wall as thin as a few sheets of paper cannot withstand the discharge via arcing of the electrical energy that lightning induces to accumulate on the CSST itself. When such an arcing event Case 2:13-cv Document 1 Filed 01/22/13 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 2 2/8

3 occurs, the intense heat of the arc first perforates the ultrathin-walled CSST then ignites the natural gas escaping through that perforation. This literally produces a blowtorch. 11. This phenomenon explains why CSST has been the subject of one nationwide class action; 1 why it has been banned in certain jurisdictions; 2 why one of three major manufacturers stopped selling it last year; 3 why it was recently found to be a defective product by a Pennsylvania jury through a verdict of nearly $1 million a verdict affirmed on appeal four months ago; 4 and why the NFPA, the publisher of the National Fuel Fas Code, has the product currently under review It was this same phenomenon that caused the fire in the Konowitz home. The Gastite CSST was routed along the underside of the wooden floor trusses in the basement in a length of more than 30 feet. When a lightning storm occurred near the Konowitz home, the CSST became energized and arced to an adjacent brick wall in the basement. When that occurred, the resulting blowtorch ignited the nearby floor trusses and other combustibles CSST in that case was made by a different entity, but is practically identical to the Gastite CSST here). 5 Case 2:13-cv Document 1 Filed 01/22/13 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 3 3/8

4 13. This is a true and correct photograph of the Konowitz basement taken after the Fire, with the Gastite CSST in the foreground: 14. This is a true and correct photograph of the perforation (hole) in that CSST: Case 2:13-cv Document 1 Filed 01/22/13 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 4 4/8

5 15. The Konowitzes suffered the emotional trauma of escaping a Fire in their home in the middle of the night and of seeing damaged much of what they had accumulated over a lifetime together. 16. The Fire rendered the Konowitz home unlivable, necessitating provisional housing. 17. The property and provisional housing damages caused by the Fire have not yet been finalized, but will likely exceed $200,000. Count I Products Liability 18. Gastite CSST is a tangible object or good produced. 19. Gastite CSST is a product, as that term is defined by section (5) of the Tennessee Code. 20. Titeflex was the Gastite CSST manufacturer, as that term is defined by section (4) of the Tennessee Code. 21. Titeflex was also the apparent manufacturer of the Gastite CSST and all of its components Titeflex was also a Gastite CSST seller, as that term is defined by section (7) of the Tennessee Code. 23. The Gastite CSST failed to perform in a manner reasonably expected in light of its nature and intended function when it failed and caused the Fire. 6 See Travelers Indemnity Company v. Industrial Paper & Packaging Corp. No. 3:02-CV-491, 2006 WL at *8 (E.D. Tenn. December 18, 2006). Case 2:13-cv Document 1 Filed 01/22/13 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 5 5/8

6 24. The Gastite CSST in the Konowitz home had not been misused after its sale and prior to its failure. 25. The Gastite CSST failure was such that would not have occurred in the absence of a defect or unreasonably dangerous condition within that product. 26. The Gastite CSST was unreasonably dangerous and/or defective in that: a. it 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 as to its characteristics; and/or b. a reasonably prudent manufacturer would not have put it on the market assuming that manufacturer knew of CSST s dangerous condition. 27. That unreasonably dangerous condition and/or defect proximately caused the Fire and the damage to the Konowitzes, and to their home, and to their personal property, in violation of the Tennessee Products Liability Act of 1978, Tenn. Code Ann et seq. 28. Therefore, Titeflex is liable to the Konowitzes for all the aforementioned damages. Count II Negligence 29. Titeflex undertook and owed a duty to research, evaluate, develop, test, supply, and communicate warnings and information about and countermeasures to the effects of lightning on Gastite CSST. 30. Titeflex owed this duty to those foreseeably harmed by the failure to meet it, including the Konowitzes. Case 2:13-cv Document 1 Filed 01/22/13 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 6 6/8

7 31. Titeflex breached this duty by failing to: a. research, evaluate, and test the effects of lightning on Gastite CSST; b. research, evaluate, develop, test, supply, and communicate effective countermeasures to the effects of lightning on Gastite CSST; c. communicate effectively the effects of lightning on Gastite CSST particularly when compared to the (negligible) effects of lightning on black iron pipe; d. consult, consider, and follow the appropriate lightning and fire safety guides and authorities, including but not limited to NFPA 780, in the assessment of the hazards posed to end users by Gastite CSST; and/or e. otherwise exercise reasonable care in ways that discovery may disclose. 32. One or more of these breaches proximately caused the Fire and the damage to the Konowitzes, and to their home, and to their personal property. 33. Therefore, Titeflex is liable to the Konowitzes for all those damages. waived. Conditions Precedent 34. All conditions precedent to bringing this lawsuit have been performed or Relief Requested Wherefore, the Konowitzes respectfully request that they be awarded more than $200,000 in damages sustained as a result of the defendant s actionable conduct, including pre- and post-judgment interest, court costs, and any additional sums this Court deems appropriate. Case 2:13-cv Document 1 Filed 01/22/13 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 7 7/8

8 PLAINTIFFS DEMAND A TRIAL BY JURY Respectfully submitted, JENKINS & JENKINS By: Michael A. Durr (TBA 26746) 800 South Gay Street, Suite 2121 Knoxville, Tennessee Office: 865/ Direct: 865/ mdurr@j-jlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Joseph & Melody Konowitz Case 2:13-cv Document 1 Filed 01/22/13 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 8 8/8