The Amazon logo is displayed on a wooden podium with a city skyline in the background.
ST. PAUL, Minn. – Why guess, a federal appeals court is wondering about a judge who predicted how the Minnesota Supreme Court would handle a property damage lawsuit instead of asking it.
Federal courts often certify questions of state law to state supreme courts but that didn’t happen in an insurance company’s lawsuit against Amazon over a battery purchased from the retailer from a third-party vendor.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit this week said the state Supreme Court should have handled the question of whether Amazon could be held liable for the battery bursting into flames and causing $3.8 million of damage to an office.
It’s a question not yet addressed by courts in the state, but Judge Wilhelmina Wright made a so-called “Erie guess” that online marketplaces are not strictly liable when they fulfill orders for third parties. Berkeley Regional Insurance Company appealed to have the question certified to the state Supreme Court.
“(I)n this case, rather than take a shot in the dark, ‘the better practice’ is to have it weigh in first,” Judge David Stras wrote.
The Minnesota Supreme Court is made up entirely of Democratic justices, who are usually seen as more favorable to plaintiffs. A decision against Amazon would it open it to liability for all products sold on its platform, like the phone battery Rochelle Zappa bought from a Chinese company named Yishda.
She was working at Berkeley Technology Underwriters two weeks after buying the battery when it “fizzled, sparked and then burst into flames” while charging, the Eighth Circuit ruling said. Smoke filled the office, but the fire caused $3,881,280 in damage that Berkeley Regional had to pay.
It sued Amazon, Yishda and the manufacturer of the battery in state court to recoup that money. Once Amazon removed the case to federal court, Berkeley Regional dropped claims against everyone but Amazon.
Minnesota courts often consult the Restatement (Third) of Torts, which offers “no clear answer” to the question of Amazon’s liability, Stras said. Other courts around the country have split on the issue.
Stras cited decisions against Amazon in California, New York and Wisconsin while noting wins in Texas and Maryland.
“The point is that we would be wading into murky waters if we tried to guess what the Minnesota Supreme Court would do,” Stras wrote.
“Even if we happened to guess right, there are other reasons to let it lead the way. For once, whether online marketplaces are strictly liable for third-party products they offer is an issue that is likely to ‘recur.’
“It is, in short, a question of widespread importance that affects not only Amazon, but the millions of Minnesotans who buy products online every year. It is also one that may escape state-court review, just like this case did, given the interstate (or even global) nature of these transactions. Certification locks in an answer.”
