Strohn v. Xcel Energy Inc.

Background

Susan F. Strohn sued Xcel Energy Inc., Northern States Power Company, Northern States Power Company-Minnesota, Northern States Power Company-Wisconsin, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., XPO Logistics, Inc., Garan, LLC, and Ploog Electric, Inc. She sued individually, as special administrator of Steven C. Strohn’s estate, and as trustee for his next of kin.

The complaint alleged that the Strohns purchased an electric range for their cabin in Le Sueur County, Minnesota. During installation, an existing gas stove was removed, but the gas line allegedly was not capped, sealed, closed, or otherwise neutralized. The gas line was hidden by the new electric stove. Ploog later installed an electrical outlet near the gas line and allegedly did not discover or neutralize it. A fire broke out at the cabin on May 20, 2017. Steven Strohn and his mother, Joann L. Strohn, were severely burned and later died from their injuries. The complaint attributed the fire to a natural-gas leak from the uncapped line.

The complaint asserted wrongful death, negligence, strict-liability claims for design defect, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, and post-sale failure to warn, a non-product-liability failure-to-warn claim, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, and a survival claim based in part on Steven Strohn’s alleged predeath pain and suffering.

Motion and Analysis

Northern States Power Company, referred to as NSP, moved for partial dismissal under the rule requiring a complaint to allege enough facts to state a plausible claim. Home Depot, XPO, and Garan joined the motion as to the survival claim.

Proper defendants. NSP represented that it was the only entity that provided natural gas to Minnesota residents and that it was the proper defendant. It represented that Xcel Energy Inc. was a holding company that did not provide natural-gas services, that Northern States Power Company-Wisconsin did not provide natural gas to Minnesota residents, and that Northern States Power Company and Northern States Power Company-Minnesota were not actual corporate entities. The court found that discovery was unnecessary to resolve the issue based on NSP’s representations. It dismissed Xcel Energy Inc., Northern States Power Company, and Northern States Power Company-Wisconsin. It renamed Northern States Power Company-Minnesota as Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation doing business as Xcel Energy. The court stated that it would allow amendment and could impose sanctions if a dismissed entity later proved to have been properly named.

Survival claim. Minnesota law provides that a personal-injury cause of action dies with the injured person, while Nebraska law recognizes a separate claim for predeath pain and suffering. The plaintiff argued that Nebraska law should apply because the Strohns were Nebraska residents. The court conducted Minnesota’s choice-of-law analysis because the parties agreed that the difference between Minnesota and Nebraska law could determine the outcome.

The court concluded that Minnesota had significant contacts with the dispute: NSP was a Minnesota company, the gas was provided to a Minnesota cabin, and the alleged injuries and property damage occurred in Minnesota. Nebraska’s principal connection was that the Strohns lived there when the accident occurred. The court also concluded that applying Minnesota law would not leave the plaintiff without possible compensation because she could still pursue damages for her own injuries and those of the estate. The court therefore applied Minnesota law and dismissed the survival claim.

Strict-liability claims. Under the Minnesota rule discussed by the court, a public gas distributor cannot be held strictly liable for damages from selling and distributing gas unless it had exclusive control over the instrumentality that caused the harm. The complaint identified the gas line as the instrumentality causing the fire but alleged that the Strohns and other defendants had access to it. Because the complaint did not plausibly allege NSP’s exclusive control of the gas line, the court dismissed the strict-liability claims for design defect, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, and post-sale failure to warn.

Implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. The court explained that this warranty applies when a seller has reason to know of a buyer’s particular purpose and knows that the buyer is relying on the seller’s skill or judgment to provide suitable goods. The complaint alleged that the gas was intended for its ordinary purpose—fueling a gas stove—not for a specific use peculiar to the buyers. The court therefore dismissed the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose claim.

Disposition

The court denied the request to amend the complaint, finding that the dismissed claims were not legally tenable and that repleading would not change that result. It granted NSP’s motion for partial dismissal, dismissed Xcel Energy Inc., Northern States Power Company, and Northern States Power Company-Wisconsin, and renamed Northern States Power Company-Minnesota as Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation doing business as Xcel Energy. The court stated that the plaintiff could proceed with her remaining claims against NSP and the other defendants. The order was signed by Judge David S. Doty.