Berkley Regional Insurance Company v. Shenzhenshi Yishengda Dianzi Youxian…

Background

Berkley Regional Insurance Company insured BI Worldwide. In November 2018, a BI Worldwide employee bought a replacement cell-phone battery through Amazon’s online marketplace from Shenzhenshi Yishengda Dianzi Youxian Gongsi, doing business as Yishda. The employee’s phone later caught fire and damaged BI Worldwide’s office. Berkley paid BI Worldwide more than $3 million under the insurance policy.

Berkley brought a products-liability action against the battery’s manufacturer and later added Amazon and Shenzhen Maxpower Technology Co., Ltd. Amazon moved for summary judgment, arguing that it could not be strictly liable for a product it did not manufacture or sell. On January 24, 2023, the court granted Amazon’s motion, ruling under Minnesota law that strict products liability applies only to manufacturers and sellers of defective products. The court also denied Berkley’s request to ask the Minnesota Supreme Court to decide whether Amazon could be liable for a defective product sold by a third-party merchant when the manufacturer is unavailable or cannot satisfy a judgment.

Request for Immediate Appeal

Berkley moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) to certify the earlier order for an interlocutory appeal, meaning an appeal before the case has ended. To obtain certification, Berkley had to show a controlling legal question, substantial grounds for disagreement about that question, and that an immediate appeal would materially advance the end of the litigation.

The court held that Berkley did not satisfy any of those requirements. First, the proposed question depended on whether Shenzhen was unavailable or unable to satisfy a judgment, but Berkley was still attempting to serve Shenzhen. The court therefore found that an appellate decision could be speculative and could become unnecessary through further litigation.

Second, although neither the Eighth Circuit nor the Minnesota Supreme Court had addressed the question, Berkley did not provide Minnesota cases, statutes, or rules showing a substantial disagreement about Minnesota law. The court found that cases from other states and federal courts applying other law did not establish the required disagreement.

Third, the court concluded that an appeal could delay and increase the expense of the case, particularly because the Eighth Circuit would be no better positioned than the district court to decide the unsettled state-law question. The court also noted that the Eighth Circuit might affirm the earlier ruling. The court denied Berkley’s Motion to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal.

Request to Stay the Case

Berkley also asked the court to stay, or pause, the proceedings indefinitely until Shenzhen was served. Berkley attributed delays in service through the Hague Convention to the COVID-19 pandemic. The court explained that the party seeking a stay must show the specific hardship or unfairness that would result from continuing the case.

The court found that Berkley had not shown the need for an indefinite stay. Berkley had nearly two years to complete service, and the Hague Convention provides alternative methods that may be available. Berkley did not explain why those alternatives could not be used here. The court therefore denied the request for a stay.

Disposition

The court’s final order states that Berkley’s Motion to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal and to Stay Certain Proceedings is DENIED. The opinion is signed by United States District Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright.