
On June 29, 2022, in N.J. Mfrs. Ins. Grp. a/s/o Angela Sigismondi v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115826 (Sigismondi), the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey held that Amazon.com, Inc. (Amazon) is a “seller” under New Jersey’s product liability statute and can thus face strict liability for damages caused by products sold on its platform. Although the analysis is state-specific, Sigismondi may serve as an important decision for allowing product defect claims to proceed against Amazon when so often the third-party vendor that lists the product is unlocatable, insolvent, or not subject to the jurisdiction of United States courts.
In recent years, Amazon has been fighting product liability claims across the country. Amazon argues it is not a “seller” under states’ product liability laws but is merely an online marketplace that facilitates the sale of products by third-party vendors. What constitutes a “seller” in a particular state must be evaluated state-by-state, but various courts have accepted Amazon’s argument that it is not a “seller.” These decisions are based on Amazon’s level of control in the product sale and often focus on a finding that Amazon did not convey possession of the product or transfer its title.
Products are sold on Amazon in one of three ways. The first way is where Amazon sells, processes and ships the product. An example of this category would be Amazon-branded batteries. Amazon does not dispute it is a seller of these products; Amazon conveys possession and transfers title of the product to the purchaser. The second way is where a third-party sells the product and Amazon “fulfills” the order by storing, processing, and shipping the product through its Fulfillment by Amazon (FBA) program. Amazon conveys possession of the product because it ships the product, but Amazon does not transfer title to the product because it never owns the product. The third way is where a third party sells, processes, and ships the product. Amazon never physically touches the product and, thus, neither conveys possession nor transfers its title. In all three ways, however, the third-party vendor agrees to the Amazon Services Business Solutions Agreement (BSA). Under the Amazon BSA, all products sold and returned on Amazon.com are processed by Amazon exclusively and only Amazon, not the third-party vendor, has any contact with the consumer.
Because Amazon exerts a higher degree of control over sales made through the FBA program, e.g., by storing the product at an Amazon warehouse, retrieving it, packaging it, and shipping it to the consumer, the legal battle has centered on products sold via the FBA program. Sigismondi is significant because the product at issue was not sold through the FBA program so Amazon exerted less control over the sale than in other cases addressing the same issue and reaching the opposite holding.
In Sigismondi, Ms. Sigismondi’s ex-husband bought their children a hoverboard on Amazon from “Paradise 00.” The hoverboard caught fire and burned down the home insured by New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Group (NJM). NJM brought a claim against Amazon under the New Jersey Products Liability Act (NJPLA). Amazon moved for summary judgment on the basis that it is not a “seller” within the meaning of New Jersey’s products liability statute.
The relationship between Amazon and Paradise 00 was governed by Amazon’s BSA. The BSA requires third-party vendors to provide accurate and complete product information and Amazon retains the sole right to control the product listing. The BSA also requires third-party vendors to indemnify Amazon for any claims or losses arising from their products and requires that third-party sellers maintain liability insurance covering Amazon. Under the BSA, Amazon processes all purchases and refunds and, further, guarantees all Amazon-purchased products under it’s “A-to-z Guarantee”, which provides:
The Amazon A-to-z Guarantee protects you when you purchase items sold and fulfilled by a third-party seller. Our guarantee covers both the timely delivery and the condition of your items. If either are unsatisfactory, report the problem and our team determines whether you are eligible for a refund.
In determining whether Amazon is a seller under the NJPLA thereby making it subject to products liability in New Jersey, the court began its analysis with the plain language of the NJPLA. The statute defines “product seller” as follows:
any person who, in the course of a business conducted for that purpose: sells; distributes; leases; installs; prepares or assembles a manufacturer’s product according to the manufacturer’s plan, intention, design, specifications or formulations; blends; packages; labels; markets; repairs; maintains or otherwise is involved in placing a product in the line of commerce. . . .
N.J.S.A. § 2A:58C-8 (emphasis added).
The court found that the plain language of the statute, particularly the language “otherwise is involved in placing a product in line of commerce”, makes clear that Amazon meets the NJPLA’s definition of seller. As such, the court rejected Amazon’s argument that the court should use a dictionary definition of a seller as one that transfers “a thing that one owns.” The statute does not require ownership or the transferring of title. The court further found that the definition of seller under N.J.S.A. § 2A:58C-8 was consistent with the principles of New Jersey strict products liability law, which holds that a consumer injured by a defective product may bring a strict liability action against any business entity in the chain of distribution.
The Sigismondi decision is unambiguous in finding that Amazon is a product seller under the NJPLA and it may serve as a significant decision going forward. The classification of Amazon as a seller in Sigismondi is particularly important because, unlike in other New Jersey cases (and many cases in other jurisdictions), Sigismondi did not involve a product sold through Amazon’s FBA program where Amazon stores and ships the product. Therefore, Amazon controlled the sale in Sigismondi far less than in other cases that found Amazon is not a seller.
Recent Posts
Categories
- Products Liability
- Evidence
- CPSC Recalls
- Subrogation
- Experts – Daubert
- Construction Defects
- New Jersey
- Statute of Limitations-Repose
- Causation
- New York
- Certificate of Merit
- Podcast
- California
- Experts - Reliability
- Jurisdiction
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Condemnation
- Negligence
- CPSC Warning
- Minnesota
- Contracts
- Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Landlord-Tenant
- Sutton Doctrine
- Waiver of Subrogation
- Rhode Island
- Pennsylvania
- Texas
- Florida
- Workers' Compensation
- Economic Loss Rule
- Cargo - Transportation
- Malpractice
- Spoliation
- Tennessee
- Water Loss
- Indiana
- Michigan
- Comparative-Contributory Negligence
- Contribution-Apportionment
- AIA Contracts
- Assignment
- Missouri
- Parties
- Public Policy
- Civil Procedure
- Product Liability
- Res Judicata
- Arbitration
- Damages
- Damages – Personal Property
- Litigation
- West Virginia
- Wyoming
- Oklahoma
- Georgia
- Limitation of Liability
- Builder's Risk
- Contractual Subrogation
- Equitable Subrogation
- Illinois
- Insurable Interest
- Mississippi
- Made Whole
- Delaware
- Settlement
- Subrogation – Equitable
- Construction
- Premises Liability
- Joint or Several Liability
- Montana
- Duty
- Privity
- New Mexico
- Right to Repair Act
- Massachusetts
- Landlord
- Tenant
- Building Code
- Arizona
Tags
- Products Liability
- Subrogation
- Evidence
- Construction Defects
- Circumstantial Evidence
- Experts - Reliability
- Experts – Daubert
- New Jersey
- Podcast
- Product Liability
- Malfunction Theory
- Subro Sessions
- Texas
- Causation
- New York
- Certificate of Merit
- Contracts
- California
- Waiver of Subrogation
- CPSC Recalls; Products Liability
- Experts
- Maryland
- Landlord-Tenant
- Jurisdiction
- Jurisdiction - Personal
- Statute of Repose
- Construction Contracts
- Negligence
- Condemnation
- Inverse Condemnation
- Louisiana
- Minnesota
- Statute of Limitations - Accrual
- Amazon-eBay
- Civil Procedure
- Georgia
- Contracts - Enforcement
- Illinois
- Pennsylvania
- Made Whole
- Experts – Qualifications
- Statute of Limitations
- Sutton Doctrine
- Water Damage
- workers' compensation subrogation
- Rhode Island
- Arizona
- Florida
- Economic Loss Doctrine
- Public Policy
- Design Defect
- Expert Qualifications
- West Virginia
- Amazon
- Negligent Undertaking
- Limitation of Liability
- Statute of Limitations - Contractual
- Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Indiana
- Tennessee
- Evidence - Hearsay
- Loss of Use
- Vehicles
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- Improvement
- Negligence – Duty
- Warranty - Implied
- Apportionment
- Privity
- Malpractice
- Statute of Limitations - Tolling
- Spoliation
- Statute of Limitations – Discovery Rule
- Malfunction Theory; Design Defect
- Independent Duty
- Ohio
- Settlement
- Michigan
- Comparative Fault
- Contracts - Formation
- Condominiums
- Non-Party at Fault
- Massachusetts
- Unconscionable
- Missouri
- Parties
- Failure to Warn
- Manufacturing Defect
- Pleading
- Removal
- Entire Controversy Doctrine
- Motion to Intervene
- Res Judicata
- Arbitration
- Subrogation; High-Net-Worth; Damages; Art; Cargo-Transportation; Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Wisconsin
- Products Liability – Risk-Utility
- Architects-Engineers
- Lithium-ion battery
- Internet Sales
- Anti-Subrogation Rule; Wyoming; Landlord-Tenant; Sutton Doctrine
- Oklahoma
- Sanctions
- Spoliation – Fire Scene
- Exculpatory Clause
- Gross Negligence
- Builder’s Risk
- Contractual Subrogation
- Equitable Subrogation
- Insurable Interest
- Mississippi
- Daubert
- Standing
- Third Party
- Accepted Work
- Montana
- Independent Contractor
- Res Ipsa
- New Mexico
- Right to Repair Act
- Workers’ Compensation
- AIA Contract
- Betterment
- Damages
- Damages-Code Upgrades
- Statute of Limitations - Repose
- Washington
- Implied Warranty of Habitability
- Warranty - Construction
- Idaho
- First Party Claims
- Joint-Tortfeasors
- Forum-Venue
- Warranty – Express
- AIA Contracts
- Anti-Indemnity Statutes
- Indemnification
- Products Liability - Foreseeability
- Cargo-Transportation
- Contribution
- MCS-90
- Substantial Completion
Authors
Archives
- May 2025
- April 2025
- March 2025
- February 2025
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022