The Subrogation Strategist

A recent decision from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania reinforced a fundamental requirement in product liability cases that can sometimes be overlooked: proving the product was actually defective. In Motto v. Newell Brands, Inc., No. 24-1338, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23804 (E.D. Pa. 2026), the plaintiff homeowners alleged that a defective candle in a glass jar caused a fire that damaged their home. They brought claims for strict product liability, negligence and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability against the manufacturer and seller. The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to present any evidence that the candle was defective. The court agreed and dismissed all claims.

Under Pennsylvania law, a plaintiff can rely on circumstantial evidence to establish a defect, including evidence of a malfunction, expert testimony addressing possible causes, the timing of the issue relative to purchase of the product and evidence of similar incidents involving the same product. Regardless of the approach, proof of a defect remains a required element for product liability claims.   

In support of their claims, the homeowners relied on expert testimony to establish the origin and cause of the fire. Their experts focused on the candle’s placement inside a metal holder on a table surrounded by combustible materials. One expert attributed the fire to the candle burning in a manner that allowed heat to build up in the metal container, ultimately leading to flashover conditions and the ignition of nearby materials. The other expert similarly concluded that the fire originated in the area of the candle. The court found these opinions addressed causation only and they did not identify any defect in the product.   

In reaching its decision, the court emphasized that the plaintiffs failed to introduce any evidence that the candle was defective when it left the manufacturer’s control. In addition, there was no flaw in the glass jar, no similar incidents, or any other indicator of a product defect. Without proof of the defect, the plaintiffs could not sustain any of their claims.  

This decision reinforces a key principle under Pennsylvania law: evidence of a product defect is an essential element of strict liability, negligence and implied warranty claims. Evidence of how an incident occurred or speculation about possible causes is not enough if it does not establish that the product itself was defective.

For subrogation professionals, the takeaway is clear. In product related losses, you must present competent, admissible evidence identifying a defect and connecting that defect to the loss. Without that connection, even well supported causation opinions are not enough to get past summary judgment. Just as important, this case underscores the need to set clear expectations with retained experts early, before suit is filed. Ensuring that your experts are prepared to address not only causation, but also the existence and nature of a product defect, can make or break your case.