On September 23, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued an opinion granting summary judgment and dismissing all claims against the firm's client under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act ("FHSA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1263(a), and its enabling regulations 16 C.F.R. § 1500.121.
The case was filed by a subrogating insurance carrier after a structure fire to insured property in Los Angeles. The plaintiff alleged that the fire was caused when rags soaked with the client’s wood coating product self-heated and ignited, and claiming that the product warning label was defective because it failed to adequately warn about the risk of self-heating, also known as “spontaneous combustion.”
The FHSA and its enabling regulations govern the content and design of precautionary labeling on the container of hazardous household products, and establish a limited failure to warn claim against product manufacturers whose labels do not comply, deemed a “misbranded hazardous substance.” Hazardous substances covered by the FHSA must include an external label that identifies (1) a “signal word” such as “DANGER,” and (2) an affirmative statement of defined principal hazards such as “Flammable” or “Combustible.” These warnings must be located “prominently” and “in conspicuous and legible type in contrast by typography, layout, or color with other printed matters on the label.” Importantly, the FHSA explicitly preempts all failure to warn claims that purport to impose obligations separate from the FHSA – in other words, a product is only “misbranded” if it fails to meet the specific requirements of the FHSA and its enabling regulations.
Philadelphia partners Tyler Havey, Ann Thornton Field, Eric C. Rosenberg, and Los Angeles partner Ray Muro, urged the court in several rounds of summary judgment briefing that the plaintiff’s claims were preempted because the FHSA does not require product manufacturers to identify “spontaneous combustion” as a “principal hazard” on the warning label. Until now, only a few courts throughout the country have had the opportunity to rule as a matter of law that “spontaneous combustion” is not a defined principal hazard.
In its opinion, the court held that (1) spontaneous combustion is not a principal hazard required on a warning label; (2) related precautionary language that the client included on the label was not subject to any of the FHSA labeling requirements, including those requiring prominence and conspicuity, because spontaneous combustion is not a required principal hazard; and (3) the warning language on the client’s label fulfilled all of the content and design requirements set forth in the FHSA enabling regulations at 16 C.F.R §1500.121. The court also went a step further, agreeing with the firm's team that the plaintiff’s expert report was unreliable and inadmissible for a variety of reasons.
The ruling establishes precedent on an issue of first impression in the Ninth Circuit, and provides certainty for the manufacturers of flammable consumer products in misbranding failure to warn claims related to principal hazards and related precautionary language.