Severn Peanut Co. v. Indus. Fumigant Co.

3 Citing cases

  1. USAA Cas. Ins. Co. v. The Fifth Fuel of Va.

    Civ. MJM-22-218 (D. Md. Sep. 16, 2024)

    Severn Peanut Co. v. Indus. Fumigant Co., No. 2:11-CV-14-BO, 2014 WL 1056991, at *2-3 (E.D. N.C. Mar. 17, 2014), aff'd, 807 F.3d 88 (4th Cir. 2015)

  2. State Farm Fire & Casaulty Ins. Co. v. Techtronic Indus. N. Am.

    Civ. MJM-22-1753 (D. Md. Sep. 13, 2024)

    Severn Peanut Co. v. Indus. Fumigant Co., No. 2:11-CV-14-BO, 2014 WL 1056991, at *2-3 (E.D. N.C. Mar. 17, 2014), aff'd, 807 F.3d 88 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting NFPA 921 ยง 4.4.3.2).

  3. CSAA Affinity Ins. Co. v. The Scott Fetzer Co.

    665 F. Supp. 3d 741 (D. Md. 2023)

    Nor did Graham point to industry standards or supporting literature to support the reliability of his opinion that the material used in the switch housing constituted a design defect that caused the fire to spread beyond the sump pump. See Sardis, 10 F.4th at 292 ("[A] failure to cite industry standards can impact an expert opinion's reliability."); Severn Peanut Co. v. Indus. Fumigant Co., Civ. No. 2:11-14-BO, 2014 WL 1056991, at *3 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 17, 2014) (admitting expert testimony where, in the absence of testing, the plaintiffs had "successfully shown that the experts' opinions [were] based on valid scientific principles which are sound and widely accepted," including by demonstrating that the hypothesized ignition source, phosphine gas produced by aluminum phosphide tablets, was "a recognized fire hazard in both scientific literature and in the fumigation industry," displayed EPA-required labels warning of a fire hazard, and was supported by "general academic acceptance"), aff'd, 807 F.3d 88 (4th Cir. 2015). Thus, the Court is left only with Graham's opinion that the use of an unspecified plastic material that "did not appear to be thermosetting plastic" failed to contain the fire.