UNIVERSAL PROPERTY CASULATY INSURANCE COMPANY AS SUBROGEE OF MARLENE AND LUIS TORRES v. AMAZON COM SERVICES LLC (2026)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant Amazon.com Services LLC (“Amazon” or “Defendant”)’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed herein on January 21, 2026 (the “Motion”). [DE 18]. The Court has considered the Motion, Plaintiff Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company as Subrogee of Marlene and Luis Torres (“Plaintiff”)’s Memorandum in Opposition [DE 29], Defendant's Reply [DE 31], the statements of fact and the responses and replies thereto, [DE's 17, 28, 30] and is otherwise fully advised in the premises.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Under Rule 56(a), “[t]he court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The movant bears “the stringent burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Suave v. Lamberti, 597 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1315 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)).

“A fact is material for the purposes of summary judgment only if it might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” Kerr v. McDonald's Corp., 427 F.3d 947, 951 (11th Cir. 2005) (internal quotations omitted). Furthermore, “[a]n issue [of material fact] is not ‘genuine’ if it is unsupported by the evidence or is created by evidence that is ‘merely colorable’ or ‘not significantly probative.’ ” Flamingo S. Beach I Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. of Southeast, 492 F. App'x 16, 26 (11th Cir. 2013) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249–50 (1986)). “A mere scintilla of evidence in support of the nonmoving party's position is insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment; there must be evidence from which a jury could reasonably find for the non-moving party.” Id. at 26-27 (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252). Accordingly, if the moving party shows “that, on all the essential elements of its case on which it bears the burden of proof at trial, no reasonable jury could find for the nonmoving party” then “it is entitled to summary judgment unless the nonmoving party, in response, comes forward with significant, probative evidence demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of fact.” Rich v. Sec'y, Fla. Dept. of Corr., 716 F.3d 525, 530 (11th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).

II. DISCUSSION

This case arises from an e-bike, battery, and charger purchased through Amazon.com that later ignited while charging in the Torres’ garage, causing extensive damage to the Torres residence and personal property. See [DE 1-2]. The Torres’ property was insured by Plaintiff Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“UPCIC”), who has paid $1,340,372.93 to repair the Torres property to its pre-loss condition. See id. at ¶ 29. UPCIC now brings this subrogation claim against Defendant Amazon. See [DE 1-2]. Plaintiff's Complaint asserts claims against Amazon for Strict Product Liability and Equitable Subrogation. See id.

“[U]nder equitable subrogation, “the person discharging the debt stand[s] in the shoes of the person whose claim has been discharged, thereby succeeding to the rights and priorities of the original creditor.” Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So. 2d 638, 647 (Fla. 1999) (citations omitted). Through equitable subrogation, UPCIC stands in the shoes of its insureds as Plaintiff in this action, pursing a strict liability claim against Defendant Amazon. See id.

Under Florida law, a strict liability claim requires a plaintiff to prove “(1) that a defect was present in the product; (2) that it caused the injuries complained of; and (3) that it existed at the time the retailer or supplier parted possession with the product.” Lesnik v. Duval Ford, LLC, 185 So. 3d 577, 581 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (quoting Cassisi v. Maytag Co., 396 So.2d 1140, 1143 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)).

Amazon moves for summary judgment in its favor on Plaintiff's strict liability claim, arguing that Amazon cannot be liable because the defect that caused the fire was the e-bike's replacement battery pack that was not part of the e-bike at the time of the sale but instead was provided directly to the Torreses by Rattan Electric Bike (“Rattan”), a third-party seller.¹ Amazon argues that the undisputed facts demonstrate that the replacement battery that Plaintiff claims caused the fire was manufactured, sold, and shipped wholly independent of Amazon and the original sale of the e-bike. Amazon maintains that its sole role was to provide the online store where Rattan sold the original e-bike and that Amazon did not manufacture, sell, ship, or have any involvement with the replacement battery pack that Plaintiff's experts identified as the cause of the fire.

In response to the summary judgment motion, Plaintiff introduces sufficient evidence to the contrary as to these highly fact-intensive issues that precludes the Court from determining as a matter of law that Amazon is entitled to judgment as to Plaintiff's strict products liability claim against it. Based upon the evidence in the record, the Court finds that a reasonable jury could find that the replacement battery pack transaction was not wholly independent of Amazon and the original sale of the e-bike such that the replacement battery was not a separate defective product, that Amazon had an active role as a distributor or seller in the distribution chain of both the original e-bike and the replacement battery pack, and/or that Amazon was the conduit for the sale of the e-bike and the replacement battery pack from Rattan to the Torreses. Accordingly, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the nonmoving party, as well as drawing reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court DENIES Amazon's motion for summary judgment.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:

1. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 18] is hereby DENIED;

2. The parties are reminded that their Joint Pretrial Stipulation is due by April 17, 2026.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida this 2nd day of April, 2026.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Amazon also asserts that it cannot be liable because the original bike and battery were actually sold by Rattan, third-party seller who sells its own products in Amazon's store; however, Amazon does not pursue that theory for purposes of its summary judgment motion. See [DE 18] at p. 2.

WILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS United States District Judge