After a three-week jury trial concerning a fire at a California spa, Stutman Law attorney Jay Harker and trial specialist Laura Ash obtained fire loss verdicts totaling $1.7 million against a sauna manufacturer. The firm’s subrogated insurer client was awarded full compensation for its indemnity payments, and the two policyholder clients also received favorable verdicts.
The plaintiffs engaged a multidisciplinary expert team, which concluded that long-term, low-temperature heating of wood pieces, a process known as pyrolysis, in proximity to a sauna heater element caused the fire. Key developments in discovery included obtaining the sauna’s Listing Constructional Data Report, prepared by the outside agency that certified the sauna on behalf of the manufacturer. Another key document was the applicable UL Standard. Jay and Laura used both documents at trial to highlight discrepancies between the documented construction and the as-built sauna.
The deposition of the manufacturer’s chief officer was also instrumental in proving the plaintiffs’ claims. He described a decision to add protective foil to wood pieces after customers complained of discoloration, an initial step in the pyrolysis process. Although he intended for the protective foil to be added to all four wood cross pieces in the heater cover, that instruction was communicated only orally, in English, to a Vietnamese employee. Some units, including the sauna involved in the fire, were then manufactured with foil on only three of the four wood pieces.
At trial, the employee testified by Zoom from Vietnam through an interpreter. He acknowledged that, at times, it was difficult for him to understand instructions in English; that he was not given a drawing; and that the manufacturer subsequently changed its process to place protective foil on all four pieces.
At trial, Jay and Laura’s presentation focused on the severe burn-through in the heater area where the protective foil was missing. Stutman Law’s trial team integrated testimony from experts in electrical engineering, fire science, forensic chemistry, and fire origin and cause. Experts in financial and building damages also supported the plaintiffs’ case. The insurance claim representative explained the nature of the insurer’s payments, while the sauna’s owner, a spa franchisor, testified about his visit to the factory in Vietnam when initially purchasing the saunas, his disappointment with their safety performance, and his decision to discard the remaining saunas he owned after the devastating fire.
Ultimately, after a three-week trial, the jury found that the product’s inconsistencies with the applicable quality and safety standards were not a coincidence, and that the manufacturer’s negligence and defective product caused the fire.