Using an iPhone 4s, circa 2011, in 2016 makes me think the likelihood of you using a knock off charger is considerably higher than if it was an iPhone 6s in 2016.
If the iPHONE was bought in 2014 then it's quite possible that in 2016 the battery was replaced.
Further, it would be quite possible that the replacement was done by a non-Apple approved person with non-Apple parts.
I got an iPhone 4s in March 2012. I had it replaced in January 2013 because of the (quite widespread) grey wifi problem. The battery called quits this May, after more than four years of heavy use, prompting me to buy a new iPhone SE. That being said, although it is possible that the phone was never serviced, and there was indeed a (unlikely) fault, the phone is way out of warranty and the insurer claim is absolutely ridiculous. The US sue culture is one thing that I, as a foreigner, find peculiar (near immoral).
This case relies too much on Thao having done everything right and Apple having done everything wrong. This is already a problematic position because the iPhone 4s did not have any safety issues and the filing already begins to smell:
The device was purchased in 2014, yet by September 2013 only the 8gb model was available through very limited channels. Thao's model may have been discontinued as early as September 2012.
The claim does not mention that the device was purchased from Apple or an authorised reseller, this would be helpful to Thao's case, the absence of this information indicates that the device was not purchased through Apple or an authorised reseller, possibly because Thao's model was discontinued by then (it's very easy to check this information). This could indicate that the device was rebirthed, second hand or purchased in a damaged/tampered state.
Thao is inferring that the device was being charged properly using an approved charger and had no other damage. It's difficult for Thao's legal to prove that either of these were the case, especially when there is a known history of problems with incorrect chargers. (Or for example charging the device under a pile of clothes.)
The claim presents a rather specific 'fact' that the battery caused the fire and that the shorting occurred prior to the fire. The timeline and exactness of these claims is doubtful, analysis of the device will reveal whether or not these claims can be made. However a shorting of the device leading to fire is indicative of a dodgy charger, not a design fault.
In short it's an uphill battle for State Farm, and despite the legal and associated costs being above the 75k damage, Apple will likely not settle such a case unless their device was clearly at fault, otherwise they will have every Tom, Dick and Harry trying to cash in through settlements.
Given the averments in the complaint it's almost as though the suit was filed to preserve the case from statute of limitations, which is actually not the case. The statute of limitations is 6 years from date of incident. They have until 2022 to file.
The plaintiffs will have to amend after investigation because they have not stated a claim that would survive a motion to dismiss.
Paragraph 12 is telling language, as well as use of the word 'preliminary' in several paragraphs.
It also seems the suit is asking for reimbursement of out of pocket costs not covered by the insurance policy.
Person pays insurance monthly to cover their crap, shit happens and insurance covered... insurance company claims they don’t like losing money, sues Apple claiming item caused fire.. what next, my next iPhone includes home insurance just in case it randomly explodes and burns my stuff, then apple sues Foxconn because QA didn’t catch the 0.1% defect?
Person pays insurance monthly to cover their crap, shit happens and insurance covered... insurance company claims they don’t like losing money, sues Apple claiming item caused fire.. what next, my next iPhone includes home insurance just in case it randomly explodes and burns my stuff, then apple sues Foxconn because QA didn’t catch the 0.1% defect?
This suit is absurd. even on the off chance of a "defective" device working issue free 2 to 7 years after purchase and well after Apple care or warranty would have expired State Farm is in no way entitled a single cent beyond miss Thao's deductible and premiums that were presumably paid.
State Farm is an insurance company and insurance is purchased for scenarios like this
the only court outcomes should be State Farm being forced into reimbursement to Ms Thao for anything they've yet to cover
from Apple's perspective at the very most albeit it quite unlikely I would consider settling for nothing more than 1 FREE Apple Product or iPhone Make and model of choice and maybe throw in free Apple Care+
but Apple darn sure shouldn't be obligated for anything beyond that cost or monetary wise
so much for "Like A Good Neighbor State Farm is there" such a sham
You seem to misunderstand how insurance works. State Farm covers the fire claim, but they will always try to be reimbursed from the "responsible" party, even if that means suing them. For the sake of argument, let's say that Apple is indeed responsible. In such a scenario, State Farm pays the homeowner, then sues Apple, and assuming State Farm wins, then Apple's insurance pays State Farm.
It's like when you're involved in a car accident that wasn't your fault. Your insurance doesn't pay for your damages when it's not your fault - the insurance of the person responsible for the accident does. In this case, the person responsible for the fire (i.e., Apple) ultimately pays, or at least their insurance. (Again, for the sake of argument. The best State Farm can hope for here is a settlement, but I'd be surprised if they even get that.)
If you caused the fire in your own house (left the stove on before leaving, for example), does State Farm sue you because you're responsible for the fire? Or deny the claim? Of course not - that's part of what insurance covers - people making mistakes. Just like accidents in cars.
I agree insurance companies may go after a third party, but there has to be something worthwhile. Like the 4S having a history of catching fire and Apple refusing to do a recall. Or an automotive manufacturer knowingly selling a car with a safety defect. A one-off event isn't enough for them to sue Apple. Or to claim Apple knowingly sold a defective device.
This is so obviously absurd for reasons I don't need to repeat that one has to wonder if these are planted stories or stories somehow funded by Samsung or others with vested interests.
Can any company on Earth manufacture any electrical product in the tens or hundreds of millions with an absolute guarantee that there will not be one that can cause a catastrophic failure and isn't that the reason that one has insurance in the first place.
The iPhone 4S came out in Oct 2011. They guy got his in 2014. So we're already at a 3 year old phone when he got it. Is Apple still selling a 3 year old phone at that point? So this is a phone that's glass on front and back. Never heard of battery issues on them. Sure it's possible the battery blew up. When you make MILLIONS of phones, there will always be a few that fail. Nature of the beast. Lithium is some nasty stuff. So maybe it's all true.
I find it strange that State Farm is suing Apple. They are a Insurance Company. You pay them a chunk of money just in case, they collect from millions of people and have to pay out once in a while. This seems like why pay out of their own money when they can just go after Apple and get it from them. Do they go suing other company's when it's the cause of a fire? It seems a little strange to me. Then again I'm far from being a expert in this area. Maybe they do?
Only in the US would you hear something like that.
Also, insurers always try to pay the least, but in the US they actually try to scam you by lying about your own insurance contract. Good luck even getting the full contract from them.
Oh and when they lose their suit, they are going to say to the user that it proves it's their fault and won't give them their money either.
To me this does not make sense. To avoid a $75K claim, they sue Apple? This is gonna be a money loser for sure. I would have my questions about the "new" ness of the 4S, too, in 2014, but trust me on this, we are never going to get to the facts of this one. Waaay too minor. Next?
They're probably testing the legal waters before launching a salvo of lawsuits against Apple.
I doubt that. If, in fact, they had evidence of a pattern of iPhones causing files (and therefore costing State Farm millions), they would bundle those together now and take that to court. The biggest problem with this current case (from their perspective) is that it seems like a one-off event which makes it impossible to argue that Apple has released a dangerous device.
A lot of people seem to know everything about the case and didn't even catch that HE is a SHE...
I missed that the plaintiff is female also. Important? No.
Why? Because at least theoretically, the gender of the plaintiff is legally irrelevant. You know: "equal justice under the law".
So, when I read the complaint, I was reading for the legally relevant language: jurisdiction, legal theory (contract or torts, statutory claim), negligence or intentional, damages, timing, whether the complaint would pass a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the plaintiff attorney.
Given the complaint, and that legal entity filing is from State Farm, I'm surprised by the lack of specificity. Frankly. an entity like State Farm, always has a litany of courts cases active at any time, and complex boilerplate complaint forms modified for the particular allegations. The complaint simply does not read like a complaint from an entity who files cases like this routinely.
The 4S has been in the market for how long? How many iPhone 4s's HAVEN'T started a housefire? That should be plenty of precedent to shut this down.
That this case even made it to a courtroom in the United States is just one of the many things wrong with its legal system.
I’m not sure that argument works. If they can show willful negligence on Apple’s part or that Apple did a risk assessment and concluded this was possible, no matter how remote, I could see a judge and jury siding with the insurance company against Apple.
For example, remember that case in the Erin Brockovich movie? Imagine if PG&E argued that millions of customers didn’t get cancer. How about Brock Turner? Imagine he argued that he’s been around thousands of girls that he didnt rape. It just takes the one provable incident to make you culpable.
That said, I’m guessing that Apple took no such risk with a combustible component and that Apple will prove they aren at fault.
A lot of people seem to know everything about the case and didn't even catch that HE is a SHE...
I missed that the plaintiff is female also. Important? No.
Why? Because at least theoretically, the gender of the plaintiff is legally irrelevant. You know: "equal justice under the law".
So, when I read the complaint, I was reading for the legally relevant language: jurisdiction, legal theory (contract or torts, statutory claim), negligence or intentional, damages, timing, whether the complaint would pass a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the plaintiff attorney.
Given the complaint, and that legal entity filing is from State Farm, I'm surprised by the lack of specificity. Frankly. an entity like State Farm, always has a litany of courts cases active at any time, and complex boilerplate complaint forms modified for the particular allegations. The complaint simply does not read like a complaint from an entity who files cases like this routinely.
Right?! Sex is irrelevant unless one tries to make a lame argument that girls aren’t very good with electronics. I guess we need to know her weight, height, hair color, and other physical aspects, too¡
Comments
In short it's an uphill battle for State Farm, and despite the legal and associated costs being above the 75k damage, Apple will likely not settle such a case unless their device was clearly at fault, otherwise they will have every Tom, Dick and Harry trying to cash in through settlements.
The plaintiffs will have to amend after investigation because they have not stated a claim that would survive a motion to dismiss.
Paragraph 12 is telling language, as well as use of the word 'preliminary' in several paragraphs.
It also seems the suit is asking for reimbursement of out of pocket costs not covered by the insurance policy.
Generally the suit is quite a mess at this point.
State Farm takes money from its customers to pay for things like this. Frivolous lawsuits aren't needed.
There re is no way they can prove the burned up phone was defective. "Signs indicate the fire started internally."
and thats at s exactly what happens with an improper charging setup.
If you caused the fire in your own house (left the stove on before leaving, for example), does State Farm sue you because you're responsible for the fire? Or deny the claim? Of course not - that's part of what insurance covers - people making mistakes. Just like accidents in cars.
I agree insurance companies may go after a third party, but there has to be something worthwhile. Like the 4S having a history of catching fire and Apple refusing to do a recall. Or an automotive manufacturer knowingly selling a car with a safety defect. A one-off event isn't enough for them to sue Apple. Or to claim Apple knowingly sold a defective device.
Can any company on Earth manufacture any electrical product in the tens or hundreds of millions with an absolute guarantee that there will not be one that can cause a catastrophic failure and isn't that the reason that one has insurance in the first place.
Oh and when they lose their suit, they are going to say to the user that it proves it's their fault and won't give them their money either.
That this case even made it to a courtroom in the United States is just one of the many things wrong with its legal system.
Why? Because at least theoretically, the gender of the plaintiff is legally irrelevant. You know: "equal justice under the law".
So, when I read the complaint, I was reading for the legally relevant language: jurisdiction, legal theory (contract or torts, statutory claim), negligence or intentional, damages, timing, whether the complaint would pass a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the plaintiff attorney.
Given the complaint, and that legal entity filing is from State Farm, I'm surprised by the lack of specificity. Frankly. an entity like State Farm, always has a litany of courts cases active at any time, and complex boilerplate complaint forms modified for the particular allegations. The complaint simply does not read like a complaint from an entity who files cases like this routinely.
For example, remember that case in the Erin Brockovich movie? Imagine if PG&E argued that millions of customers didn’t get cancer. How about Brock Turner? Imagine he argued that he’s been around thousands of girls that he didnt rape. It just takes the one provable incident to make you culpable.
That said, I’m guessing that Apple took no such risk with a combustible component and that Apple will prove they aren at fault.