There was a problem locating the requested document.
Page 1 ELECTRONICALLY FILED
8/25/2020 12:15 PM
Kern County Superior Court
By Candice Rocha, Deputy
1 BONNIE J. BENNETT, ESQ., SBN 240313
bennettb@Stutmanlaw.com
2 LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT A. STUTMAN, P.C.
1260 Corona Pointe Court, Suite 306
3 Corona, California 92879
Telephone: (951) 387-4700 / Facsimile: (951) 963-1298
4
5 Attorneys for INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE
OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB
6
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
COUNTY OF KERN, METROPOLITAN DIVISION
9
10
INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE
11 AUTOMOBILE CLUB,
CASE NO.
BCV-20-101987
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
12
13
Plaintiff,
1) BREACH OF CONTRACT;
2) BREACH OF CONTRACT –
IMPLIED DUTY
3) NEGLIGENCE
4) STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITYMANUFACTURING DEFECT;
5) STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY –
DESIGN DEFECT
6) STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY –
FAILURE TO WARN
vs.
14 TESLA ENERGY OPERATIONS, INC., a
Delaware Corporation; SOLARCITY
15 CORPORATION, a California Corporation;
AMPHENOL CORPORATION, a Delaware
16 Corporation; SOLAREDGE
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware
17 Corporation; and DOES 1 through 25,
inclusive,
18
Defendants.
19
20
Plaintiff, INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTMOBILE CLUB, by way of
21
this Complaint, alleges as follows:
22
I.
23
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
24
1.
Plaintiff INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB
25
("PLAINTIFF") is and was at all times material hereto and mentioned herein, a reciprocal inter26
insurance exchange, fully licensed to do business as an insurance carrier in the State of California,
27
whose principal place of business is located at 3333 Fairview Road, Costa Mesa, California 92626.
28
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESPage 2 1
2.
At all times material hereto and mentioned herein, PLAINTIFF was engaged in the
business, among other areas, of underwriting property and casualty insurance, and was authorized
to issue policies of insurance and conduct such business in the State of California.
4
3.
At all times material hereto and mentioned herein, PLAINTIFF's insureds,
5 RICHARD WHEAT, II and CONNI WHEAT (collectively the "INSUREDS") owned and occupied
a residential property located at 7008 Jay Court, Bakersfield, California 93308 (the "PROPERTY").
7
4.
Prior to September 1, 2017, PLAINTIFF issued a policy of insurance to INSUREDS.
8 This policy covered the PROPERTY, including its structure and contents, and insuring against other
losses, and was in effect on September 1, 2017.
10
5.
At all times material hereto and mentioned herein, Defendant SOLARCITY
11
CORPORATION (“SOLARCITY”) was a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
12
the State of California and whose principal place of business is located at 3500 Deer Creek Road,
13
Palo Alto, California 94304. Upon information and belief SOLARCITY is a wholly owned
14
subsidiary of TESLA ENERGY OPERATIONS, INC.
15
6.
Upon information and belief Defendant TESLA ENERGY OPERATIONS, INC.,
16 ("TESLA") was and is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware
which is registered to do business in the State of California, and whose principal place of business
is located at 3500 Deer Creek Road, Palo Alto, California 94304.
19
7.
In or around 2016, TESLA acquired SOLARCITY which thereafter became a wholly
owned subsidiary of Defendant TESLA. As such TESLA became a successor in interest to
21 SOLARCITY.
22
8.
At all times material hereto and mentioned herein, Defendant SOLAREDGE
23 TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ("SOLAREDGE"), was and is a corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the State of Delaware which is registered to do business in the State of California, and
whose principal place of business is located at 74505 Seabridge Drive, Fremont, California 94538.
26
9.
At all times material hereto and mentioned herein, Defendant AMPHENOL
27 CORPORATION ("AMPHENOL"), was and is a corporation organized and existing under the laws
of the State of Delaware, whose principal place of business is located at 358 Hall Avenue,
2
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESPage 3 1 Wallingford, Connecticut 06492, and who is registered to do business in the State of California.
2
10.
The true names or capacities, whether individual, corporate, governmental or
associate, or the involvement of any of the Defendants named herein as DOE are all unknown to
4 PLAINTIFF who therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names. PLAINTIFF prays for
leave to amend this Complaint to show their true names, capacities and involvement when the same
have been fully determined. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each
of the Defendants designated herein as DOE is negligently or otherwise legally responsible in some
manner for the events and happenings herein referred to, and negligently or otherwise caused injury
and damages to PLAINTIFF, as is herein after alleged.
10
11.
At all times material hereto and mentioned herein, each and every one of the
11 Defendants named herein was the agent, servant, and employee, each of the other, and each was
acting within the course and scope of his agency, service, and employment.
13
12.
This action is properly heard in this Court, as the amount in controversy exceeds
14 $25,000.00.
15
13.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction in this matter in that the injury occurred in
this district.
17
14.
Venue in the Superior Court of California, County of Kern is proper as it is where
the incident and injury to real property occurred.
19
II.
20
FACTS RELEVANT TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
21
15.
On information and belief, PLAINTIFF alleges that on or about July 12, 2015,
22 INSUREDS entered into a Power Purchase Contract with Defendant SOLARCITY by which
23 SOLARCITY agreed to install a solar panel system (“THE SYSTEM”) on the roof of the
24 PROPERTY, to insure, maintain and repair the system at their cost, and to sell to INSUREDS the
electricity it produced at an agreed rate for an extended period of time. SOLARCITY warrantied the
solar panel system and all of its component parts to be free of defects and agreed to bear all of the
risk and to repair or pay INSUREDS for damage caused by the solar panel system to the home,
belongings and property in an amount not to exceed two million dollars.
3
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESPage 4 1
16.
Upon information and belief, either prior to or in the process of installing THE
2 SYSTEM on the roof of the PROPERTY, SOLARCITY attached an inverter box to the rear of each
of the various solar panels. Each inverter box contained wires with connectors attached for the
purpose of connecting each inverter box to other inverter boxes on adjacent panels in a “daisy chain”
manner. The wires were connected to each other with plastic solar photo voltaic connectors that
incorporated both male and female connection points.
7
17.
At all times material to and mentioned herein, Defendant SOLAREDGE and DOES
8 11-25 designed, manufactured, assembled, inspected, tested, distributed, and placed into the stream
of commerce the inverter that was attached to the solar panels installed by SOLARCITY at the
10 PROPERTY.
11
18.
At all times material to and mentioned herein, Defendants SOLAREDGE,
12 AMPHENOL, and DOES 11-25 designed, manufactured, assembled, inspected, tested, distributed,
and placed into the stream of commerce the plastic connectors known generically as Amphenol H4
solar photovoltaic connectors that were attached to the connecting wires that were in turn attached
to the SOLAREDGE inverter.
16
19.
At all times material to and mentioned herein, Defendants SOLAREDGE,
17 AMPHENOL, and DOES 11-25 knew and intended that the inverter incorporating the Amphenol
18 H4 solar photovoltaic connectors would be used by members of the general public and knew of the
specific use, purpose and requirements for which such products would be utilized.
20
20.
Defendant TESLA, SOLARCITY, and DOES 1-10 utilized and incorporated said
products into the ordinary course of installation and maintenance of THE SYSTEM.
22
21.
On or about September 1, 2017, a fire occurred at the PROPERTY causing
substantial damage.
24
22.
PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and hereon alleges that an Amphenol H4 solar
photovoltaic connector or similar incorporated into a SOLAREDGE inverter (hereinafter
collectively referred to as the “SUBJECT PRODUCT”) attached to a solar panel on the roof of the
27 PROPERTY was defective in some manner, and as a direct and proximate result of which the
connector failed causing the fire which resulted in substantial damage to the PROPERTY.
4
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESPage 5 1
23.
As a result of the fire and resulting damage, INSUREDS suffered significant losses
including destruction of, and damage to real and personal property, as well as loss of use of the
3 PROPERTY.
4
24.
As a result of the fire, and pursuant to the terms and conditions of its Policy,
5 PLAINTIFF made payments to INSUREDS to compensate them for the losses incurred as a result
of the fire.
7
25.
As a result of the payments made to INSUREDS, and pursuant to the terms and
conditions of its Policy, PLAINTIFF is legally, contractually and equitably subrogated to the rights
of INSUREDS to the extent of its payments and seeks recovery of same by this Complaint.
10
III.
11
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
12
BREACH OF CONTRACT
13
(Against Defendants TESLA ENERGY OPERATIONS, INC., SOLAR CITY
14
CORPORATION and DOES 1-10)
15
26.
PLAINTIFF incorporates and realleges by reference the allegations set for in
paragraphs 1 through 25 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein at length.
17
27.
INSUREDS fully and completely performed all of the things that the Power Purchase
18 Contract required INSUREDS to do.
19
28.
On or about September 1, 2017, a fire occurred at the PROPERTY. On information
and belief, PLAINTIFF alleges that the fire was caused by a defect in the SUBJECT PRODUCT
which was in turn incorporated in and formed a part of the solar panel system installed by
22 SOLARCITY.
23
29.
As a natural and foreseeable consequence of the aforesaid fire INSUREDS incurred
damages in excess of $451,301.66.
25
30.
Pursuant to the terms and conditions of its Power Purchase Contract including the
limited warranty with INSUREDS, SOLARCITY and its successor in interest TESLA, are
contractually obligated to bear the cost of the damage to the home, belongings and
28 ///
5
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESPage 6 property of INSUREDS as a result of the fire that occurred on or about September 1, 2017.
2
31.
Defendants and each of them have breached the aforementioned contract in that
3 PLAINTIFF has made demand of Defendants, and each of them, for payments of said damages and
4 Defendants have refused and continue to refuse to honor their contractual obligations in said regard.
5
32.
As a result of the payments it made to INSUREDS, and pursuant to the terms and
conditions of the Policy, PLAINTIFF is legally, contractually, and equitable subrogated to the rights
of INSUREDS to the extent of such payments and seeks damages from Defendants and each of them
in excess of $451,301.66.
9
IV.
10
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
11
BREACH OF CONTRACT -IMPLIED DUTY TO PERFORM WITH
12
REASONABLE CARE
13
(Against Defendants TESLA ENERGY OPERATIONS, INC., SOLAR CITY
14
CORPORATION and DOES 1-10)
15
33.
PLAINTIFF hereby realleges paragraphs 1 through 32 of the complaint and
incorporates them by reference as though fully set forth herein.
17
34.
Implied in the terms of its contract with INSUREDS, as set forth above, was the
implied duty that Defendants would perform the contract competently and with reasonable care.
19
35.
Defendant’s work was performed in a manner that was negligent, incompetent, and
lacking in reasonable care in that, among other things, Defendants caused a fire to occur that resulted
in substantial damage to the PROPERTY.
22
36.
INSUREDS fully performed all of their obligations under the contract.
23
37.
As a direct and proximate result of the negligent acts and omissions of Defendants
and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, INSUREDS sustained substantial damage to the PROPERTY.
25
38.
As a consequence of the foregoing, PLAINTIFF became obligated
pursuant to the terms of its policy to pay benefits to INSUREDs in an amount of no less than
27 $451,301.66 and seeks to recover same by this action.
28 ///
6
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESPage 7 1
V.
2
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
3
NEGLIGENCE
4
5
(Against all Defendants and DOES 1-25)
39.
PLAINTIFF hereby re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 38 of the Complaint and
incorporates them by reference as though fully set forth herein.
7
40.
At all times herein mentioned, Defendants and DOES 1 through 25, owed a duty of
care to INSUREDS to, among other things, design, engineer, manufacture, assemble, install,
maintain, and repair the solar panel system including the SUBJECT PRODUCT exercising
reasonable care, workmanship, and skill in compliance with all applicable codes, regulations and
standards of care in the industry.
12
41.
Defendants and DOES 1 through 25, breached their duty of care to INSUREDs by
failing to exercise due care in the design, engineering, assembly, manufacturing, assembly,
installation, maintenance, and repair of the solar panel system and the SUBJECT PRODUCT.
15
42.
As a direct and proximate result of the negligent acts and omissions of Defendants
and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, INSUREDs sustained substantial damage to the PROPERTY.
17 As a consequence of the foregoing, PLAINTIFF became obligated pursuant to the terms of its policy
to pay benefits to INSUREDS in an amount of no less than $451,301.66 and seeks to recover same
by this action.
20
VI.
21
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
22
STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY – MANUFACTURING DEFECT
23
(Against Defendants SOLAREDGE, AMPHENOL and DOES 11-25)
24
43.
PLAINTIFF hereby re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 42 of the Complaint and
incorporates them by reference as though fully set forth herein.
26
44.
Defendants and DOES 11 through 25, inclusive, and each of them, manufactured,
designed, assembled, distributed, marketed, and/or sold the SUBJECT PRODUCT.
28
45.
The SUBJECT PRODUCT contained a manufacturing defect.
7
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESPage 8 1
46.
The SUBJECT PRODUCT was dangerously defective and unsafe for its intended or
reasonably foreseeable use by reason of the defects in its manufacture.
3
47.
Said defects exposed the users of said product to serious injury and damages because
of the failure of Defendants, and each of them, to properly guard and protect the users of the
5 SUBJECT PRODUCT from the defects in said product.
6
48.
INSUREDS were not aware of said defects at any time prior to the injuries caused
by the SUBJECT PRODUCT.
8
49.
At the time of the failure, the SUBJECT PRODUCT was being used in the manner
intended by the Defendants, and in a manner that was reasonably foreseeable by the Defendants as
involving substantial danger that was not readily apparent to its users.
11
50.
As a proximate result of the said defects of the SUBJECT PRODUCT, INSUREDS
sustained substantial damage to the SUBJECT PROPERTY. As a consequence of the foregoing,
13 PLAINTIFF became obligated pursuant to the terms of its policy to pay benefits to INSUREDS in
an amount of no less than $451,301.66 and seeks to recover same by this action.
15
VII.
16
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
17
STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY – DESIGN DEFECT
18
(Against Defendants SOLAREDGE, AMPHENOL and DOES 11-25)
19
51.
PLAINTIFF hereby re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 50 of the Complaint and
incorporates them by reference as though fully set forth herein.
21
52.
Defendants and DOES 11 through 25, inclusive, and each of them, manufactured,
designed, assembled, distributed, marketed, and/or sold the SUBJECT PRODUCT.
23
53.
The SUBJECT PRODUCT was defective in its design.
24
54.
The SUBJECT PRODUCT was dangerously defective and unsafe for its intended or
reasonably foreseeable use by reason of the defects in its design.
26
55.
Defendants and DOES 11 through 25, inclusive, and each of them, failed to design
the SUBJECT PRODUCT to protect against a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury.
28
56.
Said defects exposed the users of said product to serious injury and damages because
8
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESPage 9 of the failure of Defendants, and each of them, to properly guard and protect the users of the
2 SUBJECT PRODUCT from the defects in said product.
3
57.
INSUREDS were not aware of said defects at any time prior to the injuries caused
by the SUBJECT PRODUCT.
5
58.
At the time of the failure, the SUBJECT PRODUCT was being used in the manner
intended by the Defendants, and in a manner that was reasonably foreseeable by the Defendants as
involving substantial danger that was not readily apparent to its users.
8
59.
As a proximate result of the said defects of the SUBJECT PRODUCT, INSUREDS
sustained damages to the SUBJECT PROPERTY. As a consequence of the foregoing, PLAINTIFF
became obligated pursuant to the terms of its policy to pay benefits to INSUREDS in an amount of
no less than $451,301.66 and seeks to recover same by this action.
12
VIII.
13
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
14
STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY – FAILURE TO WARN
15
(Against Defendants SOLAREDGE, AMPHENOL and DOES 11-25)
16
60.
PLAINTIFF hereby re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 59 of the Complaint and
incorporates them by reference as though fully set forth herein.
18
61.
Defendants and DOES 11 through 25, inclusive, and each of them, manufactured,
designed, assembled, distributed, marketed, and/or sold the SUBJECT PRODUCT.
20
62.
Defendants and DOES 11 through 25, inclusive, and each of them, knew that the
21 SUBJECT PRODUCT would be purchased and used without inspection for defects.
22
63.
The SUBJECT PRODUCT was defective when it left Defendants’ control.
23
64.
At the time of the SUBJECT PRODUCT’s design, manufacture, and sale, and
continuing up to the time of the fire at the SUBJECT PROPERTY, the Defendants knew, or should
have known, that the SUBJECT PRODUCT created a risk of injury if it was used in an intended or
reasonably foreseeable manner.
27
65.
Defendants and DOES 11 through 25, inclusive, and each of them, knew that these
substantial dangers were not readily recognizable to an ordinary consumer.
9
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESPage 10 1
66.
Defendants and DOES 11 through 25, inclusive, and each of them, failed to provide
adequate warnings, instructions, guidelines or admonitions to members of the consuming public, of
the risks, which the Defendants knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, to
have existed in the SUBJECT PRODUCT.
5
67.
As a proximate result of Defendants’ failure to warn purchasers of their product,
6 INSUREDS sustained damages to the SUBJECT PROPERTY.
7
68.
As a consequence of the foregoing, PLAINTIFF became obligated pursuant to the
terms of its policy to pay benefits to INSUREDS in an amount of no less than $451,301.66 and
seeks to recover same by this action.
10
WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays for judgment in its favor and against Defendants as
follows:
12
1.
For compensatory damages of at least four hundred fifty-one thousand three hundred
13
and one dollars and sixty-six cents ($451,301.66), the exact amount of which will be
14
proven at trial;
15
2.
For attorney fees pursuant to contract as allowed by law;
16
3.
For prejudgment interest, from September 1, 2017 pursuant to California Law,
according to proof;
18
4.
For costs of suit; and,
19
5.
For such other and further relief as the Court shall deem just and proper.
20
21 DATED: August 25, 2020
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT A. STUTMAN, P.C.
22
23
24
25
By:
Bonnie J. Bennett
Attorneys for INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE
OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB
26
27
28
10
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
8/25/2020 12:15 PM
Kern County Superior Court
By Candice Rocha, Deputy
1 BONNIE J. BENNETT, ESQ., SBN 240313
bennettb@Stutmanlaw.com
2 LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT A. STUTMAN, P.C.
1260 Corona Pointe Court, Suite 306
3 Corona, California 92879
Telephone: (951) 387-4700 / Facsimile: (951) 963-1298
4
5 Attorneys for INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE
OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB
6
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
COUNTY OF KERN, METROPOLITAN DIVISION
9
10
INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE
11 AUTOMOBILE CLUB,
CASE NO.
BCV-20-101987
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
12
13
Plaintiff,
1) BREACH OF CONTRACT;
2) BREACH OF CONTRACT –
IMPLIED DUTY
3) NEGLIGENCE
4) STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITYMANUFACTURING DEFECT;
5) STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY –
DESIGN DEFECT
6) STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY –
FAILURE TO WARN
vs.
14 TESLA ENERGY OPERATIONS, INC., a
Delaware Corporation; SOLARCITY
15 CORPORATION, a California Corporation;
AMPHENOL CORPORATION, a Delaware
16 Corporation; SOLAREDGE
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware
17 Corporation; and DOES 1 through 25,
inclusive,
18
Defendants.
19
20
Plaintiff, INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTMOBILE CLUB, by way of
21
this Complaint, alleges as follows:
22
I.
23
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
24
1.
Plaintiff INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB
25
("PLAINTIFF") is and was at all times material hereto and mentioned herein, a reciprocal inter26
insurance exchange, fully licensed to do business as an insurance carrier in the State of California,
27
whose principal place of business is located at 3333 Fairview Road, Costa Mesa, California 92626.
28
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
PDF Page 3
1
2.
At all times material hereto and mentioned herein, PLAINTIFF was engaged in the
2 business, among other areas, of underwriting property and casualty insurance, and was authorized
3 to issue policies of insurance and conduct such business in the State of California.
4
3.
At all times material hereto and mentioned herein, PLAINTIFF's insureds,
5 RICHARD WHEAT, II and CONNI WHEAT (collectively the "INSUREDS") owned and occupied
6 a residential property located at 7008 Jay Court, Bakersfield, California 93308 (the "PROPERTY").
7
4.
Prior to September 1, 2017, PLAINTIFF issued a policy of insurance to INSUREDS.
8 This policy covered the PROPERTY, including its structure and contents, and insuring against other
9 losses, and was in effect on September 1, 2017.
10
5.
At all times material hereto and mentioned herein, Defendant SOLARCITY
11
CORPORATION (“SOLARCITY”) was a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
12
the State of California and whose principal place of business is located at 3500 Deer Creek Road,
13
Palo Alto, California 94304. Upon information and belief SOLARCITY is a wholly owned
14
subsidiary of TESLA ENERGY OPERATIONS, INC.
15
6.
Upon information and belief Defendant TESLA ENERGY OPERATIONS, INC.,
16 ("TESLA") was and is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware
17 which is registered to do business in the State of California, and whose principal place of business
18 is located at 3500 Deer Creek Road, Palo Alto, California 94304.
19
7.
In or around 2016, TESLA acquired SOLARCITY which thereafter became a wholly
20 owned subsidiary of Defendant TESLA. As such TESLA became a successor in interest to
21 SOLARCITY.
22
8.
At all times material hereto and mentioned herein, Defendant SOLAREDGE
23 TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ("SOLAREDGE"), was and is a corporation organized and existing under
24 the laws of the State of Delaware which is registered to do business in the State of California, and
25 whose principal place of business is located at 74505 Seabridge Drive, Fremont, California 94538.
26
9.
At all times material hereto and mentioned herein, Defendant AMPHENOL
27 CORPORATION ("AMPHENOL"), was and is a corporation organized and existing under the laws
28 of the State of Delaware, whose principal place of business is located at 358 Hall Avenue,
2
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
PDF Page 4
1 Wallingford, Connecticut 06492, and who is registered to do business in the State of California.
2
10.
The true names or capacities, whether individual, corporate, governmental or
3 associate, or the involvement of any of the Defendants named herein as DOE are all unknown to
4 PLAINTIFF who therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names. PLAINTIFF prays for
5 leave to amend this Complaint to show their true names, capacities and involvement when the same
6 have been fully determined. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each
7 of the Defendants designated herein as DOE is negligently or otherwise legally responsible in some
8 manner for the events and happenings herein referred to, and negligently or otherwise caused injury
9 and damages to PLAINTIFF, as is herein after alleged.
10
11.
At all times material hereto and mentioned herein, each and every one of the
11 Defendants named herein was the agent, servant, and employee, each of the other, and each was
12 acting within the course and scope of his agency, service, and employment.
13
12.
This action is properly heard in this Court, as the amount in controversy exceeds
14 $25,000.00.
15
13.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction in this matter in that the injury occurred in
16 this district.
17
14.
Venue in the Superior Court of California, County of Kern is proper as it is where
18 the incident and injury to real property occurred.
19
II.
20
FACTS RELEVANT TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
21
15.
On information and belief, PLAINTIFF alleges that on or about July 12, 2015,
22 INSUREDS entered into a Power Purchase Contract with Defendant SOLARCITY by which
23 SOLARCITY agreed to install a solar panel system (“THE SYSTEM”) on the roof of the
24 PROPERTY, to insure, maintain and repair the system at their cost, and to sell to INSUREDS the
25 electricity it produced at an agreed rate for an extended period of time. SOLARCITY warrantied the
26 solar panel system and all of its component parts to be free of defects and agreed to bear all of the
27 risk and to repair or pay INSUREDS for damage caused by the solar panel system to the home,
28 belongings and property in an amount not to exceed two million dollars.
3
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
PDF Page 5
1
16.
Upon information and belief, either prior to or in the process of installing THE
2 SYSTEM on the roof of the PROPERTY, SOLARCITY attached an inverter box to the rear of each
3 of the various solar panels. Each inverter box contained wires with connectors attached for the
4 purpose of connecting each inverter box to other inverter boxes on adjacent panels in a “daisy chain”
5 manner. The wires were connected to each other with plastic solar photo voltaic connectors that
6 incorporated both male and female connection points.
7
17.
At all times material to and mentioned herein, Defendant SOLAREDGE and DOES
8 11-25 designed, manufactured, assembled, inspected, tested, distributed, and placed into the stream
9 of commerce the inverter that was attached to the solar panels installed by SOLARCITY at the
10 PROPERTY.
11
18.
At all times material to and mentioned herein, Defendants SOLAREDGE,
12 AMPHENOL, and DOES 11-25 designed, manufactured, assembled, inspected, tested, distributed,
13 and placed into the stream of commerce the plastic connectors known generically as Amphenol H4
14 solar photovoltaic connectors that were attached to the connecting wires that were in turn attached
15 to the SOLAREDGE inverter.
16
19.
At all times material to and mentioned herein, Defendants SOLAREDGE,
17 AMPHENOL, and DOES 11-25 knew and intended that the inverter incorporating the Amphenol
18 H4 solar photovoltaic connectors would be used by members of the general public and knew of the
19 specific use, purpose and requirements for which such products would be utilized.
20
20.
Defendant TESLA, SOLARCITY, and DOES 1-10 utilized and incorporated said
21 products into the ordinary course of installation and maintenance of THE SYSTEM.
22
21.
On or about September 1, 2017, a fire occurred at the PROPERTY causing
23 substantial damage.
24
22.
PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and hereon alleges that an Amphenol H4 solar
25 photovoltaic connector or similar incorporated into a SOLAREDGE inverter (hereinafter
26 collectively referred to as the “SUBJECT PRODUCT”) attached to a solar panel on the roof of the
27 PROPERTY was defective in some manner, and as a direct and proximate result of which the
28 connector failed causing the fire which resulted in substantial damage to the PROPERTY.
4
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
PDF Page 6
1
23.
As a result of the fire and resulting damage, INSUREDS suffered significant losses
2 including destruction of, and damage to real and personal property, as well as loss of use of the
3 PROPERTY.
4
24.
As a result of the fire, and pursuant to the terms and conditions of its Policy,
5 PLAINTIFF made payments to INSUREDS to compensate them for the losses incurred as a result
6 of the fire.
7
25.
As a result of the payments made to INSUREDS, and pursuant to the terms and
8 conditions of its Policy, PLAINTIFF is legally, contractually and equitably subrogated to the rights
9 of INSUREDS to the extent of its payments and seeks recovery of same by this Complaint.
10
III.
11
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
12
BREACH OF CONTRACT
13
(Against Defendants TESLA ENERGY OPERATIONS, INC., SOLAR CITY
14
CORPORATION and DOES 1-10)
15
26.
PLAINTIFF incorporates and realleges by reference the allegations set for in
16 paragraphs 1 through 25 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein at length.
17
27.
INSUREDS fully and completely performed all of the things that the Power Purchase
18 Contract required INSUREDS to do.
19
28.
On or about September 1, 2017, a fire occurred at the PROPERTY. On information
20 and belief, PLAINTIFF alleges that the fire was caused by a defect in the SUBJECT PRODUCT
21 which was in turn incorporated in and formed a part of the solar panel system installed by
22 SOLARCITY.
23
29.
As a natural and foreseeable consequence of the aforesaid fire INSUREDS incurred
24 damages in excess of $451,301.66.
25
30.
Pursuant to the terms and conditions of its Power Purchase Contract including the
26 limited warranty with INSUREDS, SOLARCITY and its successor in interest TESLA, are
27 contractually obligated to bear the cost of the damage to the home, belongings and
28 ///
5
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
PDF Page 7
1 property of INSUREDS as a result of the fire that occurred on or about September 1, 2017.
2
31.
Defendants and each of them have breached the aforementioned contract in that
3 PLAINTIFF has made demand of Defendants, and each of them, for payments of said damages and
4 Defendants have refused and continue to refuse to honor their contractual obligations in said regard.
5
32.
As a result of the payments it made to INSUREDS, and pursuant to the terms and
6 conditions of the Policy, PLAINTIFF is legally, contractually, and equitable subrogated to the rights
7 of INSUREDS to the extent of such payments and seeks damages from Defendants and each of them
8 in excess of $451,301.66.
9
IV.
10
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
11
BREACH OF CONTRACT -IMPLIED DUTY TO PERFORM WITH
12
REASONABLE CARE
13
(Against Defendants TESLA ENERGY OPERATIONS, INC., SOLAR CITY
14
CORPORATION and DOES 1-10)
15
33.
PLAINTIFF hereby realleges paragraphs 1 through 32 of the complaint and
16 incorporates them by reference as though fully set forth herein.
17
34.
Implied in the terms of its contract with INSUREDS, as set forth above, was the
18 implied duty that Defendants would perform the contract competently and with reasonable care.
19
35.
Defendant’s work was performed in a manner that was negligent, incompetent, and
20 lacking in reasonable care in that, among other things, Defendants caused a fire to occur that resulted
21 in substantial damage to the PROPERTY.
22
36.
INSUREDS fully performed all of their obligations under the contract.
23
37.
As a direct and proximate result of the negligent acts and omissions of Defendants
24 and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, INSUREDS sustained substantial damage to the PROPERTY.
25
38.
As a consequence of the foregoing, PLAINTIFF became obligated
26 pursuant to the terms of its policy to pay benefits to INSUREDs in an amount of no less than
27 $451,301.66 and seeks to recover same by this action.
28 ///
6
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
PDF Page 8
1
V.
2
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
3
NEGLIGENCE
4
5
(Against all Defendants and DOES 1-25)
39.
PLAINTIFF hereby re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 38 of the Complaint and
6 incorporates them by reference as though fully set forth herein.
7
40.
At all times herein mentioned, Defendants and DOES 1 through 25, owed a duty of
8 care to INSUREDS to, among other things, design, engineer, manufacture, assemble, install,
9 maintain, and repair the solar panel system including the SUBJECT PRODUCT exercising
10 reasonable care, workmanship, and skill in compliance with all applicable codes, regulations and
11 standards of care in the industry.
12
41.
Defendants and DOES 1 through 25, breached their duty of care to INSUREDs by
13 failing to exercise due care in the design, engineering, assembly, manufacturing, assembly,
14 installation, maintenance, and repair of the solar panel system and the SUBJECT PRODUCT.
15
42.
As a direct and proximate result of the negligent acts and omissions of Defendants
16 and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, INSUREDs sustained substantial damage to the PROPERTY.
17 As a consequence of the foregoing, PLAINTIFF became obligated pursuant to the terms of its policy
18 to pay benefits to INSUREDS in an amount of no less than $451,301.66 and seeks to recover same
19 by this action.
20
VI.
21
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
22
STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY – MANUFACTURING DEFECT
23
(Against Defendants SOLAREDGE, AMPHENOL and DOES 11-25)
24
43.
PLAINTIFF hereby re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 42 of the Complaint and
25 incorporates them by reference as though fully set forth herein.
26
44.
Defendants and DOES 11 through 25, inclusive, and each of them, manufactured,
27 designed, assembled, distributed, marketed, and/or sold the SUBJECT PRODUCT.
28
45.
The SUBJECT PRODUCT contained a manufacturing defect.
7
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
PDF Page 9
1
46.
The SUBJECT PRODUCT was dangerously defective and unsafe for its intended or
2 reasonably foreseeable use by reason of the defects in its manufacture.
3
47.
Said defects exposed the users of said product to serious injury and damages because
4 of the failure of Defendants, and each of them, to properly guard and protect the users of the
5 SUBJECT PRODUCT from the defects in said product.
6
48.
INSUREDS were not aware of said defects at any time prior to the injuries caused
7 by the SUBJECT PRODUCT.
8
49.
At the time of the failure, the SUBJECT PRODUCT was being used in the manner
9 intended by the Defendants, and in a manner that was reasonably foreseeable by the Defendants as
10 involving substantial danger that was not readily apparent to its users.
11
50.
As a proximate result of the said defects of the SUBJECT PRODUCT, INSUREDS
12 sustained substantial damage to the SUBJECT PROPERTY. As a consequence of the foregoing,
13 PLAINTIFF became obligated pursuant to the terms of its policy to pay benefits to INSUREDS in
14 an amount of no less than $451,301.66 and seeks to recover same by this action.
15
VII.
16
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
17
STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY – DESIGN DEFECT
18
(Against Defendants SOLAREDGE, AMPHENOL and DOES 11-25)
19
51.
PLAINTIFF hereby re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 50 of the Complaint and
20 incorporates them by reference as though fully set forth herein.
21
52.
Defendants and DOES 11 through 25, inclusive, and each of them, manufactured,
22 designed, assembled, distributed, marketed, and/or sold the SUBJECT PRODUCT.
23
53.
The SUBJECT PRODUCT was defective in its design.
24
54.
The SUBJECT PRODUCT was dangerously defective and unsafe for its intended or
25 reasonably foreseeable use by reason of the defects in its design.
26
55.
Defendants and DOES 11 through 25, inclusive, and each of them, failed to design
27 the SUBJECT PRODUCT to protect against a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury.
28
56.
Said defects exposed the users of said product to serious injury and damages because
8
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
PDF Page 10
1 of the failure of Defendants, and each of them, to properly guard and protect the users of the
2 SUBJECT PRODUCT from the defects in said product.
3
57.
INSUREDS were not aware of said defects at any time prior to the injuries caused
4 by the SUBJECT PRODUCT.
5
58.
At the time of the failure, the SUBJECT PRODUCT was being used in the manner
6 intended by the Defendants, and in a manner that was reasonably foreseeable by the Defendants as
7 involving substantial danger that was not readily apparent to its users.
8
59.
As a proximate result of the said defects of the SUBJECT PRODUCT, INSUREDS
9 sustained damages to the SUBJECT PROPERTY. As a consequence of the foregoing, PLAINTIFF
10 became obligated pursuant to the terms of its policy to pay benefits to INSUREDS in an amount of
11 no less than $451,301.66 and seeks to recover same by this action.
12
VIII.
13
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
14
STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY – FAILURE TO WARN
15
(Against Defendants SOLAREDGE, AMPHENOL and DOES 11-25)
16
60.
PLAINTIFF hereby re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 59 of the Complaint and
17 incorporates them by reference as though fully set forth herein.
18
61.
Defendants and DOES 11 through 25, inclusive, and each of them, manufactured,
19 designed, assembled, distributed, marketed, and/or sold the SUBJECT PRODUCT.
20
62.
Defendants and DOES 11 through 25, inclusive, and each of them, knew that the
21 SUBJECT PRODUCT would be purchased and used without inspection for defects.
22
63.
The SUBJECT PRODUCT was defective when it left Defendants’ control.
23
64.
At the time of the SUBJECT PRODUCT’s design, manufacture, and sale, and
24 continuing up to the time of the fire at the SUBJECT PROPERTY, the Defendants knew, or should
25 have known, that the SUBJECT PRODUCT created a risk of injury if it was used in an intended or
26 reasonably foreseeable manner.
27
65.
Defendants and DOES 11 through 25, inclusive, and each of them, knew that these
28 substantial dangers were not readily recognizable to an ordinary consumer.
9
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
PDF Page 11
1
66.
Defendants and DOES 11 through 25, inclusive, and each of them, failed to provide
2 adequate warnings, instructions, guidelines or admonitions to members of the consuming public, of
3 the risks, which the Defendants knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, to
4 have existed in the SUBJECT PRODUCT.
5
67.
As a proximate result of Defendants’ failure to warn purchasers of their product,
6 INSUREDS sustained damages to the SUBJECT PROPERTY.
7
68.
As a consequence of the foregoing, PLAINTIFF became obligated pursuant to the
8 terms of its policy to pay benefits to INSUREDS in an amount of no less than $451,301.66 and
9 seeks to recover same by this action.
10
WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays for judgment in its favor and against Defendants as
11 follows:
12
1.
For compensatory damages of at least four hundred fifty-one thousand three hundred
13
and one dollars and sixty-six cents ($451,301.66), the exact amount of which will be
14
proven at trial;
15
2.
For attorney fees pursuant to contract as allowed by law;
16
3.
For prejudgment interest, from September 1, 2017 pursuant to California Law,
17 according to proof;
18
4.
For costs of suit; and,
19
5.
For such other and further relief as the Court shall deem just and proper.
20
21 DATED: August 25, 2020
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT A. STUTMAN, P.C.
22
23
24
25
By:
Bonnie J. Bennett
Attorneys for INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE
OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB
26
27
28
10
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Back to 
