SAN FRANCISCO (Legal Newsline) - The parent company of GE Appliances is mounting its defense in one of the first cases over the safety of emissions from gas stoves - a lawsuit that does not allege any physical injury.
The same day New York banned gas appliances in new residential buildings, Haier US Appliance Solutions, which purchased GE Appliances in 2016, filed a motion to dismiss a proposed consumer class action on May 3 in San Francisco federal court.
Lawyers at Dovel & Luner sued Haier in March, arguing plaintiff Charles Drake would not have purchased or paid as much for his gas stove if he had known its emissions were harmful.
Drake's and a similar case, brought by the same lawyers against BSH Home Appliances Corporation, were filed in March after media coverage of gas stove emissions exploded. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has said it is considering regulation that many feared would lead to a ban on gas stoves.
The CPSC is not planning imminent regulation, Haier says, having instead sought public comment to further investigate.
"Thus, although recent news articles have speculated about an association between gas stoves and various health concerns, these claims remain disputed and the subject of ongoing research," the motion to dismiss says.
"Yet, according to Drake, GEA should be held liable for not cautioning against use of its own properly functioning product or redesigning its product to reduce energy use."
CPSC Chair Alexander Hoehn-Saric said in January his agency had no intention of banning gas stoves and was simply "exploring new ways to address health risks."
However, New York isn't waiting around for federal guidance. The state passed legislation that bans natural gas and other fossil fuels in new residential buildings, prohibiting appliances like gas-powered stoves and furnaces.
Should GEA challenge New York's ban, it could use a similar defense that it is employing in the Drake class action. In its motion to dismiss, GEA says the regulation of natural gas stoves belongs to the federal government under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act.
The U.S. Court of Appeals recently ruled that an attempted ban on natural gas piping in new buildings in Berkeley, Calif., "waded into a domain preempted by Congress."
"EPCA therefore preempted Berkeley's ordinance because it indirectly sought to reduce (indeed, ban) use of covered natural gas appliances, and state laws 'can't skirt the text of broad preemption provisions by doing indirectly what Congress says they can't do directly.'"
Drake's case alleges a design defect hidden from consumers in order to trick them into buying or paying more for stoves they wouldn't want, had they known the truth. GEA also says there is no design defect because it never promised a stove free from emissions and that Drake's stove works the same as tens of millions of other in the country.
His allegation of health problems are "vague and conclusory," it adds.
"Drake claims that GEA knew normal cooking with the gas stove he bought would contribute to respiratory illness, cardiovascular problems, cancer, lung diseases and asthma," the motion says.
"But he offers no plausible facts to support this conclusion."