From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.
Fire Insurance Exchange v. Electrolux Home Products
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
2006 WL 2925286 (2006)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Donald and Julie Crawford purchased a clothes dryer manufactured by Electrolux Home Products (Electrolux) (defendant). The dryer came with an owner’s manual containing Electrolux’s express warranty that, in normal use, the dryer would provide a long lifetime of efficient service. The Crawfords never read the warranty. The dryer subsequently blew up and destroyed the Crawfords’ house. The Crawfords’ insurer, Fire Insurance Exchange (plaintiff), covered the loss and, as the Crawfords’ subrogee, sued Electrolux in federal court. Electrolux moved for summary judgment dismissing the suit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hood, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
