Allstate Sues Whirlpool Over Dishwasher Fire That Damaged Pennsylvania Apartment Building
Allstate Indemnity Company has filed a federal lawsuit against Whirlpool Corporation, alleging that one of its dishwashers sparked a fire that destroyed part of a residential property in Broomall, Pennsylvania. The insurer claims Whirlpool failed to design and manufacture the appliance safely, leading to a blaze that caused more than $100,000 in property damage.
According to court filings, the fire occurred on August 6, 2024, inside the first-floor kitchen of a four-unit apartment building owned by Allstate’s policyholder, Mohammad Hadi Radfar. The Whirlpool dishwasher was plugged in but not running when it allegedly malfunctioned. Investigators found that wiring inside the door harness overheated and ignited, setting off a fire that spread through the property.
Allstate states that it paid its policyholder’s insurance claim and is now seeking to recover those costs from Whirlpool. The insurer argues that the appliance was defective when it left the manufacturer’s control and that the company should be held responsible for the resulting losses.
Under a process known as subrogation, insurance companies may act on their customers’ behalf after paying a claim and seek reimbursement from the party alleged to be at fault. The concept allows insurers to recover losses from those believed to have caused the damage rather than leaving the financial burden entirely on policyholders. In this case, Allstate argues that Whirlpool should bear the costs because the fire stemmed from a product defect rather than any action by the homeowner.
To recover those funds, Allstate relies on multiple areas of product liability law. The lawsuit claims Whirlpool failed to exercise reasonable care in designing, testing, and inspecting the dishwasher before placing it on the market, a theory known as negligence. It also invokes strict liability, which allows recovery even without proof of carelessness if a product is found to be unsafe for ordinary use. Finally, Allstate argues that Whirlpool breached the implied warranty of merchantability, which requires that all consumer goods be suitable for their intended purpose. The insurer argues that a dishwasher that can catch fire while plugged in and not running cannot be considered safe for normal household use.
Court documents note that neither the property owner nor the tenants altered the dishwasher before the fire, suggesting any defect existed from the start. Allstate also argues that Whirlpool “knew or should have known” that its dishwashers would remain plugged in between uses and that a wiring defect could create a fire risk in ordinary household conditions.
These doctrines, though technical, protect consumers by placing responsibility on manufacturers to ensure their products are safe and clearly labeled. When an appliance fails in a way that causes a fire or injury, strict liability and warranty laws give consumers a way to seek compensation, while subrogation allows insurers who covered those losses to recover the amount from the responsible party, in this case, the appliance manufacturer.
Whirlpool, headquartered in Michigan, is one of the largest makers of household appliances in the United States. The company designs, manufactures, and sells major products, including dishwashers, refrigerators, and laundry machines, under the Whirlpool name and several other well-known brands, such as Maytag, KitchenAid, Amana, and JennAir.
Allstate is seeking more than $100,000 in damages, as well as legal costs and other expenses permitted under Pennsylvania law. The insurer says the fire caused extensive structural and smoke damage, destroyed personal property, and forced tenants to relocate while the building was repaired.
The lawsuit comes at a time of growing public awareness about the risks of appliance-related fires. Data from the U.S. Fire Administration show that electrical malfunctions remain one of the leading causes of residential structure fires nationwide. Legal analysts note that cases like this often turn on two key questions: whether a defect existed when the product left the manufacturer and whether users were given adequate warnings about potential hazards.
Cases like this one highlight how strict liability standards help protect consumers and homeowners. Unlike negligence claims, which require proof that a company acted carelessly, strict liability focuses on the safety of the product itself. If a product fails to meet reasonable safety expectations, the manufacturer may still be required to compensate for damages even when no misconduct can be proven. The rule encourages companies to maintain rigorous testing and quality control to prevent unsafe products from reaching the market.
Whirlpool has not yet filed a response to Allstate’s complaint. The case remains pending before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
