Spoliation of Evidence Warrants Sanctions But Not Summary Judgment

Lawyers Weekly has reported that, in a products liability case brought in Massachusetts federal court by an insurance company on behalf of its insured against the manufacturer of a leaky water heater, a judge ruled that the disposal (“spoliation”) of the water heater before the manufacturer had an opportunity to test it did not call for summaryjudgment in favor of the manufacturer, but it did warrant sanctions. The case, Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company v. Bradford-White Corporation, demonstrates that a judge must take into account many factors in determining the appropriate sanction for spoliation, including aparty’s degree of blame fordisposing of the evidence (for example, whether the spoliation was intentional or accidental); the harm caused by the spoliation (for example, whether the other party can adequately replicatethe spoliated evidence);and the availability of sanctions that fall short of entering judgment against the spoliating party (for example, a curative jury instruction.)