Berkley Regional Ins. Co. v. Amazon.com, Inc.

── Berkley Regional Ins. Co. v. Amazon.com, Inc. ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Date: April 27, 2026 Category: General United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 24-2159 ___________________________ Berkley Regional Insurance Company, as subrogee of Schnoeckers, Inc., doing business as BI Worldwide, doing business as Berkley Technology Underwriters Plaintiff - Appellant v. John Doe Battery Manufacturer; Shenzhenshi Yishengda Dianzi Youxian Gongsi, doing business as Yishda Defendants Amazon.com, Inc. Defendant - Appellee Shenzhen Maxpower Technology Co., Ltd. Defendant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________ Submitted: October 22, 2025 Filed: April 27, 2026 ____________ Before GRUENDER, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ STRAS, Circuit Judge. To certify, or not to certify, that is the question. We need to know whether, under Minnesota law, Amazon is strictly liable for a defective product it offered, stored, and shipped, even though someone else was the seller. The Minnesota Supreme Court ought to be the one to decide this novel legal issue, so we give it the right of first refusal. See Minn. Stat. § 480.065, subd. 3 (allowing it to “answer” a certified “question of law”). I. When Rochelle Zappa’s cellphone would not hold a charge, she searched Amazon for a replacement battery. She picked one sold by a Chinese company named Yishda that the website advertised as “Amazon’s Choice.” The company took part in the “Fulfillment by Amazon” program, a service that allows sellers to use Amazon’s infrastructure, including its website, its warehouses, and its delivery drivers. For a fee, Amazon handled storage, order fulfillment, returns, and customer service. See Pickard v. Amazon.com, Inc., 387 So.3d 515, 518 (La. 2024) (describing Amazon’s order-fulfillment service). Here, it resulted in an Amazon driver delivering a Yishda battery inside an Amazon bag to her doorstep. Disaster struck just two weeks later. When she plugged in her phone at work to charge the battery, it fizzled, sparked, and then burst into flames. Smoke soon enveloped the office. By the time firefighters put out the fire, it had caused $3,881,280 in damage. Berkley Regional Insurance Company, her employer’s insurer, initially footed the bill. Rather than bearing the cost alone, it sued Amazon, Yishda, and the then- unknown manufacturer of the battery in Minnesota state court. See Medica, Inc. v. Atl. Mut. Ins. Co., 566 N.W.2d 74, 76–77 (Minn. 1997) (discussing an insurer’s -2- “subrogation rights,” which allow it to “stand[] in the shoes of the insured and acquire[] all of the rights the insured may have against a third party”). After Amazon removed the case to federal court, Berkley dropped the claims against everybody else. Hoping to get the legal issue back in front of a state court, Berkley urged the district court to certify a question about whether Amazon was strictly liable for the damage. See Minn. Stat. § 480.065, subd. 3; Arizonans for Off. Eng. v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 76 (1997) (“Certification procedure . . . allows a federal court faced with a novel state-law question to put the question directly to the State’s highest court . . . .”). Rather than getting help from the Minnesota Supreme Court, it decided to make an “Erie guess” that online marketpl