Apple Sued By State Farm Over Alleged iPhone Fire (cnet.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Sued By State Farm Over Alleged iPhone Fire (cnet.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday July 23, 2017 @09:18AM from the unlike-a-good-neighbor dept.

An anonymous reader quotes CNET: Insurer State Farm and one of its customers, Wisconsin resident Xai Thao, allege that one of Apple's older iPhones had a defective battery that led to a fire last year. A lawsuit filed on Thursday by both State Farm and Thao claims that her iPhone 4S "failed" and "started a fire at Thao's home." The lawsuit further claims that "preliminary investigations show evidence of a significant and localized heating event in the battery area of the iPhone." It also declares that there were "remnants of internal shorting, indicating that an internal failure of the iPhone's battery caused the fire"... The State Farm lawsuit says that Thao's iPhone was "in a defective and unreasonably dangerous condition" when she bought it in 2014. The suit is claiming in excess of $75,000 in damages.

166 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Discontinued in Sep 2013. by HornWumpus · 2017-07-23 09:32 · Score: 4, Informative

She bought the phone at least 4 months after it was discontinued (Sept 2013 per Wiki).
Who did she buy the phone from?
Who made the battery in it when it burned?
WTF happened to /.? We all hate Apple and all, but this? Really? Kick the lawyer in the balls until he pukes.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
1. Re:Discontinued in Sep 2013. by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2017-07-23 09:43 · Score: 2
  
  Be fair - we were all over Samsung long before it was clear what the problem was.
  That's not to argue most of your points, though. We're talking about a model which was in millions of people's pockets for several years - whatever happened, it's obvious this is a rare occurrence and not something endemic.
  I also tend to be biased against anything State Farm is involved with, based on personal experience with the company. But let's see how the story develops, then decide.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
2. Re:Discontinued in Sep 2013. by HornWumpus · 2017-07-23 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  Kick the CEO of State Farm in the balls until he pukes too.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
3. Re:Discontinued in Sep 2013. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 10:26 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  would not be surprised if it ends up being discovered that...
  the phone had a cheap knockoff battery installed a previous owner of the phone. an iphone that old, used regularly, would have needed a new battery long before the 'incident'; and/or the current owner and co-plaintiff was using a cheap knockoff charger.
4. Re:Discontinued in Sep 2013. by dgatwood · 2017-07-23 10:39 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  She bought the phone at least 4 months after it was discontinued (Sept 2013 per Wiki).
  No, the iPhone 4s was discontinued in September of 2014 in the United States, and was still sold in some countries as late as 2016.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
5. Re:Discontinued in Sep 2013. by Gravis+Zero · 2017-07-23 11:08 · Score: 1
  
  WTF happened to /.? We all hate Apple and all, but this? Really? Kick the lawyer in the balls until he pukes.
  Why are you picking on Slashdot when it's State Farm who is doing the suing? Slashdot is just reporting on the story by cnet.
  
  --
  Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
6. Re:Discontinued in Sep 2013. by Khyber · 2017-07-23 11:45 · Score: 1
  
  "She bought the phone at least 4 months after it was discontinued (Sept 2013 per Wiki).
  Who did she buy the phone from?"
  Could've still been brand-new and unopened (TFS ain't mentioning that critical detail.) Plenty of people buy products and keep them in their unopened original packaging for the purpose of resale.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
7. Re: Discontinued in Sep 2013. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 12:08 · Score: 0
  
  It's 75k dude. It's nothing to apple vs someone's home.
  It really doesn't do anything to Apple's reputation given it's an isolated case and such an old phone, but Apple should just do it out of good will and settle.
8. Re: Discontinued in Sep 2013. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 12:10 · Score: 0
  
  Because this is non news?
9. Re: Discontinued in Sep 2013. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 13:05 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Yeah, it's nothing, except a legal precedent that has an insurance company yet again trying to pass the buck instead of actually paying out against the billions in premiums they collect to never actually pay against a policy.
  Fuck that. State Farm can pay, and Apple should fight it even if it was for $20.
10. Re:Discontinued in Sep 2013. by HiThere · 2017-07-23 13:09 · Score: 1
  
  A reasonable point. It is worth remembering, however, that batteries will go bad over time even without being used. This isn't just ni-cads, it's all of them. If you leave them uncharged it tends to collapse the electrodes, and if they're full charged it tends to over expand them. I'm told this is why batteries are normally at 70% charge when you buy something, but that charge will leak off over the years.
  So it seems plausible to me that even if there weren't manufacturing defects, and the device was unused, that the battery *might* have become defective over the years.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
11. Re:Discontinued in Sep 2013. by mTor · 2017-07-23 14:02 · Score: 1
  
  WTF happened to /.?
  
  After the last sale of /., this site became an even bigger mess. Before the sale, Timothy used to post bullshit stories all the time but now they have Beau and David constantly shitposting the biggest crap they can come across. It's BS leftist ideology 24/7.
  I rarely even visit the site anymore. It's become really bad.
12. Re: Discontinued in Sep 2013. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 14:24 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  You are an ignorant little shit. State Farm is suing *because* they already paid. They're recovering their damages from a defective device. I know that you hate corporate overlords, and worship the on true and holy Apple corporation, but everything in your post is factually wrong.
13. Re: Discontinued in Sep 2013. by Brockmire · 2017-07-23 14:57 · Score: 1
  
  Then expectation is reduced capacity, not increased chance of fire explosion, no? One is a minor inconvenience and the latter is not.
14. Re:Discontinued in Sep 2013. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 15:13 · Score: 0
  
  None of that should matter. Either these devices are built to be safe for people to use (knowing that people do dumb things with electrical appliances), or they are not. If they aren't built with the anticipated 'dumb user factor', then they should never have been released.
15. Re:Discontinued in Sep 2013. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 15:18 · Score: 0
  
  Agreed. /. is a site struggling to stay relevant. I will miss this place when it finally ends, not without prejudice. I was a loyal user here until I dared to mention reddit when /, got stupid. I was banned, now I lurk here once in a while. Things come and go, /. is no exception.
16. Re:Discontinued in Sep 2013. by alvinrod · 2017-07-23 15:24 · Score: 1
  
  Under that standard no product would ever be released. There are still hundreds to thousands of severe injuries or deaths every year from user stupidity. There's nothing manufacturers could possibly do to prevent end users from installing dodgy third party replacement hardware with their devices or monkeying with it themselves.
17. Re:Discontinued in Sep 2013. by Z00L00K · 2017-07-23 16:56 · Score: 1
  
  The root cause here is that LiIon batteries are time bombs waiting to go off regardless of brand and manufacturer.
  
  --
  If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
18. Re: Discontinued in Sep 2013. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 17:29 · Score: 0
  
  Don't worry, this is an increasing trend, as we use the internet for our instant gratification it's shoot first and ask questions later (or never).
19. Re:Discontinued in Sep 2013. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 17:45 · Score: 0
  
  No wrong again. They were still selling them in 2016 in some places.
  Good to see you can finally search a wiki, but only if it confirms your lies, not other peoples facts.
20. Re: Discontinued in Sep 2013. by HiThere · 2017-07-23 17:59 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately, I'm not sure that's a valid expectation. It *usually* works that way, but if the electrodes are weak and then overcharged (not sure what that means) it's my understanding that there is an increased chance of a short inside the battery.
  OTOH, I don't see why it should catch fire except while being charged.....
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
21. Re: Discontinued in Sep 2013. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 18:01 · Score: 0
  
  Exactly. If it was Samsung, it'd be news.
  Apple's products ate perfect and beyond reproach.
22. Re:Discontinued in Sep 2013. by Plumpaquatsch · 2017-07-23 19:13 · Score: 1
  
  Be fair - we were all over Samsung long before it was clear what the problem was.
  Could that have had anything to do with the fact that there were dozens of cases with brand new devices? No? Compared to one 2 year old phone that actually was bought after it was discontinued 3 years after introduction? One of a model that actually sold more in the first weekend than Note 7s were sold before it was discontinued? Yeah, be fair: Apple should recall the iPhone 4s too, because that's obviously an equivalent problem.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
23. Re:Discontinued in Sep 2013. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 20:08 · Score: 0
  
  There are still hundreds to thousands of severe injuries or deaths every year from user stupidity.
  Yes this is properly known as natural selection. There are good forms and bad forms. Bad forms involve things like automobiles in which the morons tend to take someone else with them. Good forms are 100% self-selection.
24. Re:Discontinued in Sep 2013. by Highdude702 · 2017-07-23 20:18 · Score: 1
  
  Sure there is.. DRM in everything. But then we would all complain about that also. The fact of the matter is we should remove all warning labels and let Mother Nature choose who can populate the earth.
25. Re:Discontinued in Sep 2013. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 21:45 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Sorry, but no.
  When I design electronics I have to take fire hazard into consideration.
  I know that despite how many signs I put up some nitwit will connect 230VAC to a device made for 24VDC.
  It doesn't have to work then, it is OK if the smoke is let out, but under no circumstance is is acceptable that it causes a fire.
  Yes, it is harder to solve the mechanical part and it will cut into profit margins, but the phone should have a PTC-resistor to detect if the battery is overheating and stop charging and shut down the phone. (You shouldn't even use the battery if it overheats.)
  No, it isn't user friendly to display a black screen instead of a faulty battery symbol, but people lives are more important than their convenience.
  Apple consistently makes design choices where appearance takes precedence over other things.
  Same problem with their official charger. To get down the size they reduced the distance between the top of the mains capacitor to the USB shield to something like 2 mm where it should have been at least 6 mm.
  Sure, the charger is smaller, but whoever made the decision should end up in jail.
  But hey, they are winning, companies that follows the rules can't compete.
26. Re: Discontinued in Sep 2013. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 22:49 · Score: 0
  
  Fake news. Who still has an iPhone 4s?
27. Re:Discontinued in Sep 2013. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-24 00:05 · Score: 0
  
  The lawyer is doing the job he is paid to do. Perhaps you should be kicking State Farm in the balls for this egregious lawsuit.
28. Re:Discontinued in Sep 2013. by tsa · 2017-07-24 00:13 · Score: 2
  
  That thing is at most five years old. A Li-ion battery can easily hold out that long if treated right. All your other poitns are still valid however. But it can also just be dumb bad luck.
  
  --
  -- Cheers!
29. Re:Discontinued in Sep 2013. by UnknowingFool · 2017-07-24 01:17 · Score: 1
  
  It is possible it was still new; it might have been on sale as the phone was discontinued as someone was clearing out their inventory. There are a lot of questions about this case which have not been answered.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
30. Re: Discontinued in Sep 2013. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-24 01:19 · Score: 0
  
  Actually you're right. I'm convinced. fuck insurance companies. Fuck insurance agencies. Fuck insurance agents.
31. Re:Discontinued in Sep 2013. by UnknowingFool · 2017-07-24 01:39 · Score: 1
  
  I would say a main difference is that the Samsung phones had battery issues very shortly after the product was first launched. This is phone (at best) was 2 years old before any battery issue occurred.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
32. Re:Discontinued in Sep 2013. by UnknowingFool · 2017-07-24 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  Specifically the iPhone 4S 8GB was discontinued in Sept 2014. The iPhone 4S 16GB was discontinued by Sept 2013. I'm guessing that is what OP is referring. It would be helpful to know which model the plaintiff had.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
33. Re:Discontinued in Sep 2013. by parkinglot777 · 2017-07-24 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  None of that should matter. Either these devices are built to be safe for people to use (knowing that people do dumb things with electrical appliances), or they are not. If they aren't built with the anticipated 'dumb user factor', then they should never have been released.
  It does matter to this case. Apple has attempted to control their own product and has stated long ago that their product (device) should (or must) be used with their own charger/adapter. They knew that there will be those who are described by you, so they wanted to ensure that they are not liable if these people did dumb things with their product.
  The law suit did not state what charger the plaintiff used when charging. It just said that the cause of the fire was found to be from the iPhone battery. Also, she bought it way back in 2014 but the fire was in April 2016. Besides, the law suit did not even have any detail of where she bought the phone from. Could it be refurbished and sold by individual/shop seller that was not affiliated to Apple? Or was it sold directly from an Apple or affiliated phone company? These would be important in the law suit because you can't simply point your finger to the manufacturer when there is a potential tampering to the device before it was sold to the user.
34. Re:Discontinued in Sep 2013. by UnknowingFool · 2017-07-24 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  Yes retailers might have been selling them in 2016 but Apple stopped selling (and manufacturing) them by 2014.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
35. Re: Discontinued in Sep 2013. by kenh · 2017-07-24 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  The lawsuit further claims that "preliminary investigations show evidence of a significant and localized heating event in the battery area of the iPhone."
  Yeah, when the battery caught fire sitting on a burning table inside a burning house, it burned hotter than the wooden table, creating a 'hotspot'.
  
  It also declares that there were "remnants of internal shorting, indicating that an internal failure of the iPhone's battery caused the fire"...
  And these 'shorts' were found after the fire, after the phone essentially melted, and were determined to be manufacturing defects how, exactly? Because there was no insulation on the wires? Hello! The phone was in a fire...
  It was more likely a crappy "Five Below" charger that burst into flames, not the iPhone that worked fine for who knows how long before purportedly burning down the house.
  
  --
  Ken
36. Re:Discontinued in Sep 2013. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-24 05:10 · Score: 0
  
  It shouldn't matter if the battery that Apple installed was removed, and some cheap piece of shit that would have never passed QA was installed by someone not named Apple, or any of their contracted partners?
  If that's the case, then I'm going to sue you for liability over an incident that happened, which you actually have no liability for. Because that's what you are advocating here.
37. Re:Discontinued in Sep 2013. by superdave80 · 2017-07-24 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  an iphone that old, used regularly, would have needed a new battery long before the 'incident';
  Not true. I had an iPhone 4 for far longer, and it was still on it's original battery when I retired it less than a year ago. I actually wiped it and let my daughters use it as a camera on our last vacation recently. It didn't hold as much charge as it use to, but was still definitely usable.
38. Re: Discontinued in Sep 2013. by omnichad · 2017-07-24 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  A completely dead Li-on cell also shorts when charging, right? So wouldn't there already be a short detector in the cell?
39. Re: Discontinued in Sep 2013. by jedidiah · 2017-07-24 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  A legal settlement creates ZERO precedent other than the one that already exists for tort suits in general.
  Furthermore, it's this "evil stuff" that keeps the likes of Apple from grinding you up into green crackers.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
40. Re:Discontinued in Sep 2013. by jedidiah · 2017-07-24 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  I use a 10 year old digicam. We also happen to have an iPod2 that's still in working order. Should I expect these devices to start catching fire now that they are OLD. The fact that a product is moderately not-new by durable goods standards is no excuse to excuse any and all UCC (or other) liability over it.
  What happened to "Apple longevity"?
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
41. Re:Discontinued in Sep 2013. by dgatwood · 2017-07-24 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  By the time they discontinued the 16 GB model, it almost certainly wasn't selling very well. The folks who were buying such an old phone in 2014 were buying it because it was extremely inexpensive or free. Buyers who could afford to spend a hundred bucks more for 16 GB tended to instead spend that hundred bucks on upgrading to a 5c.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
42. Re:Discontinued in Sep 2013. by UnknowingFool · 2017-07-24 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  The point that was being made is that the phone isn't new. It's used. You can't testify to anything that happened to the phone like how it was treated. Unlike the Samsung incidents where the phones were very new and the cause unlikely to be wear, this is an older, used phone. And you do know that no manufacturer warranties their products forever.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
43. Re:Discontinued in Sep 2013. by UnknowingFool · 2017-07-24 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  My point is that knowing the model would narrow down when the phone was originally sold and if the plaintiff bought the phone used. If in 2014 the plaintiff bought a phone which was already discontinued, did he or she buy it from Apple.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
44. Re:Discontinued in Sep 2013. by farble1670 · 2017-07-24 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  None of that should matter.
  So all products should be designed that if any, arbitrary aftermarket modification is made those products are still safe? Like installing a hairdryer inside of an oven to get an convection effect?
  This can't be anything other than a troll. It's not possible anyone is that stupid.
45. Re:Discontinued in Sep 2013. by farble1670 · 2017-07-24 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  but under no circumstance is is acceptable that it causes a fire
  And if you are dealing with lipo batteries that means encasing it with asbestos. Seems reasonable.
46. Re:Discontinued in Sep 2013. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-24 10:06 · Score: 0
  
  Does a discontinued product mean a manufacturer no longer provides support for it, or no longer has liability for it?
  I think product liability is an infinite thing. Just look at Windows XP. Microsoft came out of the woodwork to patch it, even after it said it discontinued it.
Not a surprise by Mr+D+from+63 · 2017-07-23 09:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

Any manufacturer of devices with Lithium Ion batteries runs a risk of an occasional failure sparking a fire. Its not negligence, they implement all kinds of quality controls and features to prevent fires, but they are going to happen. Might be best for Apple to just pay up and not make much noise about it, as it is a rare event overall.
1. Re:Not a surprise by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  No. Only those mfgs that push the bounds of capacity run the risk of fire.
  There's no reason for a lithium cell to ever fail if it's sized properly for it's chemistry.
  Apple tries to cram in as high of a mah as they can. with zero margin for error.
  This is all on them. If they were more reasonable with their battery demands it would NEVER be a problem.
  But they push the limits and just expect everyone to stop using it after ~2 years which is unreasonable.
2. Re: Not a surprise by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 10:05 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  "There's no reason for a lithium cell to ever fail if it's sized properly for it's chemistry."
  Wrong, there is a reason. Time.
3. Re:Not a surprise by Rick+Zeman · 2017-07-23 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  Any manufacturer of devices with Lithium Ion batteries runs a risk of an occasional failure sparking a fire. Its not negligence, they implement all kinds of quality controls and features to prevent fires, but they are going to happen. Might be best for Apple to just pay up and not make much noise about it, as it is a rare event overall.
  And set a precedent? No way.
4. Re: Not a surprise by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 13:08 · Score: 0
  
  Citation needed. If they were really pushing the limits, wouldn't we have had more that this one incident in the 5 years of the iPhone 4S existing?
  Your bias is showing, dipshit.
5. Re: Not a surprise by Brockmire · 2017-07-23 15:06 · Score: 1
  
  IANAL, but on TV, a condition of settlement is to seal the records so you don't know the settlement details. Lawyers, what say you?
6. Re:Not a surprise by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 21:30 · Score: 0
  
  After all what is 75k to Apple? 0.005 seconds of income*?
  * not recalculated for obfuscation via Hungary, Ireland, Swiss banks or the Canary Islands.
7. Re:Not a surprise by AmiMoJo · 2017-07-23 23:45 · Score: 1
  
  I actually design products that use batteries and one absolute requirement is that they fail in a safe manner. Short of ridiculous abuse like throwing the thing in a fire, if they get slammed around or dropped etc. they need to not explode or catch fire.
  We mostly use NiMH cells when we need to recharge, because it's easier to ship and safer than LiPo. We do use lithium primary (non-rechargeable) cells though, and the products are designed so that if they do start venting hydrogen or heating up they will fail in a way that dissipates the gas and heat safely.
  Having said that, whenever Apple has had battery problems they have always turned out to be third party replacements or abuse, and if the iPhone 4s was badly designed I think we would know about it by now.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
8. Re:Not a surprise by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-24 02:33 · Score: 0
  
  Just because you are not negligent in an accident does not mean you are not liable for it. You need to read about strict liability in tort law.
9. Re: Not a surprise by omfglearntoplay · 2017-07-24 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  If my damn house is going to burn down because I gave my old phone to my kid to play with, I sure as hell want to know where to draw the line and when to throw it out. If batteries aren't safe after 4 years... somebody needs to be putting huge warning labels on these phones. If this is a one in a billion chance, well OK. But if age increases chances, we need to know what the deal is.
  So Apple, where do we draw the line? How old is too old of a battery? How often will this happen if the battery is 5 years old? And how does the consumer find out exactly how old the battery is?
Good luck with that... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 09:37 · Score: 1

You think Apple won't spend $750,000 in lawyer fees for a verdict in their favor? Guess again.
1. Re:Good luck with that... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 10:12 · Score: 0
  
  the law and the facts favor state farm, what do you think apple's defense will be?
2. Re:Good luck with that... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 10:29 · Score: 0
  
  Easy... There was a problem with a voltage spike in the cars electrical system. The driver had a cheap Chinese charger that malfunctioned. The phone was placed in the sun during charging. The phones was damaged by the owner. There's hundreds of reasons they can throw around.
3. Re: Good luck with that... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 11:04 · Score: 0
  
  "We are going to make this too expensive to pursue "
4. Re: Good luck with that... by manu0601 · 2017-07-23 11:39 · Score: 1
  
  "We are going to make this too expensive to pursue "
  That can work against an individual, but against an insurance company?
5. Re: Good luck with that... by MachineShedFred · 2017-07-23 13:11 · Score: 1
  
  Insurance companies are profit motivated. If the thing doesn't settle, they risk spending more in legal fees than the casualty settlement they are attempting to recover, and it's not worth it.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
6. Re:Good luck with that... by FlyHelicopters · 2017-07-23 15:05 · Score: 1
  
  None of those reasons would absolve Apple of all liability...
7. Re: Good luck with that... by FlyHelicopters · 2017-07-23 15:09 · Score: 1
  
  State Farm isn't as rich as Apple, but they are rich enough to go after this.
8. Re: Good luck with that... by FlyHelicopters · 2017-07-23 15:15 · Score: 1
  
  Apple has the same concerns, if State Farm wins, they can ask for their reasonable legal costs on top of the $75K.
9. Re: Good luck with that... by Dog-Cow · 2017-07-23 20:39 · Score: 1
  
  Apple has enough liquid assets to buy State Farm. If they want to be stubborn, no piddly insurance company is going to stop them.
10. Re:Good luck with that... by UnknowingFool · 2017-07-24 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  Using a faulty charger wouldn't absolve Apple of liability? If the phone was previously damaged that may have contributed to battery damage wouldn't absolve Apple?
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
11. Re:Good luck with that... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-24 02:04 · Score: 0
  
  Why wasn't charging shut off/disabled if it noticed a spike in incoming power. There is no reason for the battery to explode from a faulty charger unless the phone did not fail safely.
12. Re: Good luck with that... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-24 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  Most of apples "cash" is tied up in investments. So no, without liquidating those investments they could NOT buy state farm.
  BLOOMINGTON — State Farm increased its net worth by 16 percent, to $75.9 billion in 2013, the highest net worth in the company's 91-year history.
  http://www.pantagraph.com/news/local/state-farm-reports-record-net-worth-in/article_a309a299-d62e-507f-83fe-977e248c4870.html
  Apple has about $16.7 billion in cash and equivalents on its balance sheet.
  http://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-isnt-really-sitting-on-216-billion-in-cash-2016-01-26
13. Re:Good luck with that... by UnknowingFool · 2017-07-24 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  Why wasn't charging shut off/disabled if it noticed a spike in incoming power. There is no reason for the battery to explode from a faulty charger unless the phone did not fail safely.
  You are asserting that Apple should design a phone to handle every single condition and fault of a charger they didn't make. Let me ask you a simple question: If lightning struck your home would there be a fire? Why didn't your circuit breakers handle the spike in incoming power? There's no reason for a fire to start in your house unless your wiring did not fail safely.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
14. Re: Good luck with that... by kenh · 2017-07-24 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  the law and the facts favor state farm, what do you think apple's defense will be?
  Simple. The report from the fire inspector that points to something other than this silly claim made by State Farm.
  State Farm will have to prove whatever the fire inspector claimed was the probable cause of the fire wasn't, and all they have is a forensic analysis done by a scientist on their payroll with no history of anything similar happening.
  
  --
  Ken
15. Re:Good luck with that... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-24 04:48 · Score: 0
  
  Settle out of court, with no presumption of guilt, and with full non-disclosure
16. Re:Good luck with that... by omnichad · 2017-07-24 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  That lightning wouldn't have happened if it weren't for static charge between particulates in the air. State Farm should really go after power plants and industrial centers for lightning strikes.
17. Re:Good luck with that... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-24 07:46 · Score: 0
  
  And power plants would not be as numerous if customers didn't use so much electricity. I say sue all customers of utilities.
18. Re:Good luck with that... by FlyHelicopters · 2017-07-24 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  You absolutely could sue the makers of the circuit breakers. Winning would be up to a court, but you would have standing to sue.
19. Re: Good luck with that... by FlyHelicopters · 2017-07-24 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  Sooner or later a case goes to trial, a judgement is rendered and the appeals process is over, at which point paying is required.
20. Re:Good luck with that... by FlyHelicopters · 2017-07-24 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  No, it would not. It could be shown that Apple could or should have known that could happen and design the phone to not work with such chargers.
  The liability might be split between the maker of the charger and the maker of the phone, or both could be liable.
21. Re:Good luck with that... by UnknowingFool · 2017-07-25 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  No, it would not. It could be shown that Apple could or should have known that could happen and design the phone to not work with such chargers.
  So you are putting the responsibility on Apple to design their hardware around the faultiness of other hardware they did not manufacture. Is that what you're stating? Should Ford design their cars around faulty after market car parts? Should Dell design their computers to handle faulty power supplies?
  
  The liability might be split between the maker of the charger and the maker of the phone, or both could be liable.
  And if one of them failed basic safety tests and one did not, you would make them both pay?
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
22. Re:Good luck with that... by UnknowingFool · 2017-07-25 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  You absolutely could sue the makers of the circuit breakers. Winning would be up to a court, but you would have standing to sue.
  You can file a suit; but that's not the question presented. The question is whether your case has merit. In the case of a lightning strike, it'll get dismissed.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
23. Re:Good luck with that... by FlyHelicopters · 2017-07-25 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe, maybe not... have you don't the research to see if that has always happened everywhere?
  I'd be willing to bet that you'd be surprised...
24. Re:Good luck with that... by FlyHelicopters · 2017-07-25 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  You're trying to have a logic debate, I'm trying to explain how courts work in the real world, the two don't always match up.
  I don't think I'd have a very hard time finding a jury of 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty who would blame Apple for this.
25. Re:Good luck with that... by UnknowingFool · 2017-07-25 15:19 · Score: 1
  
  Force majeure would certainly be cited if you tried to sue the circuit breaker manufacturer.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
26. Re:Good luck with that... by UnknowingFool · 2017-07-26 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  You're trying to have a logic debate, I'm trying to explain how courts work in the real world, the two don't always match up.
  So you're saying a court would not rule on the side of manufacturer that says a 3rd party part was the cause of a problem and that absolves them of liability? Have you been to court recently? Have you been to a car dealership? If you put in a 3rd party part in your Ford and then try to sue Ford, Ford would quickly (and has done so) have the case dismissed. You used a 3rd party part. They have no liability in that case. The courts would tell you to sue the 3rd party manufacturer.
  
  I don't think I'd have a very hard time finding a jury of 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty who would blame Apple for this.
  I would talk to a lawyer before you make that claim. A good lawyer would make sure it never gets to a trial.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Obviously, by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 09:41 · Score: 5, Funny

She was holding it wrong.
1. Re:Obviously, by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-07-23 10:25 · Score: 2
  
  She should have stored it in a fireproof and explosion proof bag.
2. Re:Obviously, by TimHunter · 2017-07-23 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  Sigh. Okay. I know you're trying to be funny. (BTW, when I say "you" I'm not talking to just you, AC. I'm talking to all of Slashdot.) But you're referencing something Steve Jobs (By the way, he's dead now. Don't know if you knew that.) said SEVEN YEARS AGO. This has got to be the lamest Apple joke in the universe and it stopped being funny about 6 1/2 years ago. How about coming up with a new joke? Please.
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqSLZ1jqhFQ
3. Re:Obviously, by radarskiy · 2017-07-23 12:59 · Score: 1
  
  The best rebuttal to the "holding it wrong" herp-derp crowd: http://dontholditwrong.tumblr....
4. Re: Obviously, by Brockmire · 2017-07-23 15:12 · Score: 2
  
  No. The joke has lasting power by how ludicrous it was. People still reference the Dallas dream season from the 80's. This shit will die out when we don't hold cell phones in our hands anymore and they're grafted to our ears. (Apple circa 2030. You heard it here first, folks!) No one needs to defend Steve Jobs. He was a first rate asshole.
5. Re: Obviously, by Uberbah · 2017-07-23 19:30 · Score: 1
  
  The joke has lasting power because Apple has far more hateboys than fanboys
  FTFY.
6. Re: Obviously, by Plumpaquatsch · 2017-07-24 00:52 · Score: 1
  
  No. The joke has lasting power by how ludicrous it was.
  Yeah, The joke was ludicrous . What he said made total sense. Just look at the forced way you had to hold the phone to get a tiny drop in reception, the people all had white knuckles from the strain of holding it "just right". And the best was when various people showed other phones had similar issues, the defence from manufacturers and Apple haters was that "nobody would hold a phone that way". Which was completely different!
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
7. Re: Obviously, by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-24 02:12 · Score: 0
  
  Ahh the always victimized apple fanboi.
  Here is the funny part, I don't hate Apple at all. I hate their herpa derpa fanbois though with the constant peeing contests.
8. Re:Obviously, by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-24 05:23 · Score: 0
  
  Wrong!! Its still relevant today as a representation of that asinine and arrogant attitude of apple and its blind worshipers.
Betting line is by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 09:41 · Score: 0

a quiet settlement
Xai Thao? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 09:43 · Score: 0

He probably bought a knockoff iphone from China and now blames Apple for it.
1. Re:Xai Thao? by jandersen · 2017-07-23 20:19 · Score: 1
  
  That doesn't sound like a Chinese name at all - even after it has been through the American Language Foreign Name Mangler. To me it sounds more like a Hmong name. Firstly, in Hanyu Pinyin transcription, the letter 'x' is only used before 'i' or 'u', the latter pronounced as a German 'u umlaut'; and 'x' isn't used in any of the other standard transcriptions of Mandarin.
  Apart from that - why assume that just because somebody has a name that sounds unfamiliar to you, they must somehow be less than yourself, morally or otherwise?
iPhone 4S? by intellitech · 2017-07-23 09:43 · Score: 2

Seriously? Why would anyone still own that piece of garbage?
Says she bought it in 2014? They were on the iPhone 6 as of Sept 2014.
Article doesn't say where she bought it. Not saying it couldn't happen, but hmmm..

--
vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
1. Re:iPhone 4S? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 09:56 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  not everyone buys a new phone every year you faggot
2. Re:iPhone 4S? by intellitech · 2017-07-23 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  Not like I'm trying to, I just routinely drop them, exactly every 12 months. Oops.
  
  --
  vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
3. Re:iPhone 4S? by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2017-07-23 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  The lawsuit specifically states "Neither Thao nor anyone else ever changed the battery in the iPhone", which is interestingly certain given the vintage and purchase date.
  Also, the fire happened in April 2016, and the suit was filed last Thursday. The wheels of justice turn slowly... but I'll be curious to see what additional information comes out. Does the phone still exist in a form Apple can even examine?
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
4. Re:iPhone 4S? by qzzpjs · 2017-07-23 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  The lawsuit specifically states "Neither Thao nor anyone else ever changed the battery in the iPhone", which is interestingly certain given the vintage and purchase date.
  
  Not too interesting. I have an original 4S that still lasts 7 or more days standby on a charge. On the other hand, I had to just replace the battery on my iPhone 6 after 2.5 years.
5. Re:iPhone 4S? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 10:41 · Score: 0
  
  Why is that interesting? I'm still using a 4S today, battery hasn't been changed. It works.
6. Re: iPhone 4S? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 10:42 · Score: 0
  
  So you are a fraudster who just admitted it?
7. Re:iPhone 4S? by dgatwood · 2017-07-23 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  Says she bought it in 2014? They were on the iPhone 6 as of Sept 2014.
  Apple doesn't just sell one model of phone at a time. In 2014, Apple was selling the iPhone 6 / 6 Plus, the iPhone 5s, the iPhone 5c (an iPhone 5 with a cheaper, plastic back), and the iPhone 4s.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
8. Re:iPhone 4S? by murdocj · 2017-07-23 11:21 · Score: 2
  
  So what? If she really bought it in 2014, who cares what other phones were available? Are you really saying that it's ok for devices to self destruct in 3 years? If, somehow, the device was damaged / altered / etc, then fine, it's not Apple's fault, but if it's just 3 years old, no reason it should be catching fire.
9. Re:iPhone 4S? by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2017-07-23 12:03 · Score: 1
  
  It's "interesting" given she purchased the phone well after Apple stopped making them - so how can they confidently state that as a fact?
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
10. Re: iPhone 4S? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 12:06 · Score: 0
  
  My 5c is on its fourth battery, and I have a spare.
11. Re:iPhone 4S? by Khyber · 2017-07-23 12:17 · Score: 1
  
  Hubby's 4S still works and is in daily use.
  Only needs a charge once every three days. It's only used to text, browse the web (no video) and phone calls. Maybe the occasional picture or video.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
12. Re: iPhone 4S? by Brockmire · 2017-07-23 15:27 · Score: 1
  
  Oh shit! They bought a fire phone at fire sale price! Maybe that saying has been wrong all these years.
13. Re:iPhone 4S? by antdude · 2017-07-23 16:35 · Score: 1
  
  I still use it today. I got it for free from someone who didn't want it anymore. Its battery life and speed are slow, but work for basic stuff.
  
  --
  Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
14. Re:iPhone 4S? by phantomfive · 2017-07-23 18:13 · Score: 1
  
  How old is your oldest computer?
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
15. Re:iPhone 4S? by Highdude702 · 2017-07-23 21:00 · Score: 1
  
  20+ years old. An old IBM workstation. Haven't turned it on in years but I bet it still works.
16. Re:iPhone 4S? by UnknowingFool · 2017-07-24 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  The lawsuit specifically states "Neither Thao nor anyone else ever changed the battery in the iPhone", which is interestingly certain given the vintage and purchase date.
  According to the lawsuit the plaintiff bought the phone in 2014. But that brings up a point that the battery was at least 2 years old if it was new. If it was used, it could have been 6 years old. By then the phone was discontinued by Apple; however, it could still have been new if someone was selling out old inventory.
  
  Also, the fire happened in April 2016, and the suit was filed last Thursday. The wheels of justice turn slowly... but I'll be curious to see what additional information comes out. Does the phone still exist in a form Apple can even examine?
  It may have taken time to figure out the cause of the fire. Also this is a civil matter so there are different rules for how timely a suit can be brought. A delay of over a year isn't unusual here.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
17. Re:iPhone 4S? by UnknowingFool · 2017-07-24 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  By Sept 2014, Apple had stop selling the 4S as new phones. It could have been purchased through other retailers and maybe refurbished but it would not have been sold new through Apple. It also matters which model and where it was purchased.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
18. Re:iPhone 4S? by UnknowingFool · 2017-07-24 01:31 · Score: 1
  
  No what the GP is insinuating is that it may have been purchased used and not new. It it was "new" it may not have been newly manufactured and could have been sitting in inventory for a few years. If used, then there are more questions about what may have been done to the phone before the plaintiff purchased it (like change the battery). More details will be needed.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
19. Re:iPhone 4S? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-24 02:20 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe she bought it new, sealed.
  You can go to dealerships and purchase brand new 2016 vehicles... Right now in fact.
  http://dealers.car.com/bing-2016
  Now why exactly could you not purchased a clearance discontinued phone?
  Lets take a look. OMG Cricket wireless will sell you an iPhone 6 (not the s or s+) which was discontinued Sep 7 2016. So almost a year ago.
20. Re:iPhone 4S? by superdave80 · 2017-07-24 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  Neither Thao nor anyone else ever changed the battery in the iPhone", which is interestingly certain given the vintage and purchase date.
  I have an iPhone 4 that my daughters use as a camera that is still on it's original battery. It doesn't hold as much charge as it use to, but still more than enough for casual use.
21. Re:iPhone 4S? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-25 11:53 · Score: 0
  
  But the mac faggots all own iPhones and of course only the latest model.
Eh. by Cyberglich · 2017-07-23 09:47 · Score: 2

If you make enough of anything with a Li-oin cell from phones to smartwatches to what ever a certain percent will go nova thats just a fact of technology . If you make them baldly (IE Note 7 ) the number that go nova will be considerable. . If state farm can prove apple did something stupid in the design/ manufacture they have case. If they don't then its a SHIT HAPPENS type event and that would insurance is for.. its like suing the architect because your house got hit by lighting unless you can prove a fault in design that makes it a lighting magnet more then any other similar size house you have no case..
1. Re:Eh. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 10:18 · Score: 0
  
  One of these days we're going to have to switch to another battery chemistry.
Probably caused by the headphones by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 09:58 · Score: 0

I've seen it time and time again. Accidentally plugging a 240V house main into the headphone jack can easily cause this type of fire. Luckily the iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus do not suffer from this risk due to their courageous design.
Up in Smoke by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 09:59 · Score: 0

Ten minutes of Apple profits.
1. Re: Up in Smoke by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 12:13 · Score: 0
  
  If you didn't do the math, that was an impressive guess.
2. Re: Up in Smoke by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 17:29 · Score: 0
  
  "If you didn't do the math, that was an impressive guess."
  (S)he either did not do the math, or did it incorrectly. Apple makes $70k in profit every minute.
good luck by supernova87a · 2017-07-23 10:22 · Score: 1

I think Apple could make a pretty easy argument that as the non-original owner of a phone that has no verifiable record of its usage history or maintenance history, they are far from liable for any damage that could've been caused, had it even been related to the iPhone itself and not something else in the person's house.
1. Re:good luck by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2017-07-23 10:35 · Score: 2
  
  We don't currently know where this woman got the phone. If it was a refurbished phone off Apple's own store, for instance, that would not be a valid argument.
  There's really too much unknown here, at this point in time, for any of us to form intelligent opinions on; but that doesn't seem to be stopping most posters.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
2. Re:good luck by UnknowingFool · 2017-07-24 01:47 · Score: 1
  
  Well if Apple could show that the plaintiff wasn't the original purchaser, it would strengthen their case. Also if they could show that the battery wasn't original. But we'll have to wait for more details.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
What's next? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 10:24 · Score: 0

Is State Farm going to sue the company that makes the copper behind the walls that cause fires? Or stove manufacturers because of a gas leak? Makes no sense to me.
1. Re: What's next? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 11:32 · Score: 0
  
  They do. If they feel the product and/or service was at fault they will sue to get their money back. In my opinion, this could help every consumer in the end. At what point is a battery problem acceptable? We seem to have drawn a line with the Note 7. Maybe 5 units, 6 months, etc. is unacceptable if loss of life or substantial loss of property is at risk.
2. Re:What's next? by HornWumpus · 2017-07-24 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  State Farm is scum. Their lawyers are sunk costs. You'll find out if you ever have a claim against a State Farm policy holder.
  Their corporate policy is to _always_ deny all claims for less than the price of hiring a lawyer to extract the funds out of them. If you want a claim paid, you have to inflate the shit out of it. Grab your neck and start yelling 'whiplash'...'now my pecker don't work'...then, maybe, they will pay to fix your car.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
3. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-24 11:55 · Score: 0
  
  This is the exact problem with America. Both sides need to lie and cheat to get anything done. Not like other countries I've been to.
Two problems with this by qzzpjs · 2017-07-23 10:29 · Score: 1

The insurance company has already been paid through all of its customer's premiums. They are trying to get double their money back here.
Second, houses burn down all the time from all sorts of reasons and insurance companies don't go around suing toaster manufacturers, electricians, builders, etc. Insurance is supposed to handle these accidents. If 4S iPhones have been bursting into flames like the Note 7's were, they might have a claim, but not because a single out of date phone had an issue.
1. Re:Two problems with this by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 10:35 · Score: 0
  
  You have obviously never dealt with an insurance company. If they think they can recover damages they will sue anybody.
2. Re:Two problems with this by Richard_at_work · 2017-07-23 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  Your first issue isn't an issue - if this *is* a manufacturing or design issue that caused the fire, why should the premium payer pool bear the cost of the payout and not the body which shipped a defective device?
  If the premium payer pool bears the cost, then that affects the risk pool, which affects premiums for future coverage.
  Retrieving the costs from the manufacturer should *theoretically* leave the risk pool unaffected, meaning there is no additional risk for future premiums to cover.
3. Re: Two problems with this by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 10:57 · Score: 0
  
  Yes they do, if there is a defect and they can prove it. Doesn't matter how many worked just fine, if one did not, the manufacturer is responsible.
  Look at it this way. If I design bridges for a living and have designed hundreds of them, if I screw up on one and people get hurt, by your logic, I am not responsible. I don't think that it does, or should, work that way.
  If the battery caused the fire, the battery caused the fire and the manufacturer is responsible.
4. Re: Two problems with this by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 11:29 · Score: 0
  
  "If the battery caused the fire, the battery caused the fire and the manufacturer is responsible."
  Not if they were using a cheap after-market charger.
  Let's say you built 100 identical bridges. Someone runs into a support abutment on one of them that causes a collapse, and that causes people on your bridge to die. Should you be liable? Maybe external factors are at work in both instances, releasing both you and Apple from liability.
5. Re: Two problems with this by Brockmire · 2017-07-23 15:33 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, if it was supposed to withstand more than one point of damage. In a battery, the limiting and safety need to be built into the battery and prevent overcharging. Of course you want a smart, working charger as well, but the battery needs protection built in.
6. Re: Two problems with this by UnknowingFool · 2017-07-24 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, if it was supposed to withstand more than one point of damage. In a battery, the limiting and safety need to be built into the battery and prevent overcharging. Of course you want a smart, working charger as well, but the battery needs protection built in.
  No. While Apple might have some fault tolerance built into their phones, it doesn't mean they can design it to withstand all faults. To anticipate every scenario isn't realistic. Also there is no responsibility on Apple's part (or any manufacturer) to insure that their product must exceed operating conditions. From this article, some of these chargers fail basic safety tests and were damaged after one use. Are you saying Apple should have taken into account these faulty chargers in their design? That's like saying Ford must make sure my car must withstand all 3rd party after market parts.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
7. Re: Two problems with this by kenh · 2017-07-24 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  The insurance company has already been paid through all of its customer's premiums.
  You have a very child-like understanding of the insurance industry.
  
  They are trying to get double their money back here.
  Double? That take in premiums, pay out losses, and try to recoup losses when they feel someone else is to blame. This happens with auto insurance all the time - when they feel another driver is at fault, etc.
  Premiums are based on value of risk assumed and probabilities of payouts, with the expectation that losses caused by outside forces will attempt to be recovered if possible.
  
  --
  Ken
8. Re: Two problems with this by HornWumpus · 2017-07-24 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  They try to recoup losses when they 'feel' they can extort any money from anyone with their staff shysters.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
9. Re: Two problems with this by kenh · 2017-08-05 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  Susing the responsible party is the proper thing to do, otherwise the victim's insurance premiums go up after an accident, not the at-fault party's premiums.
  Why shouldn't the responsible party pay for damages?
  
  --
  Ken
defect? by Lehk228 · 2017-07-23 11:45 · Score: 1

how does state farm intend to show a preponderance of evidence that the fire was the result of a defect in design or manufacture, rather than some sort of damage occurring later. 3-6 years is a lot of time to accumulate heat, impact, moisture, and power surge damage. the lack of significant reports of that model going samsung suggest that it was not an apple QC issue,

--
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
I happened to me as well. by LeftCoastThinker · 2017-07-23 12:36 · Score: 1, Interesting

I have owned an iPhone 3GS, 4, 4S, 5, 6, and 6 plus all bought by me brand new at the AT&T store or Apple store. All of them are going strong still (the 3GS and 4/4S are being used as iPods) with the exception of my 5. A few months back, I noticed that the battery in my 5 had swollen to the point that the front screen had bowed out and popped off of the bezzel in places. The phone was still on at that point. I turned it off and took it out back and put it inside my old BBQ, since it could explode or catch fire inside of a sheet metal enclosure like that without any risk of further fire or damage. I called Apple and they told me to bring it in and get the battery replaced for $100... I haven't done it yet because there is no way I am going to put that thing in my car or pick it up with anything but welding gloves. I am sure that the battery is just about ready to pop. So now I have an iPhone 5 in my old BBQ. I was half hoping it would explode so I could just throw it away (I don't want to start a fire in the trash or trash truck, so I can't just toss it like it is now). If I lived out in the sticks, I would just put a bullet through it, but I can't do that in a residential neighborhood. But yeah, that iPhone 5 was pristine, not a scratch on it and I was the original owner. The battery failed on it's own, after less use than my 3GS or my 4/4S.

--
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
1. Re:I happened to me as well. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 12:45 · Score: 1
  
  Set it in a kitchen pot and take it to Apple.
  If it happens to do something on the way, open the window and dump it out.
2. Re: I happened to me as well. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 12:58 · Score: 0
  
  Do your pots catch fire if you put a lid on them? Why not that instead of try to juggle an electrical fire while driving?
3. Re: I happened to me as well. by OrangeTide · 2017-07-23 13:47 · Score: 1
  
  LiPo fires release a lot of nasty smoke, you'll have to deal with it while driving and a lid on it won't matter. I wouldn't want to have to drag the device to Apple's store, potentially have it go off while driving, and pay $100 on top of all of this for the repair.
  For what it's worth, if it has already bubbled out it's not going to explode with any force. It will catch on fire eventually though, as soon as the deformed battery pack shorts out. I wouldn't want it near my face when it does, so it's useless as a phone in its current state.
  Dispose of it as best you can if it is no longer under warranty, and take Apple to small claims court if you want to get your money back. You can refuse to transport a dangerous device, because that's illegal in most states. That plus pictures of the device and receipts and perhaps a log of the contacts you had with Apple should give you a chance in small claims. Even if you don't win you can be satisfied they had to pay a lawyer a few thousand dollars to take the time to deal with you.
  
  --
  “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
4. Re: I happened to me as well. by Brockmire · 2017-07-23 15:35 · Score: 1
  
  Tailgate party at Apple store parking lot!
5. Re:I happened to me as well. by windwalkr · 2017-07-23 15:52 · Score: 2
  
  I had the battery swell on my 5. It was just on two years old. Screen partially detached from the case, camera signal went funny if you applied pressure to the screen. I was travelling at the time. It lasted the week or so of my trip, and I took it straight in to an Apple store on my return home. It was close to closing time. They messed around with trying to repair it for an hour, by which point the store was supposed to have been closed for half an hour. Then they gave me a new 5, no cost.
  Pity the phone died, but no serious harm done and the service was great.
6. Re:I happened to me as well. by AmiMoJo · 2017-07-23 23:48 · Score: 1
  
  Get one of those fire-proof LiPo charging bags off eBay for a few bucks, then put on your oven mitts and carry it into the Apple store, smoking away*, with a pair of tongs. If you can borrow a hazmat suit, even better.
  When the "genius" asks what's going on, you can tell them that they told you to bring this bomb in for a battery replacement good luck it's their problem now.
  * dry ice works great for this
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
7. Re:I happened to me as well. by thegarbz · 2017-07-24 00:30 · Score: 2
  
  Oh my god, these things won't explode and take your head off. Just hit it with a hammer which will make it catch fire and when it's done throw it away.
  There's thousands of Youtube videos of people doing just that. In the grand scheme of activities it's relatively safe.
  Don't inhale the smoke.
  Wear safety glasses.
8. Re:I happened to me as well. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-24 02:12 · Score: 0
  
  > I am sure that the battery is just about ready to pop.
  Um, no. Swelling and overheating (to the point of melting) are two completely different things. They swell when they are old, and they overheat when they have internal shorts (manufacturing defect, dropped, or hit).
  BTW, the batteries themselves won't catch fire (no fuel), but they will melt plastic and can light other fuel on fire if in close enough proximity to it.
9. Re:I happened to me as well. by Thelasko · 2017-07-24 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  Get one of those fire-proof LiPo charging bags off eBay for a few bucks, then put on your oven mitts and carry it into the Apple store, smoking away*, with a pair of tongs. If you can borrow a hazmat suit, even better.
  A friend of mine that used to race remote control cars told me that buried in a bucket of sand is the best place to store lithium batteries. Maybe put it in a Ziploc bag first to prevent the sand from damaging any electronics.
  
  --
  One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
10. Re:I happened to me as well. by LeftCoastThinker · 2017-07-24 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  I am aware that it is not a grenade, but as you say, I don't want to inhale the smoke, and I would prefer to be more than 16" away from it when it pops. I am not some 14 year old dumbass making a YouTube video who doesn't care if they take years off their life by inhaling diluted lithium ion battery fumes...
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
11. Re:I happened to me as well. by LeftCoastThinker · 2017-07-24 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks, I was not familiar with this product, I will check it out (though I prefer Amazon, since the randos on Ebay would sell you a ziplock bag and call it fire retardant if they thought they could get away with it.)
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
12. Re:I happened to me as well. by thegarbz · 2017-07-24 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  No. It sounds like you're well and truly a distant opposite.
So Samsung really does copy Apple! by just+another+AC · 2017-07-23 14:18 · Score: 1

If the causeFire() method was in the iPhone 4 then Samsung are a full 3 generations behind with the Note 7!
That is truly courageous!
Subrogation by FlyHelicopters · 2017-07-23 15:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

A lot of people posting here need to look up Subrogation and learn something about what State Farm is doing.
They paid out and are now looking to recover their payment, this is something they are allowed to do and is normal under the law.
http://www.dmv.org/insurance/s...
The policy holder is part of the suit because your insurance company requires it. If you have insurance and it pays you on a claim, you are agreeing to help sue anyone they want to go after to recover the money.
1. Re:Subrogation by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-24 03:13 · Score: 0
  
  A lot of people posting here need to look up Subrogation ...
  Fail: you're introducing logic and fact, only outrage is allowed here on /.
2. Re:Subrogation by Maxwell'sSilverLART · 2017-07-24 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. The insurer can't sue directly because it doesn't have a relationship with Apple (the term of art is "privity"); the insured does have a relationship as a customer. Thus, the insured has to be a plaintiff. This is a good policy--it limits who can sue you. Similarly, subrogation moves liability to the party that created the cause of action instead of the insurer, which is a good thing because it provides incentive for parties to not do things that might cause a suit...like creating dangerous products (as alleged in this case).
  
  --
  Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
Dont forget kids to charge it leaving it sit on by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-24 05:07 · Score: 0

The couch.
That's quite a bit of money by Krishnoid · 2017-07-24 05:59 · Score: 1

"We can manage to settle this, but we will have to slightly restate our earnings; excuse me a moment (mumble mumble 75 *thousand*? Not *million*?) ..."
"Sorry about this; we'll have one of our permanent food service employees pay this settlement out of the interest on their AAPL ESPP dividends this quarter. We apologize for the false alarm."
Re:Discontinued in Sep 2013. By Maker only. by eionmac · 2017-07-24 23:41 · Score: 1

The discontinuence of a maker / designer / brand owner supplying goods does not stop retailers or merchants holding stock legitamately at that time from later selling them, and warranty claims go through seller to manufacturer for latent defaults. In most countries latent defaults have a very long period such as 20 years after point of sale,(for gross negligence time unlimited) specifically to avoid manufacturers abandoning claims where there might have been latent faults. A batter fault is most specifically a 'latent defect', as buyer cannot check QA on battery

--
Regards Eion MacDonald