By Matthew T. Pisarski & Michael S. Carroll
A New Hampshire homeowner’s lawsuit against pool equipment manufacturer Pentair Inc. has been dismissed following the court’s decision to grant summary judgement in favor of the company. The case arose after the homeowner sustained serious injuries when a pool filter allegedly burst while he was preparing his pool for the winter.
William Duca filed suit in October 2023 against the manufacturer Pentair Inc. in which he alleges the lid for his pool’s filter caused him severe injuries. His complaint included claims for negligence and breach of warranty, asserting that the product was defective and unreasonably dangerous.
Background
According to the complaint, Duca was performing routine seasonal maintenance on his pool when the filter lid suddenly exploded and struck him in the head and neck, resulting in severe injuries, including traumatic brain injury, a subdural hematoma, skull fracture, and damaged sinuses. Duca alleged that the incident was caused by defects in the design and manufacture of the pool filter.
The lawsuit proceeded with two primary claims: Count IV for negligence and Count V for breach of warranty. In June 2025, Pentair Inc. asked for a motion of summary judgement for both counts. Duca objected to this and requested more time for discovery.
Claims
On Count IV for Negligence, Duca’s complaint stated that Pentair should be held liable for negligence in the design, development, and distribution of defective pool filters. Pentair Inc. argued that there is no evidence that they violated any duty to care and thus the claim fails as a matter of law, which the court agreed with. In order to survive a summary judgement motion, the plaintiff has the burden to provide sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the defendant breached a duty of care in designing the product at issue. In this case, the court found that no such evidence was presented by Duca and that the record did not demonstrate that the pool filter caused his injuries. The court noted, in fact, that Duca himself concedes that he was not injured by the pool filter, as evidenced by his deposition at which he admitted that the Pentair pool filter at question had been removed at the time of the incident. He further admitted that his injuries came from the pool pump and not the filter, as alleged in the complaint. Because of this, the court ruled that the defendant (Pentair) was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
On Count V for Breach of Warranty, Duca claimed that Pentair Inc. breached express and implied warranties by furnishing a pool filter that was not safe and was unfit for its intended purposes. Pentair Inc. argued that the claim failed because there was no evidence that the filter was in a condition that breached warranties. In order to demonstrate such a claim, the plaintiff would need to show that the seller created an express warranty. In this case, Duca offers no evidence that Pentair gave him an express warranty on the pool filter, and even if they had, it is a moot point, given that the filter was not involved in the alleged incident and resultant injuries. The same logic applies for any implied warranties. This, because there is no evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the defendant breached any express or implied warranties associated with the pool filter alleged in the complaint, there is no genuine issue of material fact in the case and Pentair is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Outcome
The court denied Duca’s request for additional time to complete discovery, noting a lack of demonstrated diligence in pursuing evidence prior to the summary judgment stage. As a result, Pentair Inc.’s motion for the summary judgment was granted on both counts. The judge ordered the case closed, bringing the litigation to an end in favor of the manufacturer.
References
Duca V. Glamour Pools, Inc., No. 24-cv-188-LM-AJ, 2025 DNH 133 P (D.N.H. 2025).
Matthew T. Pisarski is the Assistant Director of Campus Recreation at Troy University and is pursuing his PhD in Sport Management at Troy University. His research background is in employee satisfaction and retention in recreation settings, along with risk management and liability. He lives in Troy, AL.
Michael S. Carroll is a Professor of Sport Management at Troy University specializing in research related to sport law and risk management in sport and recreation. He has published over 40 articles and delivered over 50 presentations at professional conferences and works closely with students in the TROY doctoral program.
