Landmark Legal Victory in Minnesota for E-Cigarette Explosion Case Against Samsung

Landmark Legal Victory for Bentley & More LLP

On October 17, 2025, the Minnesota Court of Appeals delivered a significant judgment, marking a pivotal moment in the ongoing legal battle surrounding e-cigarettes and lithium-ion batteries. Bentley & More LLP, represented by partners Greg Bentley and Matt Clark, navigated a complex landscape to secure a win against Samsung SDI, the South Korean battery manufacturer implicated in a dangerous explosion that occurred in 2020.

Background of the Case

The case originated from a tragic incident that took place on January 7, 2020, when a Samsung 18650 lithium-ion battery exploded in the front pocket of Shawn Peters. This catastrophic event resulted in severe burns, including second- and third-degree injuries to delicate areas of his body. The implications of this incident raised crucial questions about the responsibilities of manufacturers in their dealings with consumers.

Samsung SDI has historically argued against the jurisdiction of Minnesota courts, maintaining that it only sells batteries to sophisticated entities for commercial use. Yet, the truth uncovered by Bentley & More reveals a far more intricate web of direct interactions between Samsung and Minnesota residents. Specifically, over 2.9 million Samsung 18650 batteries were sold to manufacturers within the state during the timeframe relevant to Peters’ injuries.

Legal Arguments and Court Findings

Throughout the jurisdictional discovery process, Bentley & More meticulously gathered evidence showing Samsung's active participation in the Minnesota market. The court found that the company had knowingly entered contracts allowing for the sale of its batteries for personal, family, or household use, which contradicts Samsung's previous claims of only servicing commercial clients.

The Court of Appeals affirmed that Samsung's ongoing business activities in Minnesota constituted sufficient grounds for personal jurisdiction. The judges validated that a Minnesota court's authority over Samsung aligns with principles of fair play and substantial justice. They noted that Samsung had indeed purposefully engaged in trade within the state, which directly relates to the case at hand: Peters’ injuries were tied to Samsung's extensive business contacts in Minnesota.

Importance of the Ruling

This decision underscores the growing importance of corporate accountability in the wake of consumer injuries caused by defective products. It represents a critical step towards protecting the rights of individuals harmed by manufacturers who often seek to evade responsibility by claiming a lack of jurisdiction. Without this ruling, consumers like Shawn Peters might find it difficult to hold large corporations accountable for their actions.

Moreover, this case continues Bentley & More's decade-long commitment to consumer safety, as the firm has previously achieved notable victories against other major players in the e-cigarette and battery industries, such as LG Chem, Ltd. Their efforts have not only secured compensatory damages for victims but also instigated changes aimed at improving safety standards across the sector.

Looking Ahead

With the appellate ruling now finalized, the next phase will involve proceedings in the trial court to assess Samsung's liability and determine appropriate damages for Peters' grievous injuries. This case is a keystone in the broader battle for consumer rights, emphasizing that manufacturers must be held to account for ensuring the safety of their products. It's not just about legal responsibility, but also about ensuring that consumers can trust that the products they use do not pose unnecessary risks to their health and well-being.

The case is listed as Shawn Peters v. Samsung SDI, Co., Ltd., et al., with Court of Appeal Case No. A25-0195, and the attorneys at Bentley & More, including Matt Clark, eagerly anticipate the upcoming trial developments. As legal battles continue to shape the landscape of product liability, the implications of this case will reverberate throughout the industry, setting precedents and potentially influencing regulatory approaches to battery safety in the future.