Note: your Prompt Request is in the first email from "Your Boss". That email refers to the earlier (Burt Knoehler) email which you need to read in order to understand the situation.

From: Your Boss

Hey,

Paul, our Director of Global Sales and Marketing, got the email below from engineering as we are gearing up for our new Z smartphone launch. As background, this all started when the new customer-insight data was crunched by Paul's marketing dept. It caused Paul to issue a new strategy definition. He tasked engineering with extending the lithium-ion battery life of the phone but in no event: 1) thicken the super-slim profile, or 2) add appreciable cost. Following his directive, engineering proposed a redesign (see the email below) that seeks to accomplish this by repositioning the battery. Paul okayed the prototype and we are ready for roll-out. But Debbie in risk management thinks our strict product liability coverage needs to be quadrupled, due to this redesign. Debbie is very concerned that Paul and Burt's team may have downplayed the risk. I know you have studied some product liability issues and are familiar with cases like Moseley v. GM. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QU_uTuWmtHA

We want to be on guard if we are sailing into troubled waters. Here is the email Debbie got from engineering that made her uneasy. I would like your thoughts on whether we 1) go ahead with redesign and up our insurance coverage or 2) delay the launch of this product until we figure out how to contain the risk.

Thanks,

Boss

------------------------------------------

From:Burt Knoehler, V.P. Powercell Engineering

To: Paul Bensom, Director Global Sales and Marketing

Subject:Z-phone battery

We are pleased to let you know that we have solved the problem you posed by relocating the battery compartment within the phone case. By repositioning it against the sidewall to maximize heat release, it will indeed extend battery life by 125%, as you required. Based on our simulations, the exterior surface temperature of the phone will rise and push the envelope a bit. The Food and Drug Administration currently limits the maximum allowable temperature on an oximeter probe to 41C for such devices. We are at 41.6CWe cannot alleviate the possibility that, as a result of prolonged exposure, the actual surface temperature will exceed that threshold and cause burn (mostly minor) injuries. Based on a cost/benefit and quality/safety control perspective, we believe we are within the range of acceptability under our current quality and safety parameters. Any other relocation or insulation that would keep us at or under 41C would be cost-neutral, but it would enlarge dimensionality, degrade appearance and therefore deviate from the definition. As we all know, lithium-ion chemistry is not inherently safe, so design is critical.

Please let me know if this redesign is acceptable. We are ramped up and rollout ready to meet your targets for Q4.

Regards,

Burt

Please come up with a relevant applicable law response that applies to the issue. Follow the IRAC method in your response.

The full form of IRAC is Issue, Rule, Applicable Facts, and Conclusion.