In June 2026, a Broward County, Florida jury returned a $603 million verdict against Jilin Province Detiannuo Safety Technology Co., Ltd. (DTN), a Chinese manufacturer of airbag inflator components, following the death of Destiny Byassee, a 22-year-old mother of two. According to the estate, Byassee's vehicle had been repaired after a prior collision, during which the original airbag was replaced with a counterfeit DTN inflator. During a subsequent low-speed crash, the counterfeit inflator failed to deploy properly and ejected metal shrapnel into the cabin, causing fatal injuries. The jury awarded $243 million in compensatory damages and $360 million in punitive damages. DTN did not appear at trial, though the company had previously retained counsel and denied the allegations.
The verdict is the largest against a counterfeit automotive parts manufacturer in U.S. history and arrived as federal safety officials were linking similar DTN components to at least eleven deaths and numerous serious injuries. For product liability practitioners, the case is a template for building counterfeit-parts claims and navigating the particular challenges they raise: identifying the defective component, tracing the aftermarket supply chain, and establishing punitive damages when the manufacturer is a foreign entity with limited U.S. presence.
The Liability Chain in Counterfeit Parts Cases
Counterfeit automotive parts cases differ from ordinary manufacturing defect claims because the product was never designed by the original equipment manufacturer and enters the vehicle without the vehicle manufacturer's oversight. The liability map typically runs from the counterfeiter (the manufacturer of the fake component), through the importer or distributor, to the repair shop that installed it. Each link in that chain carries independent exposure.
In Byassee, the primary defendant was DTN as manufacturer of the counterfeit inflator. Depending on the facts, a plaintiff may also have claims against the entity that imported the components into the United States, the wholesale distributor that sold them to the repair shop, the collision repair shop that selected and installed the counterfeit part, and potentially the prior insurer or the shop's managing insurer if a claim-directed repair contributed to the installation.
Identifying all defendants requires tracing the component from its manufacture through to the vehicle. This investigation should begin before suit is filed and should include: obtaining the part number and batch identifiers from the installed inflator; contacting NHTSA's Office of Defects Investigation for any enforcement actions related to the component; issuing litigation holds to the repair shop for all parts invoices, vendor records, and inspection photographs; and obtaining the shop's supplier records through pre-suit discovery or deposition subpoena.
Preserving the Failed Component
The airbag inflator or other failed part is the central piece of physical evidence and must be preserved before it is discarded as debris. In post-collision scenarios, the vehicle should be placed on a litigation hold immediately upon retention of counsel. Photographs of the deployed or failed inflator, the surrounding vehicle cabin, and any visible metallic fragments should be taken before any vehicle repair or salvage. A forensic automotive engineer should inspect the inflator in its installed condition before removal if possible.
If the vehicle has already been totaled and the insurance company has taken possession, send a preservation letter to the carrier before the vehicle is released to a salvage yard. Carriers frequently destroy totaled vehicles within days of taking title, and an inflator that is destroyed before inspection is an inflator that cannot be definitively identified as a counterfeit component. Spoliation arguments are available when a carrier or repair shop destroys evidence after receiving a preservation demand, but actual possession of the part is far more powerful at trial than a spoliation instruction.
Expert Reconstruction and Defect Theory
The defect theory in a counterfeit inflator case is typically a manufacturing defect: the part was not made to the specifications required for safe deployment, whether because of inferior propellant chemistry, defective welding, or inadequate quality control. Plaintiff requires an automotive safety engineer who can opine on the OEM standard for that inflator position in that vehicle and explain how the counterfeit component deviated from it. A forensic metallurgist or materials scientist may also be needed to analyze the physical failure of the inflator housing.
The causation bridge, proving that the defective inflator caused the injury rather than the crash mechanics themselves, often requires an accident reconstruction expert and a biomechanics expert who can explain the specific mechanism of injury from metal fragment projection versus blunt force trauma. In cases where the vehicle occupant died, a forensic pathologist should review the autopsy findings to confirm the fragment injuries and exclude alternative causes of death.
Punitive Damages Against a Foreign Manufacturer
The $360 million punitive component in Byassee reflects the particularly egregious nature of selling deliberately mislabeled safety components knowing they do not meet OEM standards. In a punitive damages case against a foreign manufacturer, plaintiff counsel must establish that the defendant had actual knowledge of the defect or acted with conscious disregard for the consequences. Internal communications, quality control records, and evidence of prior failures are critical to that showing.
When the foreign defendant does not appear, a default judgment may be obtained, but collection against a Chinese manufacturer with no U.S. assets presents enforcement challenges. Practitioners pursuing these cases should also identify all domestic defendants in the chain of distribution, because a domestic distributor or importer with U.S. assets is often the actual source of recovery, even if the manufacturer is the primary target for punitive damages purposes. The Supreme Court's framework in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore sets a constitutional ceiling on punitive-to-compensatory ratios, but ratios in the range of the Byassee award have survived review in egregious-conduct cases at the state appellate level.
Takeaways for Plaintiff Product Liability Counsel
- Begin the parts traceability investigation pre-suit: NHTSA enforcement records, importer manifests, and shop vendor files establish the chain before key documents disappear.
- Preserve the failed component before vehicle salvage, using a preservation letter to any carrier in possession.
- Name all domestic distributor and importer defendants alongside the foreign manufacturer to ensure enforceable defendants are in the case.
- Build the punitive damages record with internal quality control documents and evidence of prior known failures.
For additional context on product liability discovery and defect theory in automotive cases, see the product liability practice section. The Byassee verdict's NHTSA enforcement background is covered in the auto-accidents practice section.