DECISION & ORDER Before the Court is Defendant Itron, Inc.’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. See dkt. # 23. The parties have briefed the issues and the Court has determined to decide those issues without oral argument. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Zurich American Insurance Company (“Zurich”) brings this action as the subrogee of its insured, Microbac Laboratories, Inc. (“Microbac”). The cases arises from a fire that occurred at facilities operated by Microbac in Cortland, New York. Complaint (“Comptl.”), dkt. # 1, at 8. Zurich insured that property. Id. at 9. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant National Grid USSA Service Company, Inc. (“National Grid”) supplied electric power to the property. Id. at 10. National Grid had “replaced and/or installed a Sentinel 16S electric meter and panel box at the subject property” before the fire. Id. Defendant Itron, Inc. (“Itron”) “deisgned, manufactured, distributed, sold, assembled and supplied” the meter in question. Id. at 11. Plaintiff alleges that on September 16, 2018, “there was electrical activity in a utility room at the subject property causing fire, water and smoke damage to Microbac’s real and personal property as well as a loss of use of said property.” Id. at 13. Microbac submitted a claim to Zurich because of the damage to the property, and Zurich “paid $3,705,998.00 for the damages suffered by its insured.” Id. at 15. That payment caused Zurich to become subrogated to Microbac’s rights. Id. at 16. Plaintiff filed a six-count Complaint in this case, naming various defendants including Intron, the moving party here. Three Counts name the moving Defendant, Itron. Count II alleges strict products liability. Count IV alleges negligence. Count VI alleges a breach of express and implied warranties. Defendant Itron filed the instant motion to dismiss after service of the Complaint. Plaintiff responded. Itron did not file a reply brief, and the matter is now ripe for decision. II. LEGAL STANDARD Itron moves to dismiss certain of Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Itron argues that Plaintiff has not stated a claim upon which relief could be granted, even if all factual allegations in the complaint were proved true. In addressing such motions, the Court must accept “all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and draw[] all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.” Holmes v. Grubman, 568 F.3d 329, 335 (2d Cir. 2009). This tenet does not apply to legal conclusions. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. at 678. “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. (quoting Bell Atl. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). III. ANALYSIS Defendant seeks dismissal of all claims against Itron, arguing primarily that Plaintiff has pled insufficient facts to make the claims plausible.1 Defendant also contends that Plaintiff has failed properly to allege damages. The Court will address each argument in turn. A. Strict Products Liability2 Itron first argues that Plaintiff has failed to plead facts sufficient to make plausible Zurich’s strict products liability claim. Defendant contends that Plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to make out a design defect, a manufacturing defect, or a failure-to-warn claim. Plaintiff responds that the allegations in question are sufficient to support the claims the Complaint raises. Plaintiff’s products liability claim alleges in relevant part: 23. At all relevant times, Defendant Itron, Inc., by and through its agents, servants and/or employees, was engaged in the designing, manufacturing, selling, testing, distributing, supplying and/or assembling of the subject meter, for which activity and resulting harm thereof, Defendant Itron is strictly liable in tort in failing to produce and distribute a product that was not defective, reasonably fit, suitable and safe when used for its intended or reasonably foreseeable purposes. 24. The loss and consequent damage to the Plaitniff’s insured’s property were directly and proximately caused by Defendant Itron’s product, the subject meter, that was defective at the time it was sold, unfit and unreasonably dangerous, and for which Defendant, Intron[,] is strictly liable in tort for: a) failing to design, manufacture, assemble and distribute a product that was reasonably fit, suitable and safe when used for its intended or reasonably foreseeable purposes; b) designing, manufacturing, testing, selling, distributing, supplying and/or assembling the subject meter in a defective and unreasonably dangerous condition; c) failing to warn of the aforesaid defection condition of the subject meter, both before and after the fire; and d) failure of the meter due to MOV or internal circuitry failure or terminal specification. Complt. at
