The Subrogation Strategist

In subrogation cases where the insured’s damages were caused by a defective product, the fact that the product at issue is or was subject to a recall by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) may help to establish that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer’s possession and control. On February 17, 2016, the CPSC issued the following recall notice related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Goodman Company Expands Recall of Air Conditioning and Heating Units Due to Burn and Fire HazardsContinue Reading

In subrogation cases where the insured’s damages were caused by a defective product, the fact that the product at issue is or was subject to a recall by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) may help to establish that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer’s possession and control.  On February 12, 2016, the Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall notice related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Crescent Point Energy Recalls To Inspect Propane Gas Due to Fire and Burn HazardContinue Reading

In subrogation cases where the insured’s damages were caused by a defective product, the fact that the product at issue is or was subject to a recall by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) may help to establish that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer’s possession and control. On February 4, 2016, the CPSC issued the following recall notices related to products that present fire hazards:

CE North America Recalls Fan Heaters Due to Fire Hazard; Sold Exclusively at Bed Bath & Beyond

Microsoft Recalls AC Power Cords for Surface Pro Devices Due to Fire ... Continue Reading

In Severn Peanut Company, Inc. v. Industrial Fumigant Company, 807 F.3d 88 (4^th Cir. (N.C.) 2015), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Fourth Circuit), applying North Carolina law, considered whether a consequential damages clause in a contract between the Severn Peanut Company, Inc. (Severn) and Industrial Fumigant Company (IFC) barred Severn and its subrogating insurer, Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (Travelers), from recovering over $19 million in damages that Severn suffered as the result of a fire and explosion at its Severn, North Carolina plant. The Fourth Circuit, rejecting Severn’s unconscionability and public policy arguments related to the consequential damages clause and finding that the economic loss doctrine barred Severn from pursuing negligence claims, affirmed the trial court’s judgment granting summary judgment in IFC’s favor.Continue Reading