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 October 20, 2016, the CPSC issued the following recall notice related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Cabela’s Recalls Food Dehydrators Due to Fire HazardContinue Reading

In Beaufort Builders, Inc. v. White Plains Church Ministries, Inc., 783 S.E.2d 35 (N.C. Ct. App. 2016), the Court of Appeals of North Carolina addressed whether the economic loss rule barred the negligence claim of White Plains Church Ministries, Inc. (White Plains) against Charles F. Cherry (Cherry), the owner of Beaufort Builders, Inc. (Beaufort Builders). The court held that, because the economic loss rule would bar White Plains’ negligence claims against Beaufort Builders, White Plains could not pursue a third-party negligence claim against Cherry, individually.Continue 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 October 18, 2016, the CPSC issued the following recall notice related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Sherwood Marketing Recalls 3 Squares Rice and Slow Cookers Due to Fire, Electric Shock HazardsContinue Reading

In Adams v. Hellings Builders, Inc., 2016 Pa. Super. 192, 2016 Pa. Super. LEXIS 487, Christopher Adams and his wife, Margaret Adams (Plaintiffs), filed suit against Defendant Hellings Builders, Inc. (Hellings) to recover for moisture-related damage to their home caused by Hellings’ allegedly defective installation of stucco. Hellings filed Preliminary Objections, arguing that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim because they were not in privity with Hellings and they had no direct business dealings with Hellings.Continue Reading