The Subrogation Strategist

In D’Allesandro v. Lennar Hingham Holdings, LLC, 486 Mass 150, 2020 Mass. LEXIS 721, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts answered a certified question regarding how to apply the Massachusetts statute of repose, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2B, in regards to phased construction projects. The court held that, in this context, the completion of each individual “improvement” to its intended use, or the substantial completion of the individual building and the taking of possession for occupancy by the owner or owners, triggers the statute of repose with respect to the common areas and limited common areas of that building. Additionally, the court held that where a particular improvement is integral to, and intended to serve, multiple buildings (or the development as a whole), the statute of repose is triggered when the discrete improvement is substantially complete and open to its intended use.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 announced 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 November 25, 2020, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Towsleys Recalls 3-in-1 Qi Wireless Chargers, Power Banks and Travel Chargers Due to Fire Hazard.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he chargers and power banks ... 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 announced 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 November 10, 2020, and November 12, 2020, the CPSC announced the following recalls related to products that present fire hazards:

1. Fire Pit Tables Sold Exclusively at Big Lots Recalled Due to Fire Hazard; Manufactured by Sunjoy. According to the CPSC, “[a]n ...

In Am. Nat’l Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Broan-Nutone, No. 5:18-CV-5250, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203267 (W.D. Ark.), a subrogating carrier filed a product liability lawsuit alleging that a defective bathroom fan caught fire and caused property damage. Prior to trial, the defendants/manufacturers filed motions to: (i) prevent the plaintiff’s experts from testifying for allegedly spoliating evidence; and (ii) prevent the admission of the fire marshal’s report as hearsay and/or as prejudicial, confusing and/or misleading. The court denied the defendants motions, thereby allowing all of the evidence to be presented by the subrogating carrier at trial.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 announced 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 November 10, 2020, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Kohl’s Recalls Three-Wick SONOMA Goods For Life Branded Candles Due to Fire and Burn Hazards.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he candle’s high flames can ... 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 announced 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 November 10, 2020, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Ring Recalls Video Doorbells (2nd Generation) Due to Fire Hazard.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he video doorbell’s battery can overheat when the ... 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 announced 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 November 4, 2020, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Coulter Ventures Recalls Rogue Home Timers Due to Fire Hazard; Sold Exclusively at Rogue Fitness.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he lithium-ion battery inside ... Continue Reading