The Subrogation Strategist

On November 25, 2024, in Pickard v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 5:20-cv-01448, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215377, the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (District Court) ruled that Amazon.com, Inc. (Amazon) could be liable for manufacturer-seller liability under the Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA) for a defective product sold by a third-party seller through the “Fulfillment by Amazon” program (FBA). The court also dismissed two tort claims against Amazon as follows: (i) Amazon does not qualify as a “seller” for purposes of non-manufacturer seller liability (because passing title is required for that claim); and (ii) there is insufficient evidence to prove the decedent, Archie Pickard (Pickard), relied on Amazon’s safety practices when purchasing the defective product, precluding a claim for negligent undertaking.  Continue Reading

In June 2024, the Supreme Court of Louisiana held that: (1) Amazon can be considered a “seller” of defective products sold by third parties on its website; and (2) Amazon can be liable under a theory of negligent undertaking for third-party products. In Pickard v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2023-CQ-01596, 2024 La. LEXIS 1112, a Louisiana man, Archie Pickard, died from burns sustained in a house fire allegedly caused by a defective battery charger purchased on Amazon from a third-party seller located in China. Mr. Pickard’s family filed a lawsuit against Amazon in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana alleging claims under the Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA) and for negligent undertaking. Amazon filed a motion for summary judgment, which prompted the federal court to certify questions to the Supreme Court of Louisiana regarding these two claims.

Amazon Can be a “Seller” Under the Louisiana Products Liability Act

Amazon does not neatly fit within the definition of “seller” under the LPLA because the LPLA was drafted in 1988, before the internet existed. The LPLA defines a “seller” as a person or entity (who is not the manufacturer) who conveys title or possession of the product to another for something of value. La R.S. 9.2800.53(s) (emphasis added). The Supreme Court of Louisiana determined that Amazon was a “seller” because it conveyed “possession” of the charger to Mr. Pickard through the “Fulfillment by Amazon” (FBA) program, which provides storage, delivery, customer service, and returns of third-party products sold on Amazon. Most products on Amazon are sold by third parties, rather than Amazon. Many third-party sellers are small or medium-size companies, and some are individuals seeking to make supplemental income. Amazon offers the FBA program to handle storage and logistics to third-party sellers. When a product is sold through the FBA program, the seller sends the product to Amazon’s warehouses, where it is stored until it is purchased. When an FBA-product is purchased, Amazon collects payment, delivers the product (often in an Amazon van), and handles the potential return of the product. The Supreme Court of Louisiana determined that Amazon was a “seller” of the battery charger even though Amazon did not pass title to Mr. Pickard because: (1) Amazon had physical custody of the charger while stored in the warehouse; and (2) Amazon controlled the transaction and logistics through its FBA program.Continue Reading

A federal court in West Virginia recently ruled that a negligence claim could proceed against Amazon related to a spy camera used to take unsolicited photos of a teenage girl.  M.S. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-0046, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213236 (S.D. W. Va. Nov. 30, 2023). The negligence claim is specifically interesting for subrogation professionals as it potentially provides an additional avenue for recovery against Amazon in addition to a product liability claim.

In 2021, the plaintiff, M.S. (a minor), visited the United States as a foreign-exchange student.  During her stay, she lived with Darrel Wells, a 55-year-old man. Mr. Wells purchased a spy camera that was disguised as a bathroom towel hook on Amazon. The camera was listed for sale by an unknown third party and satisfied through the “Fulfillment by Amazon” program.  The product description showed the camera serving as a towel hook with the caption: “It won’t attract any attention[:] A very ordinary hook,” as shown in the photo below from the pleading.Continue Reading

On June 25, 2021, the Texas Supreme Court held that Amazon cannot be liable for defective third-party products sold on its website, even when Amazon controls the transaction and delivery of the product, because Amazon never relinquishes or holds title to the products. This opinion should result in the reversal of a prior decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas – which found that Amazon was a “seller” under Texas law – and causes further division in the jurisdictions in the United States regarding whether Amazon can be held liable for defective third-party products.Continue Reading

New York has joined a growing number of jurisdictions ruling that Amazon can be liable for defective products sold by third-party sellers on its website. The rationale for New York’s recent ruling is based upon Amazon’s level of control over the sale of the product. There are three ways which products are sold on Amazon: (1) Amazon sells, processes and ships the product; (2) a third-party sells, processes and ships the product (i.e., Amazon does not take possession of the product); and (3) a third-party sells the product and Amazon “fulfills” the order by storing, processing and shipping the product through its “Fulfillment by Amazon” (FBA) logistical program. The FBA program has been the lynchpin in many of the recent decisions decided against Amazon, including a recent New York case. Under the FBA, the sellers store their inventory at Amazon’s warehouse until the product is purchased, at which time Amazon retrieves the product from its warehouse shelf, packages it, and ships it to the consumer. Accordingly, Amazon has significant control over products “fulfilled” through the FBA.Continue Reading

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

Property owners owe a duty of reasonable care to avoid causing harm to neighboring properties. In Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 v. Erie Ins. Exch., 2020 Md. LEXIS 347 (July 27, 2020) (Steamfitters Local), a matter originally discussed in a June 2019 blog post, the Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed that, where the property owner knows or should have known that people are habitually discarding hundreds of cigarette butts into a mulch bed along the boundary of the neighboring property, the property owner owes a duty to its neighbors to prevent the risk of fire.Continue Reading

To establish a product liability claim in Arkansas, the plaintiff must prove that the product was supplied in a defective condition, which rendered it unreasonably dangerous and that the defective condition was the proximate cause of the claimed damage or injury. Ordinarily, a plaintiff relies upon direct evidence of a product defect to establish its product liability claim. However, in some cases, the product sustains so much damage that it is impossible for a plaintiff to obtain direct evidence of a defect.Continue Reading

Recently, in McMillan v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 18-CV-2242, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102025, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas ruled that Amazon.com, Inc. (Amazon) could be held liable as a “seller” under Texas’ product liability statute for injuries caused by a defective product sold by a third-party vendor on its website. Although the court’s analysis is based on Texas law, the decision puts one more crack in Amazon’s armor.Continue Reading

In Conn. Interlocal Risk Mgmt. Agency v. Jackson, 2019 Conn. LEXIS 230 (Sept. 1, 2019) (Conn. Interlocal), the Supreme Court of Connecticut considered a careless smoking case and whether, as a matter of first impression, Connecticut should adopt the alternative liability doctrine first set forth in Summers v. Tice, 199 P.2d 1 (Cal. 1948). Recognizing that the doctrine is a sound one, the court adopted it for cases proceeding in Connecticut.Continue Reading

Property owners owe a duty of reasonable care to avoid causing harm to neighboring properties. When a property owner knows or should know about a condition that poses a risk of danger to neighboring properties, the property owner must exercise reasonable care to make the condition safe. The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland recently held that, where hundreds of discarded cigarette butts had accumulated in a bed of mulch over an extended period of time prior to the fire at issue, the owner of the property with the mulch beds owed a duty of care to its neighbors to prevent a foreseeable fire.Continue Reading

Arkansas employs the “made whole” doctrine, which requires an insured to be fully compensated for damages (i.e., to be “made whole”) before the insurer is entitled to recover in subrogation.[1] As the Riley court established, an insurer cannot unilaterally determine that its insured has been made whole (in order to establish a right of subrogation). Rather, in Arkansas, an insurer must establish that the insured has been made whole in one of two ways. First, the insurer and insured can reach an agreement that the insured has been made whole. Second, if the insurer and insured disagree on the issue, the insurer can ask a court to make a legal determination that the insured has been made whole.[2] If an insured has been made whole, the insurer is the real party in interest and must file the subrogation action in its own name.[3] However, when both the insured and an insurer have claims against the same tortfeasor (i.e., when there are both uninsured damages and subrogation damages), the insured is the real party in interest.[4]Continue Reading

In Texas, an action against a licensed/registered professional arising from the provision of professional services requires the plaintiff to file a “Certificate of Merit” (COM), which is an affidavit from a third-party professional setting forth the theory of liability against the professional. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 150.002. The COM must be filed contemporaneously with the complaint, unless the following two conditions, contained within Section 150.002(c), are both satisfied. First, the action must be filed within ten days of the expiration of the statute of limitations or repose. Second, the plaintiff must specifically allege in its initial petition against the professional that there is insufficient time to obtain a COM before the statute of limitations or repose expires. In such cases, a court will grant the plaintiff a 30-day extension to file a COM and the plaintiff may obtain further extensions from the court for “good cause.” If a plaintiff fails to comply with the COM requirement, Section 150.002(e) requires the court to dismiss the complaint and the dismissal “may be with prejudice.”Continue Reading

The implied warranty of habitability allows a homeowner to recover damages for latent defects that interfere with the intended use of a home. In Sienna Court Condo. Ass’n v. Champion Aluminum Corp., 2018 IL 122022, 2018 Ill. LEXIS 1244 (2018), the Supreme Court of Illinois held that buyers of new homes cannot assert claims for breach of the implied warranty of habitability against subcontractors involved in the construction of the homes because the subcontractors have no contractual relationship with the homeowners and the damages are purely economic. As the court explained, the implied warranty of habitability is a creature of contract (not tort) and, therefore, only exists when there is contractual privity between the defendants and the homeowners.Continue Reading