The Subrogation Strategist

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 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 December 16, 2020, the CPSC announced the following recalls related to products that present fire hazards:

1. LG Energy Solution Michigan Recalls Home Energy Storage Batteries Due to Fire Hazard. According to the CPSC, “[t]he home batteries can overheat, posing a ...

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 December 10, 2020, the CPSC announced the following recalls related to products that present fire hazards:

1. Thermo Tents Recalls Mór Series Tents Due to Fire Hazard; Tents are Mislabeled as Fire Retardant (Recall Alert). According to the CPSC, “[t]he tents are ...

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 December 9, 2020, the CPSC announced the following recalls related to products that present fire hazards:

1. Neptune Benson Recalls Delta Ultra-Violet Generators For Pools and Spas Due to Fire Hazard. According to the CPSC, “[w]ater can leak within the generator ...

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 December 2, 2020, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

ADCO Recalls Candles Due to Fire and Burn Hazards; Sold Exclusively at Dollar Tree.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he candles’ high flames can ignite 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 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 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

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 October 28, 2020, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Schneider Electric Recalls Surgeloc™ Surge Protection Devices Due to Fire Hazard.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he Surgeloc Surge Protection Device can ... Continue Reading

In Allied Ins. Co. of Am. v. Jpauljones L.P. & Tek Elec. Co., 1:19-CV-00237-SNLJ, 2020 U.S. Dist LEXIS 179225, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri considered whether defendant Jpauljones, L.P. (JPJ) was subject to specific personal jurisdiction in Missouri because its website sold products to Missouri residents. The court held that the defendant’s nationwide retail website, with no particular focus or target on Missouri, does not in itself subject the defendant to specific jurisdiction in Missouri. This case further narrows the reach of specific jurisdiction based solely on the defendant’s direct internet-based sales into the forum.Continue Reading

Many states, finding that the purpose of the strict liability doctrine is to protect otherwise defenseless victims from defective products, hold that principles of comparative negligence do not apply to strict liability actions. Georgia is not one of those states. In Johns v. Suzuki Motor of Am., S19G1478, 2020 Ga. LEXIS 760, the Supreme Court of Georgia recently held that Georgia’s comparative fault statute, OCGA § 51-12-33, applies to strict products liability claims brought pursuant to Georgia’s product liability statute, OCGA § 51-1-11.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 October 15, 2020, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Sales BSD Recalls Homerygardens Extension Cord Splitters Due to Fire Hazard (Recall Alert).

According to the CPSC, “[t]he wire size of the recalled ... 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 September 16, 2020, the CPSC announced the following recalls related to products that present fire hazards:

1. MWE Investments Recalls Westinghouse Portable Generators Due to Fire Hazard. According to the CPSC, “[t]he recalled portable generators can leak fuel ...

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 September 9, 2020, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Royal Gourmet Recalls Deluxe Gas Grills Due to Fire Hazard; Sold Exclusively at Wayfair.com.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he grill’s plastic regulator ... 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 September 3, 2020, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

CFMOTO Recalls Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles Due to Fire Hazard (Recall Alert).

According to the CPSC, “[t]he fuel line fitting on the vehicles can ... Continue Reading

The California Court of Appeals recently ruled that Amazon.com, Inc. (Amazon) can be held strictly liable for injuries caused by a defective product sold by a third-party vender on its website. Bolger v. Amazon, D075738, 2020 Cal. App. LEXIS 761. The decision in Bolger comes just two months after the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas reached the same ruling under Texas law in McMillan v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 18-CV-2242, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102025Continue Reading

In Schueler v. Ad Art, No. 75688-COA, 2020 Nev. App. LEXIS 6, the Court of Appeals of Nevada recently considered whether a custom-made sign constituted a “product” for purposes of the doctrine of strict products liability. The court held that the sign ­­–– a large MGM Grand (MGM) sign located atop a 150-foot tall steel pylon –– was a product for the purposes of strict products liability. Thus, the court held that Ad Art, Inc. (Ad Art), who designed, engineered, and managed the production and installation of the sign, could be held strictly liable for injuries to Charles Schueler (Schueler), a service worker who fell and sustained serious injuries.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 August 19, 2020, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Pier 1 Recalls Three-Wick Halloween Candles Due to Fire and Burn Hazards.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he candle’s high flames can ignite the surface of 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 August 12, 2020, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Intertex Recalls Blowers Due To Fire Hazard.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he utility outlets on the side of the blowers are not protected by a circuit breaker.  If ... 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

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 July 16, 2020, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Polaris Recalls Snowmobiles Due to Fire Hazard (Recall Alert).

According to the CPSC, “[t]he fuel hose can be improperly secured, posing a fire hazard to ... 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 July 9, 2020, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

RH Recalls Riveted Mesh Floor Lamps Due to Fire Hazard (Recall Alert).

According to the CPSC, “[t]he lamp’s on/off foot switch can overheat, melt or catch fire ... 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 June 17, 2020, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Edwards Recalls Mechanical Heat Detectors Due to Failure to Alert to Fire.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he recalled heat detectors can fail to activate in ... 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 June 17, 2020, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Rexair Recalls to Repair Rainbow SRX Vacuums Due to Fire and Burn Hazards.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he circuit board on the vacuum can spark, posing fire and ... 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 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 May 14, 2020, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Garia Recalls Golf & Courtesy Electric Vehicles Due to Fire Hazard.

According to the CPSC, “[a] fuse can overheat and melt while the electric vehicle is charging ... 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 March 7, 2020, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Fully Popped Recalls Poppin’ Cobs 10 Pack Microwave Popcorn Due to Fire and Burn Hazards; Sold Exclusively at Uncommon Good Stores.

According to the CPSC ... 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 May 1, 2020, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Epson Recalls Power Adapters Sold with Epson Scanners Due to Burn and Fire Hazards.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he power adapters can overheat, melt and catch fire ... 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 April 16, 2020, the CPSC announced the following recalls related to products that present fire hazards:

1. Polaris Recalls Model Year 2018 to 2020 Ranger XP 1000 Off-Road Vehicles. According to the CPSC, “[th]e clutch belt can break and damage the secondary clutch ...

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 April 2, 2019, the CPSC announced the following recalls related to products that present fire hazards:

1. Southern Motion Recalls “Wireless Power” Reclining Furniture Due to Fire Hazard. According to the CPSC, “[t]he lithium-ion batteries used to power the ...

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 March 19, 2020, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Kawasaki USA Recalls Off-Highway Utility Vehicles Due to Oil Leak, Fire Hazard.

According to the CPSC, “[d]ebris can ignite on the vehicle’s exhaust ... 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 March 19, 2020, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Hawthorne Hydroponics Recalls Grower’s Edge Vaporizers Due To Burn, Shock and Fire Hazard.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he vaporizers can overheat, and 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 March 17, 2020, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

American Honda Recall of Portable Generators Due to Fire and Burn Hazards.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he portable generator’s inverter assembly can short ... 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 March 12, 2020, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Yamaha Guitar Group Recalls Digital Wireless Equipment for Electric Guitars Due to Fire and Injury Hazards.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he lithium-ion ... 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 March 5, 2020, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

RH Recalls Floor Lamps Due to Fire Hazard.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he lamp’s on/off foot switch can overheat, melt or catch fire, posing a fire hazard.”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 February 27, 2020, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Lennox Industries Recalls Ductless Heat Pumps Due to Fire Hazard.

According to the CPSC, “[i]nternal electrical components can fail, allowing the units ... Continue Reading

In Hinrichs v. Dow Chem. Co., 2020 WI 2, 2020 Wisc. LEXIS 2 (2020), the Supreme Court of Wisconsin considered whether two recognized exceptions to the economic loss doctrine—the “fraud in the inducement” and “other property” exceptions—applied to allow the plaintiffs’ tort claims to go forward. The court held that the fraud in the inducement exception only applies to alleged fraud that is unrelated to either the quality or characteristics of the product for which the parties contracted or performance of the contract. In addition, the court held that the fraud in the inducement exception did not apply to the plaintiffs’ tort claims because the alleged fraud was related to the quality and characteristics of the product, and thus was not extraneous to the contract. The court also held that the “other property” exception to the economic loss doctrine did not apply because the product at issue was integrated into a more complete product, and when that happened, the completed product ceased to be “other property” for purposes of the economic loss doctrine. This case narrows the application of two exceptions to the economic loss doctrine, which is a common defense in product defect cases.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 February 13, 2020, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Textron Specialized Vehicles Recalls Gas-Powered Golf, PTV, Utility and Shuttle Off-Road Vehicles Due to Fire Hazard.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he ... 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 February 6, 2020, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Star Water Systems Recalls Sump Pumps Due to Fire Hazard.

According to the CPSC, recall involves pedestal sump pumps that are used in residential de-watering ... 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 January 14, 2020, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

The Thompson’s Company Recalls Aerosol Waterproofing Wood and Masonry Protectors Due to Fire Hazard.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he contents of the cans ... 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 December 10, 2019, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Bass Pro Recalls MR. STEAK™ Gas Grills Due to Fire Hazard.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he gas regulator hose with attached fuel gauge can melt if it comes in ... 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 December 6, 2019, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

WilliamsRDM Recalls Cooktop Fire Suppressors Due to Risk of Failure to Activate and Suppress Fires.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he StoveTop FireStop (STFS ... 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 26, 2019, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Yamaha Recalls Portable Generators Due to Fire and Burn Hazards.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he portable generator’s fuel tank can leak gasoline, posing ... Continue Reading

In State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 3:18CV166-M-P, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189053 (Oct. 31, 2019), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi considered a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by defendant Amazon.com, Inc. (Amazon). Amazon argued that, because it was a “service provider” who cannot be held liable under Mississippi’s Product Liability Act (MPLA), Miss. Code § 11.1.63, the negligence and negligent failure to warn claims filed against it by plaintiff State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (State Farm) failed as a matter of law. The court, looking beyond the MPLA, held that State Farm’s complaint stated a claim against Amazon.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 October 8, 2019, and October 10, 2019, the CPSC announced the following recalls related to products that present fire hazards:

Carrier Recalls Carrier- and Bryant-Branded Heat Pumps Due to Fire Hazard; and

Kawasaki Motors USA Recalls Lawn Mower Engines Due to Burn ... Continue Reading

As most subrogation professionals know, Amazon has been fighting products liability claims across the country for some time now. While it has been largely successful in doing so in the past, in a recent decision, Wisconsin sided with the plaintiff. In the case of State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122316, 2019 WL 3304887, the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin denied the motion for summary judgment filed by defendant Amazon.com, Inc. (Amazon). The court held that Amazon was so deeply involved with the transaction at issue that it was an entity that could be held strictly liable under Wisconsin law. It also held that 47 U.S.C. § 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) did not immunize Amazon because its liability was not based on posting content from a third party.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 August 27, 2019, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

At Home Recalls Shag Rugs Due to Violation of Federal Flammability Standard; Fire Hazard.

The CPSC posted the following information about the hazard:

The ...

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 August 28, 2019, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Whirlpool Recalls Glass Cooktops with Touch Controls Due to Burn and Fire Hazards.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he recalled cooktop surface elements can turn ... 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 August 20, 2019, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Southwire Recalls Electrical Outlet Boxes Due to Fire Hazard.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he electrical receptacles can overheat when in use, posing a fire ... Continue Reading

In reviewing a ruling on a motion for summary judgment that found that a component manufacturer owed no duty to install safety features, the Supreme Court of Indiana answered a narrow question that shifts the landscape for product liability litigation pursuant to the Indiana Product Liability Act (IPLA). Brewer v. PACCAR, Inc., 2019 Ind. LEXIS 428, involved a wrongful death claim against PACCAR, Inc. (PACCAR), the manufacturer of a glider kit that is installed on semi-trucks. The glider kit comes with a variety of optional safety features, provided they are specifically requested by the semi-truck manufacturer that integrates the kit into its end product.Continue Reading

Since the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decided Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014), parties proceeding in product liability cases in Pennsylvania often disagree about jury instructions. In Davis v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., No. 1405 EDA 2018, 2019 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2763, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, in an unpublished opinion,[1] recently addressed whether the trial court gave proper jury instructions in a products liability case against Volkswagen entities, including Volkswagen Aktiengeselleschaft (Volkswagen). The court held that, despite a statement in Tincher that the plaintiff is the “master of the claim,” the trial court properly instructed the jury on both the consumer expectation test and the risk-utility test for establishing that the product at issue, a Volkswagen Passat, was in a defective condition.Continue Reading

Although there are times when both parties agree on the need to perform destructive tests on an object, when the parties disagree, the party seeking the destructive tests must justify its request. In Doerrer v. Schreiber Foods, Inc., et al., No. 2017-08582, 2019 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4743, the Second Department of the Supreme Court of New York’s Appellate Division recently explained what a defendant moving to secure destructive testing needs to show in order to perform the testing it seeks.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 June 26, 2019, the CPSC announced the following recalls related to fireworks products that present explosion and burn hazards:

Grandma’s Fireworks Recalls Fireworks Due to Violation of Federal Standards; Explosion and Burn Hazards;

GS Fireworks Recalls ... 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 June 25, 2019, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

QTOP USA Recalls LED Work Light Replacement Bulbs Due to Fire Hazard.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he LED replacement bulbs can overheat due to an electrical ... 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 June 21, 2019, the CPSC announced the following recalls related to products that present fire-related hazards:

Honeywell Recalls Gamewell-FCI and Notifier Photoelectric Smoke Sensors Sold with Fire Alarm Systems Due to Failure to Alert of a Fire;

H.E. Industrial ... 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 May 30, 2019, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Excel Industries Recalls Zero-Turn Mowers Due to Fire Hazard.

According to the CPSC, “[a] wire tie underneath the seat could damage the fuel line, posing a fire ... 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 May 29, 2019, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Target Recalls USB Charging Cables Due to Shock and Fire Hazards.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he metal around the cord can become electrically charged if it ... 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. Recently, the CPSC announced the following recalls related to products that present fire hazards:

Tween Brands Recalls Light Up Bed Canopies Due to Fire and Burn Hazards;

DAVIDsTEA Recalls Valentine’s Day Stackable Mugs Due to Fire Hazard.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 April 18, 2019, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Arctic Cat Recalls Snowmobiles Due to Fire Hazard.

According to the CPSC, “[w]hile operating the snowmobile the exhaust can flame from the muffler outlet ... 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 March 28, 2019, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Interline Brands Recalls Swivel Fittings Due to Fire Hazard.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he fittings can leak, posing a fire hazard.” The swivels are used ... 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. Recently, the CPSC announced the following recalls related to products that present fire hazards:

Kubota Recalls Zero Turn Mowers Due to Fire Hazard (March 20, 2019);

American Honda Recalls Portable Generators Due to Fire and Burn Hazards (March 20, 2019);

Bulk ... 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 March 14, 2019, the CPSC announced the following recalls related to products that present fire hazards:

Kawasaki USA Recalls Off-Highway Utility Vehicles Due to Fuel Leak, Fire Hazards;

Brush Art Recalls WIC Nutrition Plates Due to Fire Hazard; and

Tech Gear 5.7 ... 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 March 12, 2019, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

HP Expands Recall of Batteries for Notebook Computers and Mobile Workstations Due to Fire and Burn Hazards.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he lithium-ion ... 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 March 8, 2019, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

TJX Recalls Heating Pads Due to Fire and Burn Hazards; Sold Exclusively at T.J. Maxx and Marshalls Stores.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he heating pads 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 March 5, 2019, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Arctic Cat Recalls Textron Off-Highway Utility Vehicles Due to Fuel Leak and Fire Hazard.

According to the CPSC, the “[f]uel can leak from the fuel line, posing a ... 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 February 19, 2019, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Academy Sports + Outdoors Recalls Turkey Fryer Due to Fire Hazard.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he turkey fryer spout can leak oil, posing a fire hazard.”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 February 14, 2019, the CPSC announced the following recalls related to products that present fire hazards:

PurpleAir Recalls Power Supply Units for Air Sensors Due to Fire and Burn Hazards; and

CVB Recalls LUCID Folding Mattress-Sofas Due to Violation of Federal ... 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 February 7, 2019, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Delta Electronics Recalls Solar Inverters Due to Fire and Impact Hazards.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he capacitors can fail and allow heat to build up and 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 may help to establish that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer’s possession and control. Despite the partial government shutdown, Hewlett Packard has announced an expansion of the battery recall that it first announced in January of 2018. The “batteries have the potential to overheat, posing a fire and burn hazard to customers.” As stated on the recall website:

Batteries affected by this program may have been ... 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 may help to establish that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer’s possession and control. Despite the partial government shutdown, on January 19, 2019, TJX has announced a recall of its Aroma Home USB Heated Hottie Heating Pad. TJX announced the recall because the “heating pads can overheat during use, posing fire and burn hazards.”

To find out more about the recall, go to this website.Continue Reading

In Kohler Co. v. Superior Court, 29 Cal. App. 5^th 55 (2018), the Second District of the Court of Appeal of California considered whether the lower court properly allowed homeowners to bring class action claims under the Right to Repair Act (the Act) against a manufacturer of a plumbing fixture for alleged defects in the product. After an extensive analysis of the language of the Act, the court found that class action claims under the Act are not allowed if the product was completely manufactured offsite. Since the subject fixture was completely manufactured offsite, the Court of Appeal reversed the lower court’s decision. The court’s holding establishes that rights and remedies set forth in the Right to Repair Act are not available for class action claims alleging defects in products completely manufactured offsite.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 December 12, 2018, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

White-Rodgers Recalls Thermostats Due to Fire Hazard.

According to the CPSC, “[c]ontact between the thermostat wires and household line voltage 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 8, 2018, the CPSC announced the following recalls related to products that present fire hazards:

A.O. Smith Recalls Ultra-Low NOx Water Heaters Due to Fire Hazard;

A. O. Smith Recalls 30-Gallon Gas Water Heaters Due to Fire Hazard; Sold Exclusively at ... 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 October 25, 2018, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Haier America Recalls Top-Mount Refrigerators Due to Fire Hazard.

According to the CPSC, “[a]n electrical component in the refrigerator can short ... 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 October 19, 2018, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Brookstone Wireless Speakers Recalled Due to Fire Hazard.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he lithium ion batteries in the wireless speakers can overheat and ... 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 October 18, 2018, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Hydrolevel Recalls Controllers for Slant/Fin Boilers Due to Fire Hazard.

According to the CPSC, “[a] malfunction in the recalled controller can cause 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 October 18, 2018, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Kikkerland Recalls Wireless Charger Bedside Pockets Due to Fire and Burn Hazard.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he wireless charger bedside pockets 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 October 11, 2018, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Cooper Lighting Recalls Solar/Battery Powered Light Fixtures Due to Fire Hazard.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he batteries in the solar-powered light ... 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 October 10, 2018, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Briggs & Stratton Recalls Portable Generator Fuel Tank Replacement Caps, Due to Fire Hazard.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he fuel tank replacement caps lack ... Continue Reading

In Kim v. Toyota Motor Corp., 6 Cal.5^th 21 (Cal. 2018), the Supreme Court of California considered whether the trial court properly allowed the defendant to introduce evidence of industry custom and practice in defense of a strict product liability design defect case. The Supreme Court held that the evidence was relevant and admissible because it was introduced to address the feasibility and cost of alternative product designs, and not to show that the defendant acted reasonably. The court’s holding establishes that, while evidence of industry custom and practice is not admissible to prove or disprove fault in strict liability cases, it is admissible for other purposes, such as analyzing whether a product was defectively designed under the risk-benefit test.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 September 25, 2018, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Traeger Grills Recalls Wood Pellet Grills Due to Fire Hazard.

According to the CPSC, grease can leak from the drip tray, posing a fire hazard.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 September 5, 2018, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Hawthorne Hydroponics Recalls Humidifiers Due to Fire and Shock Hazards.

According to the CPSC, the humidifiers can overheat while in 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 August 15, 2018, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Xtava Recalls Allure Hair Dryers Due to Fire, Burn and Electrical Shock Hazards.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he hair dryer and power cord can overheat and catch ... 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 August 2, 2018, the CPSC announced the following recalls related to products that present fire and/or explosion hazards:

Zebra Technologies Expands Recall of Power Supply Units for Thermal Printers Due to Fire Hazard

Miller Fireworks Recalls Fireworks Due to ... Continue Reading

In a recent decision, Great Northern Ins. Co. v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 2018 Minn. LEXIS 236, the Supreme Court of Minnesota addressed two important legal questions: (1) did the “machinery and equipment” exception to Minnesota’s statute of repose for improvements to real property allow the plaintiff to bring claims against the manufacturer of a component part used in a home’s heat-recovery ventilator; and (2) did the defendant have a post-sale duty to warn the plaintiff? In answering the first question, the court clarified the meaning of the term “machinery” as used in Minnesota’s statute of repose. In answering the second question, the court adopted a test to apply to determine the circumstances under which a defendant in a product’s chain of distribution has a post-sale duty to warn.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 June 5, 2018, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Keyera Energy Recalls to Inspect Propane Gas Due to Fire and Explosion Hazards.

According to the CPSC, the recalled propane gas does not contain sufficient levels ... 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 May 23, 2018, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Kohler Recalls Automatic Transfer Switches for Kohler Generators Due to Fire Hazard.

According to the CPSC, this recall involves Kohler 100-amp service entrance ... 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 May 15, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents an explosion hazard:

Regency Fireplace Products Recalls Gas Stove Fireplaces Due to Explosion and Injury Hazards.

According to the CPSC, the pressure release system can fail and ... 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 April 4, 2018, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Vornado Air Recalls Electric Space Heaters Due to Fire and Burn Hazards.

According to the CPSC, the electric space heater can overheat when in 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 March 19, 2018, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Carrier® Recalls to Repair Commercial Rooftop HVAC Units Due to Fire Hazard.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he HVAC’s humidimizer fan can fail to shut off when a ... 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 March 21, 2018, the Consumer Product Safety Commission announced a recall of Kidde dual sensor smoke alarms because they pose a risk of consumers not being alerted to a fire in their home. The recall is detailed at the following link:

Kidde Recalls Dual Sensor Smoke ... 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 March 15, 2018, the Consumer Product Safety Commission announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Beanworthy Recalls Combination Battery Chargers/Hand Warmers Due to Fire and Burn Hazard; Sold Exclusively at Amazon.com ... 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. Recently, the Consumer Product Safety Commission announced the following recall notices related to products that present fire hazards:

Goodman Manufacturing Recalls Modular Blowers Due to Fire Hazard
Goodman Company Recalls Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners ... 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 February 8, 2018, the Consumer Product Safety Commission announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Fujitsu Recalls Battery Packs for Fujitsu Notebook Computers and Workstations Due to Fire and Burn Hazards.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 February 6, 2018, the Consumer Product Safety Commission announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Lenovo Recalls ThinkPad Laptops Due to Fire Hazard.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 January 31, 2018, the Consumer Product Safety Commission announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Vornado Air Recalls Cribside Space Heaters Due to Fire and Burn Hazards.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 January 4, 2018, the Consumer Product Safety Commission announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

HP Recalls Batteries for Notebook Computers and Mobile Workstations Due to Fire and Burn Hazards.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 December 7, 2017, the Consumer Product Safety Commission announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Westinghouse Portable Generators Recalled by MWE Investments Due to Fire Hazard.Continue Reading