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 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 14, 2023, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Generac Recalls Portable Generators Due to Serious Fire and Burn Hazards.

According to the CPSC’s website, “[t]he recalled generators’ fuel tank ... 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 7, 2023, the CPSC announced the following recalls related to products that present fire hazards:

1. Whirlpool Recalls Stacked Commercial Clothes Dryers Sold Under the ADC Brand Due to Fire Hazard (Recall Alert). According to the CPSC’s website, “[t]he ...

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 31, 2023, the CPSC announced the following recalls related to products that present fire hazards:

1. Electrolux Group Recalls Frigidaire Gas Cooktops Due to Risk of Gas Leak, Fire Hazard. According to the CPSC’s website, “[p]lastic control knobs with a ...

In subrogation cases where the insured’s damages were caused by a defective product, the fact that the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) issued a warning about the product at issue may help to establish that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer’s possession and control.  On August 24, 2023, the CPSC issued a warning urging consumers to “immediately stop using certain Classic Brands Holdings LLC Cool Gel Ventilated Memory Foam mattresses.”  According the CPSC, “[t]he mattresses pose a fire hazard and fail to meet the mandatory federal ... Continue Reading

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) recently announced that Whirlpool Corporation agreed to pay an $11,500,000 civil penalty associated with the CPSC’s charges that Whirlpool knowingly failed to immediately report to the CPSC – as required by law – that 17 models of Whirlpool’s JennAir, KitchenAid and Whirlpool brand electric radiant heat cooktops contained a defect that created an unreasonable risk of serious injury. The CSPC commissioners involved in the matter unanimously agreed to provisionally accept the settlement agreement, subject to public ... 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 24, 2023, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Aiper Elite Pro Cordless Robotic Pool Vacuum Cleaners Recalled Due to Burn and Fire Hazards; Distributed by Shenzhen Aiper Intelligent Co. (Recall Alert).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 16, 2023, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Gree Recalls 1.56 Million Dehumidifiers Due to Fire and Burn Hazards; Reports of At Least 23 Fires

According to the CPSC’s website, “[t]he dehumidifiers ... 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 17, 2023, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Costco Recalls Ubio Labs Power Banks Due to Fire Hazard; Caught Fire on Commercial Flight (Recall Alert)

According to the CPSC’s website, “[t]he recalled ... Continue Reading

The newest episode of the Subro Sessions podcast is out now. Hosted by Gus Sara, Partner, and Joseph Kuffler, Counsel, this episode tackles a part of the subrogation process that’s all about timing: the statute of repose.

In the latest episode of Subro Sessions, these White and Williams professionals tackle the core principles and issues brought up by the statute of repose. Gus and Joe will define the statute of repose, explain it’s intended purpose and how it is applied, and use real-life examples from their experiences dealing with this topic.

Check the all of our Subro Sessions ... Continue Reading

In Donegal Mut. Ins. Co. v. Thangavel, No. 379, 2022, 2023 Del. LEXIS 227, the Supreme Court of Delaware (Supreme Court) considered whether the Sutton Rule prevented the plaintiff from pursuing subrogation against the defendants. As applied in Delaware, the Sutton Rule explains that landlords and tenants are co-insureds under the landlord’s fire insurance policy unless a tenant’s lease clearly expresses an intent to the contrary. If the Sutton Rule applies, the landlord’s insurer cannot pursue the tenant for the landlord’s damages by way of subrogation. Here, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision that the Sutton Rule applied because the lease did not clearly express an intent to hold the tenants liable for the landlord’s damages.

In Thangavel, the plaintiff, Donegal Mutual Insurance Company (Insurer), provided property insurance to Seaford Apartment Ventures, LLC (Landlord) for a residential property in Delaware. Sathiyaselvam Thangavel and Sasikala Muthusamy (Tenants) leased an apartment (the Premises) from Landlord and signed a lease. Insurer alleged that Tenants hit a sprinkler head while flying a drone inside the Premises which caused water to spray from the damaged sprinkler head, resulting in property damage to the Premises. Landlord filed an insurance claim with Insurer, who paid Landlord $77,704.06 to repair the damage. Insurer then sought to recover the repair costs from Tenants via subrogation.Continue Reading