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 August 10, 2023, the CPSC announced the following recalls related to products that present fire hazards:

1. Polaris Recalls RZR XP Turbo and Turbo S Recreational Off-Road Vehicles Due to Fire and Injury Hazards (Recall Alert). According to the CPSC’s website ...

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 3, 2023, the CPSC announced the following recalls related to products that present fire hazards:

1. Crate & Barrel Recalls Table Lamps Due to Fire Hazard (Recall Alert). According to the CPSC’s website, “[a] loose electrical cord connection in the lamps can ...

The insurer’s right of subrogation is equitable in nature, even if not based in contract. However, since the insurer steps into the shoes of its insured and is limited to the rights of its insured, an integral part of the investigation process is determining what rights the insured has. Whether or not the insured can settle with the tortfeasor and that whether the settlement would also apply to the subrogated carrier is a question the Supreme Court of New York, a trial court, recently addressed.

In Utica First Ins. Co. v. Homeport I LLC, et al., No. 150448/2022, 2023 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3087 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), the plaintiff insurance carrier’s insured, SI Waterfront Management Inc. (SI Waterfront), owned and operated a restaurant called Wynwood at 24 Navy Pier Court in Staten Island, New York. The owner of the property was Homeport I LLC (Homeport). Significant construction work pertaining to plumbing and draining lines at the property was done by Ironstate Holdings, LLC (Ironstate), the plumbing portion of which was conducted by subcontractor Claire Construction Corp. (Claire). As a result of the construction work, on June 8, 2021, SI Waterfront allegedly sustained property damage from flooding.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 27, 2023, the CPSC announced the following recalls related to products that present fire hazards:

1. True Fitness Recalls Showrunner II Consoles Sold with Fitness Equipment Due to Fire Hazard. According to the CPSC’s website, “[a]n exposed area of the ...

The newest episode of the Subro Sessions #podcast is out now. This episode tackles a central part of the #subrogation process: the statute of limitations and is hosted by David Huberman, Partner and Kyle Rice, Associate

In the latest episode of Subro Sessions, these White and Williams professionals tackle the core principles and issues brought up by the statute of limitations. They briefly explain what statutes of limitations are and explain the best ways to view and handle statutes in the subrogation process.

If you want to hear more about relevant subrogation topics, tune in on the ... Continue Reading

In Nationwide Prop & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Fireline Corp., No. 1:20-cv-00684, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104241, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (District Court) considered whether the events giving rise to the plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of a previously formed agreement, thereby rendering the plaintiff’s claims subject to the agreement’s time limitation and waiver of subrogation provisions. The District Court found that the claims fell within the scope of the agreement.

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

Electrolux Group Recalls Frigidaire Gas Laundry Centers Due to Fire Hazard

According to the CPSC’s website, “[t]he felt seal on the dryer drum can be folded inward ... 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 6, 2023, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

VRURC Portable Chargers Recalled Due to Fire Hazard; Sold Exclusively on Amazon.com by VRURC; Caught Fire on Commercial Flight.

According to the CPSC’s ... 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 29, 2023, the CPSC announced the following recalls related to products that present fire hazards:

1. Victrola Recalls Bluetooth Record Players Due to Fire Hazard. According to the CPSC’s website, “[t]he recalled record players can overheat, posing a fire ...

In Am. Auto. Ins. Co. v. FDH Infrastructure Servs. LLC., No. 3D22-1143, 2023 Fla. App. LEXIS 3662, the Court of Appeals of Florida, Third District (Court of Appeals) addressed whether Florida’s two-year statute of limitations governing professional malpractice actions or  four-year statute of limitations governing improvements to real property was applicable to a claim involving a construction accident due to erroneous structural engineering calculations. The Court of Appeals determined that the four-year statute governing improvements to real property was more specific and governed only construction-based claims and, thus, was the appropriate governing statute.