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 February 20, 2025, the CPSC announced the following recalls related to products that present fire hazards:

1. OdorStop Recalls Boot and Shoe Dryers and Deodorizers Due to Fire Hazard. According to the CPSC’s website, “[t]he heat or ozone on-off switch can short ...

White and Williams has one of the longest-standing Subrogation Practices in the nation. This series of the Subro Sessions podcast, entitled “Getting to Know Subro,” is hosted by Lian Skaf, Partner. In this episode, Lian interviews Chris Konzelmann, Partner and Chair of the Subrogation Department, to discuss his 35 years with the firm while volunteering as a fire captain in Moorestown, New Jersey.

Listen to all of our episodes here.

You can also listen to Subro Sessions on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.Continue Reading

In Rich v. Plumbing No. 1:23-cv-00705-SAG, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2263, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland considered two motions for summary judgment, each arguing that the court should exclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert. Although the court allowed the plaintiff to file a supplemental brief, it ultimately granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Consequently, the court deemed the testimony of the plaintiff’s one and only expert inadmissible.

The plaintiff, Whitney Rich, on behalf of C.W., brought this action after her ... 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, 2025, the CPSC announced the following recalls related to products that present fire hazards:

1. Target Recalls Spritz™ Resin Hanukkah Dino Menorahs Due to Fire Hazard. According to the CPSC’s website, “[t]he recalled resin menorahs can burn or ...

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, 2025, the CPSC announced the following recalls related to products that present fire hazards:

1. LG Recalls Electric Ranges Due to Fire Hazard. According to the CPSC’s website, “[f]ront-mounted knobs on the recalled ranges can be activated by ...

In Federal Ins. Co. v. J. Gallant Elec. Servs., Inc. No. 1-22- CV-00123-MSM-LDA, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218185, the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island considered whether it could exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state, third-party defendant.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 16, 2025, the CPSC announced the following recalls related to products that present fire hazards:

1. Lexmark International Recalls Specialty Printers Due to Fire Hazard. According to the CPSC’s website, “[a] metal part inside the printer can dislodge ...

The purpose of certificate of merit (sometimes referred to as affidavit of merit) statutes is to identify frivolous claims before the court wastes time and resources during litigation. More common in medical malpractice cases, several states have enacted similar requirements for professional negligence claims dealing with construction-related issues. While a subrogation attorney should not be bringing a frivolous case to suit anyway, the requirement adds another step in the process that plaintiffs need to properly navigate.Continue Reading

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 State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Coway USA, Inc., No. 22-cv-3516, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192849, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (District Court) considered whether the plaintiff produced sufficient evidence to establish that the defendant sold and/or marketed a product and, thus, could be held liable for an alleged defect in the product. The plaintiff, a subrogating insurance carrier, brought strict product liability and breach of warranty claims against the defendant—the installer of a bidet in its insured’s home—claiming that the defendant also marketed and sold the bidet. The sole evidence to support a finding that the defendant sold the bidet was the homeowner’s testimony that she bought the product from the installer. The court found that the insured’s testimony, without any documentation or other corroborating evidence, was insufficient to establish that the defendant sold the product. Since proof of a sale is a required element for strict product liability and breach of warranty claims, the District Court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the case. Continue Reading