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 September 5, 2024, the CPSC issued a warning urging “consumers of micromobility products—including e-bikes, e-scooters, self-balancing scooters (hoverboards), and e-unicycles—not to use chargers that are marketed as “universal” or suitable with general ... Continue Reading
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 September 5, 2024, the CPSC issued a warning urging consumers to “immediately stop using SafPow SPC-42020 and AMPOWSURE ASP-C10S42020 battery chargers because they pose a risk of serious injury and death.” According the CPSC, “[u]sing these chargers with an incompatible ... Continue Reading
In Lithko Contr., LLC v. XL Ins. Am. Inc., No. 31, Sept. Term, 2023, 2024 Md. LEXIS 256, the Supreme Court of Maryland considered whether a tenant who contracted for the construction of a large warehouse facility waived its insurer’s rights to subrogation against subcontractors when it agreed to waive subrogation against the general contractor. The court ultimately decided that the unambiguous language of the subrogation waiver in the development agreement between the parties did not extend to subcontractors. The court also held that the tenant’s requirement that subcontracts include a subrogation waiver did not, in this case, impose a project-wide waiver on all parties. The court, however, found that the requirement that the subcontracts include a similar, but not identical, waiver provision rendered the subcontract’s waiver clauses ambiguous and remanded the case to the lower court to determine if the parties to the development agreement – i.e., Duke Baltimore LLC (“Duke”) and Amazon.com.dedc, LLC (“Amazon”) – intended that the waiver clause in the subcontracts covered claims against subcontractors.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 22, 2024 and August 29, 2024, the CPSC announced the following recalls related to products that present fire hazards:
This episode of Subro Sessions, hosted by associates Zachariah Sigda and Katherine Dempsey, entitled, “Insured Made Whole Doctrine: Texas and Washington State,” dives into the topic of the made whole doctrine. Zachariah and Katherine define the made whole doctrine and explain how the doctrine applies in both Texas and Washington state courts, using those states to show how the doctrine can vary state-to-state. Thus, it is important for subrogation professionals to consider the made whole doctrine before pursuing recovery.
Listen to all of our episodes here.
You can also ... 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, 2024, the CPSC announced the following recalls related to products that present fire hazards:
- Trader Joe's Company Recalls Mango Tangerine Scented Candles Due to Fire Hazard. According to the CPSC’s website, “[t]he candle flame can spread from the ...
In L’Oreal USA, Inc. v. Burroughs, 372 Ga. App. 30, 2024 Ga. App. LEXIS 250, the Court of Appeals of Georgia (Appellate Court) considered whether Georgia’s ten-year statute of repose for products liability precluded strict liability and/or negligence claims where the product, allegedly causing injury, was first purchased more than 10 years ago, but new containers of the same product were purchased within the last 10 years. The Appellate Court found that the “first sale” triggers the products liability statute of repose.
In Burroughs, Kiara Burroughs (Burroughs) alleged that she continuously used chemical hair relaxers from the age of six to twenty-five. In 2018, Burroughs was diagnosed with uterine fibroids, which caused her significant health problems. In October 2022, a scientific health study was released finding an association between chemical hair relaxers and uterine cancers. On October 27, 2022, Burroughs filed her original complaint, including claims for strict liability, negligence, and failure-to warn against L’Oreal USA, Inc. and others (collectively, Defendants). Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss based, in part, on the statute of repose.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 8, 2024, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:
Samsung Recalls Slide-In Electric Ranges Due to Fire Hazard.
According to the CPSC’s website, “[f]ront-mounted knobs on the ranges can be activated by ... 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 1, 2024, the CPSC announced the following recalls related to products that present fire hazards:
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 25, 2024, the CPSC announced the following recalls related to products that present fire hazards:
Recent Posts
Categories
- Products Liability
- CPSC Recalls
- Subrogation
- Podcast
- CPSC Warning
- Uncategorized
- Water Loss
- Pennsylvania
- Negligence
- Texas
- Assignment
- Missouri
- Parties
- Public Policy
- Civil Procedure
- New York
- New Jersey
- Res Judicata
- Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Cargo - Transportation
- Damages
- Damages – Personal Property
- Landlord-Tenant
- Sutton Doctrine
- Evidence
Tags
- Product Liability
- Products Liability
- Subrogation
- Texas
- Louisiana
- Podcast
- Subro Sessions
- Certificate of Merit
- Expert Qualifications
- Experts
- Amazon
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence
- CPSC Recalls; Products Liability
- Waiver of Subrogation
- Construction Defects
- Amazon-eBay
- Contracts
- Evidence - Hearsay
- Loss of Use
- Vehicles
- Landlord-Tenant
- Sutton Doctrine
- Negligent Undertaking
- workers' compensation subrogation
- Arizona
- Warranty - Implied
- Construction Contracts
- Maryland
- Made Whole
- Georgia
- Statute of Repose
- Illinois
- Malfunction Theory; Design Defect
- West Virginia
- Pennsylvania
- Independent Duty
- Limitation of Liability
- Negligence
- Ohio
- Statute of Limitations - Contractual
- Water Damage
- Connecticut
- Contracts - Enforcement
- Public Policy
- Unconscionable
- Missouri
- Parties
- Design Defect
- Failure to Warn
- Manufacturing Defect
- New York
- Pleading
- Removal
- Entire Controversy Doctrine
- Motion to Intervene
- New Jersey
- Res Judicata
- Subrogation; High-Net-Worth; Damages; Art; Cargo-Transportation; Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Products Liability – Risk-Utility