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 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 23, 2016, the CPSC issued the following recall notice related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Crownplace Brands Recalls Kerosene Lamp Burners Due to Burn and Fire HazardsContinue 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 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 14, 2016, the CPSC issued the following recall notice related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Home Source Recalls Floor Lamps Due to Fire and Shock HazardsContinue 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 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 23, 2016, the CPSC issued the following recall notice related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

HP Recalls Batteries for HP and Compaq Notebook Computers Due to Fire and Burn HazardsContinue 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 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 15, 2016, the CPSC issued the following recall notice related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Sony Recalls VAIO Laptop Computer Battery Packs Due to Burn and Fire HazardsContinue 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 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 9, 2016, the CPSC issued the following recall notice related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

360 Electrical Recalls Surge Protectors Due to Shock and Fire 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 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 31, 2016, the CPSC issued the following recall notices related to products that present fire hazards:

Mirka Recalls Electric Random Orbital Sanders Due to Fire Hazard

Broan-NuTone Recalls Ventilation Fans Due to Fire HazardContinue 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 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 26, 2016, the CPSC issued the following recall notices related to products that present fire hazards:

Rheem Recalls to Repair Water Heaters Due to Fire and Burn Hazards; Sold Exclusively at Home DepotContinue 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 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 24, 2016, the CPSC issued the following recall notice related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Water Heating Technologies Recalls Gas Water Heaters Due to Fire HazardContinue 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 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 26, 2016, the Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall notice related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

One World Technologies Recalls Snow Blowers Due to Fire and Burn Hazards; Sold Exclusively at Home DepotContinue 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 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 19, 2016, the CPSC issued the following recall notice related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Brunton Outdoors Recalls Battery Packs Due to Fire HazardContinue 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 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 12, 2016, the CPSC issued the following recall notice related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Coleman Recalls Flashlights Due to Fire HazardContinue 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 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 31, 2016, the CPSC issued the following recall notices related to products that present fire hazards:

CE North America Expands Recall of Fan Heaters Due to Fire Hazard; Sold Exclusively at H-E-B

Gamewell-FCI Recalls Fire Alarm Panels Due to Failure to Alert of 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 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 30, 2016, the CPSC issued the following recall notice related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Toshiba Recalls Laptop Computer Battery Packs Due to Burn and Fire HazardsContinue 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 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, 2016, the CPSC issued the following recall notice related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Panasonic Recalls Lithium-ion Laptop Battery Packs Due to Fire HazardContinue 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 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, 2016, the CPSC issued the following recall notice related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Franklin Fueling Systems Recalls Gas Station Hose/Swivel Fitting Sets Due to Fire, Explosion HazardsContinue 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 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 9, 2016, the CPSC issued the following recall notice related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Z Gallerie Recalls Wall Clocks Due to Fire HazardContinue 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 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 3, 2016, the CPSC issued the following recall notice related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Pelican Products Recalls Flashlights and Replacement Battery Packs Due to Fire HazardContinue 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 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. The CPSC recently issued the following recall notices related to products that present fire hazards:

Illume Recalls Valentine’s Day-Themed Ceramic Mugs Due to Fire Hazard; Sold Exclusively at Target Stores

Ambient Weather Expands Recall of Radios Due to Fire HazardContinue 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 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 17, 2016, the CPSC issued the following recall notice related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Goodman Company Expands Recall of Air Conditioning and Heating Units Due to Burn and Fire HazardsContinue 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 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 12, 2016, the Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall notice related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Crescent Point Energy Recalls To Inspect Propane Gas Due to Fire and Burn HazardContinue 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 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 4, 2016, the CPSC issued the following recall notices related to products that present fire hazards:

CE North America Recalls Fan Heaters Due to Fire Hazard; Sold Exclusively at Bed Bath & Beyond

Microsoft Recalls AC Power Cords for Surface Pro Devices Due to 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 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 28, 2016, the CPSC issued a recall for Varaluz Longfellow Light Fixtures because they present a fire hazard. A link to the recall notice can be found below:

Varaluz Recalls Longfellow Light Fixtures Due to Fire HazardContinue 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 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, 2016, the CPSC issued a recall notice for Altar’d State monogrammed coffee mugs because the mugs present a fire hazard. You can find the recall notice at the link that follows:

Altar’d State Recalls Monogrammed Coffee Mugs Due to Fire HazardContinue 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 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 19, 2016, the CPSC issued a recall for Seasonal Specialties’ Synchronized Music and Lighting System because the product presents a fire hazard. A link to the recall notice is provided below:

Seasonal Specialties Recalls Synchronized Music and Lighting System Due ... 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 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 22, 2015 the CPSC issued the following recall notices related to products that present fire hazards:

Carrier Recalls Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps, Including Previously Recalled Units, 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 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 8, 2015, the CPSC issued the following recall notices related to products that present fire hazards:

Limoss Recalls Battery Power Packs for Power Recliners and Lift Chairs Due to Fire HazardContinue 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 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 18, the CPSC issued a recall notice for twenty eight (28) different recalled products sold by Home Depot after they were recalled. Some of the recalled products are products that present fire hazards. To view the recall notice, click the link provided below.Continue Reading

In Dominguez v. Hayward Industries, Inc., Certified Gunite Company d/b/a Custom Pools, and John M. Pieklo, -- So.3d ----, 2015 WL 5438782 (3d DCA Sept. 16, 2015), the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, discussed whether products liability claims related to a pool filter, a component part of a pool system, were subject to Florida’s twelve-year products liability statute of repose, section 95.031, Florida Statutes. The court held that a pool filter does not constitute an improvement to real property and, thus, the plaintiffs’ claims were subject to 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 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 12, 2015, the CPSC issued the following recall notices related to products that present fire hazards:

STIHL Recalls Edgers, Trimmer/Brushcutters, Pole Pruners and KombiMotors Due to Fire Hazard

Family Dollar Recalls Wax Warmers Due to Fire and Burn Hazards

PNY ... Continue Reading

By: Edward A. Jaeger, Jr. and William L. Doerler

In Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., -- A.3d --, 2014 WL 6474923 (Pa. Nov. 19, 2014), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania discussed the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s products liability law and, overturning prior precedent, clarified the law. In particular, the Court, overturned Azzarello v. Black Brothers Company, 480 Pa. 547, 391 A.2d 1020 (1978), clarified the role of the judge and the jury in products liability cases and settled the question of whether Pennsylvania would adopt the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability §§ ... Continue Reading

By: Edward A. Jaeger, Jr. and William L. Doerler

In Mayer v. Once Upon a Rose, Inc., 58 A.3d 1221 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 2013), the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court addressed the question of whether, despite the fact that the plaintiff had invoked the res ipsa loquitur (res ipsa) doctrine, the trial court properly granted a directed verdict in the defendant’s favor because the plaintiff did not have a liability expert. The Appellate Division held that the plaintiff did not need a liability expert to pursue its case because the matters at issue did not require ... Continue Reading