New York’s Court of Appeals Clarifies the Burden of Proof in Summary Judgment Cases


This entry was posted by on .

In Rodriguez v. City of New York, 2018 N.Y. LEXIS 793, 2018 NY Slip Op. 02287 (Apr. 3, 2018), New York’s Court of Appeals, New York’s highest court, addressed the question of whether a plaintiff, in moving for summary judgment on the issue of the defendant’s liability, also needs to establish the absence of his or her own comparative negligence. In a 4-3 decision, a majority of the court held that, because the plaintiff’s comparative negligence is a matter of damages, not liability, the plaintiff does not bear that burden. Continue reading

This entry was posted in Comparative-Contributory Negligence, Litigation, New York and tagged , .

Supreme Court Holds That the Tolling Statute Applicable to State Law Claims Subject to Federal Supplemental Jurisdiction Stops the Statute of Limitations Rather Than According Plaintiffs a Grace Period


This entry was posted by on .

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), a plaintiff may bring strictly state-based claims in federal district court if they are related to a claim over which the district court has original jurisdiction. This is more commonly known as Supplemental Jurisdiction. One major issue that has arisen when such jurisdiction is asserted is whether or not the applicable state-specific statute of limitations is tolled under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) upon the filing of the federal action. Recently, the Supreme Court addressed this very issue in Artis v. District of Columbia, 138 S.Ct. 594 (2018). Continue reading

This entry was posted in Statute of Limitations-Repose and tagged , .

Vornado Air Recalls Electric Space Heaters


This entry was posted by on .

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 April 4, 2018, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Vornado Air Recalls Electric Space Heaters Due to Fire and Burn Hazards

According to the CPSC, the electric space heater can overheat when in use.

This entry was posted in CPSC Recalls, Products Liability and tagged .

Carrier® Recalls to Repair Commercial Rooftop HVAC Units


This entry was posted by on .

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 March 19, 2018, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Carrier® Recalls to Repair Commercial Rooftop HVAC Units Due to Fire Hazard

According to the CPSC, “[t]he HVAC’s humidimizer fan can fail to shut off when a connected smoke detector is tripped, posing a fire hazard.”

This entry was posted in CPSC Recalls, Products Liability and tagged .

Kidde Recalls Dual Sensor Smoke Alarms


This entry was posted by on .

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 March 21, 2018, the Consumer Product Safety Commission announced a recall of Kidde dual sensor smoke alarms because they pose a risk of consumers not being alerted to a fire in their home.  The recall is detailed at the following link:

Kidde Recalls Dual Sensor Smoke Alarms Due to Risk of Failure to Alert Consumers to a Fire

This entry was posted in CPSC Recalls, Products Liability and tagged .

Florida Court of Appeals Clarifies How the Statute Governing Indemnification Provisions in Construction Contracts Applies


This entry was posted by on .

In Blok Builders, LLC v. Katryniok, 2018 Fla. App. LEXIS 1312, the Court of Appeals of Florida for the Fourth District considered whether Florida Statute § 725.06 applied to a contract for the excavation of various neighborhood easements containing telecommunication lines. The court held that the statute did not apply because the contract for the excavation work was unrelated to a “building, structure, appurtenance, or appliance,” as explicitly required by the statute. The court’s analysis highlights the importance of thoroughly analyzing statutes and considering (and anticipating) their most narrow interpretations. Continue reading

This entry was posted in Construction Defects, Contracts, Florida, Indemnification and tagged , .

Beanworthy Recalls Combination Battery Chargers/Hand Warmers Sold Exclusively at Amazon.com


This entry was posted by on .

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 March 15, 2018, the Consumer Product Safety Commission announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Beanworthy Recalls Combination Battery Chargers/Hand Warmers Due to Fire and Burn Hazard; Sold Exclusively at Amazon.com (Recall Alert)

This entry was posted in CPSC Recalls, Products Liability and tagged .

Finding Plaintiff Intentionally Spoliated Evidence, the Northern District of Indiana Imposes Sanctions


This entry was posted by on .

On January 23, 2018, the Northern District of Indiana issued a decision that clarifies what constitutes spoliation of evidence under Indiana law. In Arcelormittal Ind. Harbor LLC v. Amex Nooter, LLC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10141 (N.D. Ind.), the defendant filed a motion for sanctions, alleging that the plaintiff intentionally spoliated critical evidence. The defendant sought dismissal of the action, asserting that the plaintiff intentionally discarded and lost important physical evidence within hours of a fire that occurred while the defendant’s employees were performing work at its facility. The decision underscores the importance of taking immediate action to properly identify and secure potentially material evidence in order to satisfy ones duty to preserve pre-suit evidence and avoid any spoliation defenses and associated sanctions. Continue reading

This entry was posted in Indiana, Spoliation and tagged , .

Consumer Product Safety Commission Recalls Goodman Manufacturing and Goodman Company Products Due to Fire Hazards


This entry was posted by on .

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. Recently, the Consumer Product Safety Commission announced the following recall notices related to products that present fire hazards:

Goodman Manufacturing Recalls Modular Blowers Due to Fire Hazard
Goodman Company Recalls Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps Due to Burn and Fire Hazards.

This entry was posted in CPSC Recalls, Products Liability and tagged .

Fujitsu Recalls Battery Packs for Fujitsu Notebook Computers and Workstations


This entry was posted by on .

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 8, 2018, the Consumer Product Safety Commission announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Fujitsu Recalls Battery Packs for Fujitsu Notebook Computers and Workstations Due to Fire and Burn Hazards

This entry was posted in CPSC Recalls, Products Liability and tagged .