Product Recall

Cove Appliance Recalls Dishwashers


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 June 16, 2021, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Cove Appliance Recalls Dishwashers Due to Fire Hazard.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he heating element in the dishwasher can fail to properly shut off and can overheat, posing a fire hazard.”

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

New York Federal Court Determines a Claim Adjuster’s Testimony Is Sufficient To Prove Damages


This entry was posted by on .

In Phila. Indem. Ins. Co., a/s/o Baldwin Real Estate Corp. v. Barker, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87642 (N.D.N.Y. May 7, 2021), the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York considered whether the plaintiff, Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (PIIC), a subrogating insurer, could prove its damages claim through the testimony of its adjuster, without an damages expert. The court held that, where the plaintiff’s damages proof was based on repair costs and the defendant offered no expert of its own related to the diminution in fair market value, the plaintiff could prove its damages using the adjuster’s testimony. Continue reading

This entry was posted in Damages - Real Property, Experts, New York and tagged , , , .

Keep on Truckin’: Indiana Applies MCS-90 Endorsement to Intrastate Trips


This entry was posted by on .

The Court of Appeals of Indiana recently ruled that, in Indiana, Form MCS-90 endorsements on insurance policies apply to purely intrastate trips, including when the vehicle is on the way to pick up cargo but has not yet done so at the time of an incident. Continue reading

This entry was posted in Cargo - Transportation, Indiana and tagged , , .

When an Insurer Proceeds as Subrogee, Defendants Should Not Assert Counterclaims Against the Insured/Subrogor


This entry was posted by on .

In a subrogation action, one party is substituted to the rights and remedies of another with respect to a lawful claim. The substituted party (the subrogee) is legally able to pursue any right or seek any remedy that would be available to the subrogor regarding that claim. But can a defendant in a subrogation action assert any claim against the subrogee that it would have against the subrogor? In Federated Mut. Inc. Co. v. Kosciusko County, No. 3:20-CV-960, 2021 U.S. Dist. Lexis 88735, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana considered whether a defendant could assert counterclaims against the insureds/subrogors in an action filed in the name of their subrogee. The court held that since the insurerds/subrogors were not a party to the action and the defendant could assert the substance of its counterclaim as a defense, the defendant could not file counterclaims against the insureds/subrogors in the insurer’s subrogation action. Continue reading

This entry was posted in Indiana, Litigation, Parties, Subrogation and tagged , , , , .

Examination of the Product Does Not Stop a Pennsylvania Court From Applying the Malfunction Theory


This entry was posted by on .

Pennsylvania recognizes the malfunction theory in product liability cases. This theory allows a plaintiff to circumstantially prove that a product is defective by showing evidence of a malfunction and eliminating abnormal use or reasonable, secondary causes for the malfunction. The malfunction theory is available to plaintiffs as an alternative to proving a traditional strict product liability case in those circumstances where direct evidence of a product defect is not found. In Pa. Nat’l Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Sam’s East, Inc., 727 MDA 2020, 2021 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 752, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (Superior Court) considered whether the plaintiffs could avail themselves to the malfunction theory if the plaintiffs’ expert was able to examine the product. Continue reading

This entry was posted in Litigation, Pennsylvania, Products Liability, Subrogation and tagged , , .
Product Recall

Consumer Product Safety Commission Recalls


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 May 13, 2021, the CPSC announced the following recalls related to products that present fire hazards:

  1. BRP Recalls Snowmobiles Due to Fire Hazard (Recall Alert). According to the CPSC, “[t]he snowmobile’s muffler can overheat and cause the upper right-hand vent grill to melt and drip plastic on the exhaust, posing a fire hazard . . . .”
  2. Polaris Recalls RZR Recreational Off-Road Vehicles Due to Fire Hazard (Recall Alert). According to the CPSC, “[t]he vehicles were manufactured without copper seal washers on the turbocharger’s oil supply line, which can result in an oil leak, posing a fire hazard.”
This entry was posted in CPSC Recalls, Products Liability and tagged .
Gavel

Industry Standard and Sole Negligence Defenses Can’t Fix a Defect


This entry was posted by on .

Strict products liability cases have been the subject of much fluctuation in the Pennsylvania courts over the last few years. Utilizing hope created by the courts in recent strict liability cases, defendants have tried to revive defenses based on meeting industry standards and the plaintiff’s contributory negligence. Recently, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania tempered that hope with limitations of how far strict liability defenses can extend. Continue reading

This entry was posted in Comparative-Contributory Negligence, Evidence, Negligence, Pennsylvania, Products Liability and tagged , , .
Recall Alert

Kidde Recalls Trusense Smoke and Combination Smoke/Carbon Monoxide 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 May 6, 2021, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire-related risk:

Kidde Recalls TruSense Smoke and Combination Smoke/Carbon Monoxide Alarms Due to Risk of Failure to Alert Consumers to a Fire.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he smoke alarm and the combination smoke/carbon monoxide (CO) alarm can fail to alert consumers to a fire.”

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

Scott Fetzer Consumer Brands Recalls Multi-Use Water Pumps


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 May 5, 2021, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Scott Fetzer Consumer Brands Recalls Multi-Use Water Pumps Due to Fire and Shock Hazards.

According to the CPSC, “[i]f water gets into the electrical circuit board, it can short circuit, posing fire, burn and electrical shock hazards.”

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

Recalled Products Sold by PTAC Crew And PTAC UDA After Recalls Were Announced


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 28, 2021, the CPSC, PTAC Crew and PTAC USA warned consumers regarding units that PTAC Crew and PTAC USA refurbished and resold after they were previously recalled between 2004 and 2018. The recall relates to packaged terminal air conditioner (PTAC), packaged terminal heat pump (PTHP) and room air conditioner (RAC) units. You can find the full details of the recall at the link below:

Recalled Products Sold by PTAC Crew and PTAC USA After Recalls Were Announced.

According to the CPSC, “[h]azards include fire and/or burn depending on the product.”

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