Monthly Archives: February 2016

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 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 Hazards

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

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 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 Hazard

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

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 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, Shock Hazards

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

The Fourth Circuit Applies a Consequential Damages Exclusionary Clause and the Economic Loss Doctrine to Bar Claims by a Subrogating Insurer Seeking to Recover Over $19 Million in Damages


This entry was posted by on .

In Severn Peanut Company, Inc. v. Industrial Fumigant Company, 807 F.3d 88 (4th Cir. (N.C.) 2015), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Fourth Circuit), applying North Carolina law, considered whether a consequential damages clause in a contract between the Severn Peanut Company, Inc. (Severn) and Industrial Fumigant Company (IFC) barred Severn and its subrogating insurer, Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (Travelers), from recovering over $19 million in damages that Severn suffered as the result of a fire and explosion at its Severn, North Carolina plant. The Fourth Circuit, rejecting Severn’s unconscionability and public policy arguments related to the consequential damages clause and finding that the economic loss doctrine barred Severn from pursuing negligence claims, affirmed the trial court’s judgment granting summary judgment in IFC’s favor.

Continue reading

This entry was posted in Economic Loss Rule, Limitation of Liability, North Carolina and tagged , , .