Author Archives: William L. Doerler

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 .

Lenovo Recalls ThinkPad Laptops


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 6, 2018, the Consumer Product Safety Commission announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Lenovo Recalls ThinkPad Laptops Due to Fire Hazard

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

Vornado Air Recalls Cribside 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 January 31, 2018, the Consumer Product Safety Commission announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

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

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

California’s Right to Repair Act Applies to Construction Defects Resulting in Either Economic Loss or Property Damage


This entry was posted by on .

In McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court, 2018 Cal. LEXIS 211 (Jan. 18, 2018), the Supreme Court of California addressed the question of whether California’s Right to Repair Act (“Act”), Civ. Code §§ 895-945.5, applies to claims where the plaintiff alleges that construction defects caused property damage. The court held that the Act – which applies to original construction intended to be sold as an individual dwelling unit – supplanted common law negligence and strict liability actions with a statutory claim under the Act. Thus, where the Act applies, the Act provides the exclusive remedy for plaintiffs seeking to recover for property damages arising from construction defects. Continue reading

This entry was posted in California, Right to Repair Act and tagged , , .

HP Recalls Batteries for Notebook Computers and Mobile 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 January 4, 2018, the Consumer Product Safety Commission announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

HP Recalls Batteries for Notebook Computers and Mobile Workstations Due to Fire and Burn Hazards

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

Where the Insured Has Been Made Whole, a Subrogating Insurer Proceeding in the Insured’s Name Need Not Respond to Discovery Issued to the Insured


This entry was posted by on .

When an insurer files a subrogation suit in the insured’s name, questions often arise with respect to whether, by doing so, the insurer has to respond to discovery issued to the insured. In Aquatherm, LLC v. Centimark Corporation, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85173 (C.D. Utah June 2, 2017), a case in which the insurer at issue made the insured whole, the District Court for the District of Utah answered the question in the negative. Continue reading

This entry was posted in Discovery, Made Whole, Subrogation, Utah and tagged , , .

Westinghouse Portable Generators Recalled by MWE Investments


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 December 7, 2017, the Consumer Product Safety Commission announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Westinghouse Portable Generators Recalled by MWE Investments Due to Fire Hazard

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

Consumer Product Safety Commission Announces Numerous Hoverboard 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. Continue reading

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

Nevada Refuses to Increase Plaintiff’s Burden Of Proof for Product Liability Design Defect Claim


This entry was posted by on .

In the United States, to prove a products liability claim based upon a design defect, the plaintiff must either meet: (1) the consumer-expectation test, or (2) the risk-utility test, depending upon the jurisdiction. Although Nevada has historically followed the consumer-expectation test, in a recent decision the Supreme Court of Nevada evaluated whether to adopt the more stringent risk-utility test. Ultimately, the court rejected adoption of the risk-utility test and reaffirmed its prior precedent holding that a plaintiff need only meet the consumer-expectation test. See Ford Motor Company v. Trejo, 2017 Nev. LEXIS 90 (September 27, 2017). Continue reading

This entry was posted in Nevada, Products Liability and tagged , .

Colorado Requires Privity to Pursue Warranty of Suitability Claim Against Developer


This entry was posted by on .

In Forest City Stapleton, Inc. v. Rodgers, 393 P.3d 487 (Colo. 2017), the Supreme Court of Colorado considered whether a home buyer needed privity of contract to pursue an implied warranty of suitability claim against a developer who sold a vacant lot to a professional builder. Finding that that warranty of suitability claims are contractual claims, the court held that the home buyer needed to be in privity of contract with the developer.

Continue reading

This entry was posted in Colorado, Construction Defects, Warranty-Implied and tagged , .