Category Archives: Uncategorized

Gavel

Subrogation Waiver Unconscionable in Residential Fuel Delivery Contract


This entry was posted by on .

In a matter of first impression, the Superior Court of Connecticut (Superior Court), in American Commerce Ins., Co. v. Eastern Fuel Corp., No. CV-206109168-S, 2024 Conn. Super. LEXIS 380, held that a waiver of subrogation provision in a consumer fuel service/delivery contract violated public policy. The Superior Court overruled the motion for summary judgment filed by Eastern Fuel Corporation (Eastern) and determined that the clause was impermissible as the contract was entered into by two parties with unequal bargaining power.

American Commerce Insurance Company (American) provided property insurance to Arlene and James Hillas (the Insureds) for their home in Woodbridge, Connecticut. The Insureds hired Eastern to service their heating system on or around October 25, 2018. The service work at the property included inspecting the oil filters and flushing the fuel lines. On November 1, 2018, when the Insureds turned the heating system on for the first time that season, the two oil tanks on the property were allegedly full. After a series of deliveries, claims that the oil levels were lower than expected, discovering oil staining on the floor and Eastern’s replacement of the oil lines, Eastern delivered another 429 gallons. However, after the delivery, additional leaks were discovered relating to the oil line replacements. Ultimately, the Insureds submitted a claim to American and American paid in excess of $59,000 for the damage incurred.

Continue reading →

This entry was posted in Connecticut, Contracts, Public Policy, Subrogation, Uncategorized, Waiver of Subrogation and tagged , , , , , .
Product Recall

The Home Appliances Recalls Camplux Brand Portable Tankless Water 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 February 29, 2024, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

The Home Appliances Recalls Camplux Brand Portable Tankless Water Heaters Due to Fire Hazard

According to the CPSC’s website, “[t]he portable water heaters can leak gas from the gas regulator connection, posing a fire hazard.”

Product images from the CPSC website are set forth below:

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

Ocean State Job Lot Recalls “Growing Table-Mini Greenhouse and Raised Garden Bed”


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 15, 2024, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Ocean State Job Lot Recalls “Growing Table-Mini Greenhouse and Raised Garden Bed” Due to Fire Hazard

According to the CPSC’s website, “[t]he recalled greenhouses can overheat, posing a fire hazard resulting in property damage and injury.”

Product images from the CPSC website are set forth below:

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

Amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 – Expert Testimony


This entry was posted by on .

In April, the Supreme Court sent a list of proposed amendments to Congress that amend the Federal Rules of Evidence. Absent action by Congress, the rules go into effect December 1, 2023.  The proposed amendments affect Rules 106, 615 and, relevant to this article, 702.

Rule 702 addresses testimony by an expert witness. The proposed rule reads as follows (new material is underlined; matters omitted are lined through):

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that:

(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;

(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;

(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and

(d) the expert has reliably applied expert’s opinion reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

Continue reading →

This entry was posted in Experts - Reliability, Experts – Daubert, Uncategorized and tagged , .

Clock’s Ticking: Discussion of the Statute of Repose and its Impact on Subrogation


This entry was posted by on .

 

The newest episode of the Subro Sessions podcast is out now. Hosted by Gus Sara, Partner, and Joseph Kuffler, Counsel, this episode tackles a part of the subrogation process that’s all about timing: the statute of repose.

In the latest episode of Subro Sessions, these White and Williams professionals tackle the core principles and issues brought up by the statute of repose. Gus and Joe will define the statute of repose, explain it’s intended purpose and how it is applied, and use real-life examples from their experiences dealing with this topic.

Check the all of our Subro Sessions podcast episodes.

 

This entry was posted in Subrogation, Uncategorized and tagged , .
Product Recall

Electrolux Group Recalls Frigidaire Gas Laundry Centers


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 July 13, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Electrolux Group Recalls Frigidaire Gas Laundry Centers Due to Fire Hazard

According to the CPSC’s website, “[t]he felt seal on the dryer drum can be folded inward which can lead to lint accumulation, creating a fire hazard.”

Product images from the CPSC website are set forth below:

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

ELD Strikes Again! Michigan Court Hits the Brakes on Plaintiffs’ Economic Loss Claims


This entry was posted by on .

In HDI Glob. SE v. Magnesium Prods. of Am., Inc., No. 360385, 2023 Mich. App. LEXIS 2602 (Magnesium Prods.), the Court of Appeals of Michigan (Court of Appeals) considered whether the lower court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs’ claim for loss of income based on the economic loss doctrine. The court found that while the defendant manufacturer owed a duty to the general public to exercise reasonable care in its manufacturing process, that duty did not apply to the economic damages alleged by the plaintiffs.

Continue reading →

This entry was posted in Contracts, Economic Loss Rule, Michigan, Subrogation, Uncategorized and tagged , , , .

New Mexico Adopts Right to Repair Act


This entry was posted by on .

On April 7, 2023, New Mexico’s governor, Michelle Lujan Grisham, signed into law New Mexico’s Right to Repair Act (Act), 2023 N.M. SB 50. The Act’s effective date is July 1, 2023. The Act applies to construction defects in dwellings, i.e., newly constructed single family housing units designed for residential use. The Act applies to not only newly constructed housing units but also to systems and other components and improvements that are part of the housing unit at the time of construction.

Pursuant to the Act, except for construction defect claims that involve an immediate threat to the life or safety of persons occupying the dwelling, that render the dwelling uninhabitable or in which the seller, after notice, refused to make a repair pursuant to any applicable express warranty, a purchaser must comply with the provisions of the Act before filing a complaint or pursing an alternative dispute mechanism related to a construction defect in the dwelling. A seller who receives a notice complying with the provisions of the Act must give notice to all construction professionals who may be responsible for the defect.

The Act gives the seller an opportunity to inspect the dwelling and take reasonable measures to determine the nature and cause of each alleged construction defect, and the nature and extent of any repairs needed. Further, the Act requires sellers to respond within 60 days. The response may include: a) an offer to repair or replace each alleged construction defect, b) an offer to provide monetary compensation to the purchaser, or c) invoke any remedies provided in the construction contract. If the seller’s response includes a notice of intent to repair or replace the construction defect(s) – and such offer has not been rejected by the purchaser – the purchaser shall allow the seller and the seller’s construction professional a reasonable opportunity to do so.

A purchaser who reasonably rejects the seller’s offer has complied with the requirements and may initiate suit. Similarly, if a seller does not comply with the Act and the seller’s failure is not due to any fault by the purchaser, the purchaser shall follow any remedy provided for in the construction contract, file a complaint in court or pursue any alternative dispute resolution mechanism set forth in the construction contract.

To the extent that the repair and replacement process takes place pursuant to the Act, the statute of repose set forth in NMSA § 37-1-27 and any applicable statutes of limitations is tolled.

Although the Act does not specifically mention that it applies to subrogation claims, because a subrogating insurer steps into the shoes of its insured, subrogation professionals should be aware of this change in the law and, as appropriate, provide the notice set forth in the Act.

This entry was posted in Construction Defects, New Mexico, Right to Repair Act, Statute of Limitations-Repose, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , .

BISSELL Expands Recall of Cordless Multi-Surface Wet Dry Vacuums


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 6, 2023, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

BISSELL Expands Recall of Cordless Multi-Surface Wet Dry Vacuums Due to Fire Hazard.

According to the CPSC’s website, “[t]he circuit board inside the vacuum’s battery pack can overheat and smoke, posing a fire hazard.”

Product images from the CPSC website are set forth below:

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

Someone Who Hires an Independent Contractor May Still Be Liable, But Not in This Case


This entry was posted by on .

In Allstate Veh. & Prop. Ins. Co. v. Glitz Constr. Corp., 2023 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1180, 2023 NY Slip Op 01171, the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department (Appellate Court), considered whether a contractor could be found liable for its subcontractor’s alleged negligence in causing injury to a homeowner’s property. The homeowner’s insurer, as subrogee of the homeowner, sought to recover damages from the contractor despite an allegation that the subcontractor – an independent contractor – caused the injury to the homeowner’s property. Finding that there was no evidence that any of the exceptions to the non-liability rule related to hiring independent contractors applied, the Appellate Court affirmed the lower court’s decision granting judgment in favor of the contractor.

In this case, the homeowner hired the contractor (defendant) to convert her garage area into a bedroom and an office. The defendant later hired a subcontractor to perform the electrical rough-in work. At trial, the homeowner’s insurer (plaintiff) presented evidence that the subcontractor, who damaged an existing wire with a drill bit, caused an electrical failure that resulted in a fire. The defendant argued that it could not be held liable for the subcontractor’s alleged negligence because the subcontractor was an independent contractor and, on appeal, the Appellate Court agreed.

Continue reading →

This entry was posted in Negligence, New York, Uncategorized and tagged , .