Recall Alert

Lightform Recalls LED Projectors


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 October 21, 2021, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Lightform Recalls LED Projectors Due to Fire Hazard (Recall Alert).

According to the CPSC, “[t]he projector’s fan can malfunction and overheat, posing a fire hazard.”

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

Can You Prove It? New Jersey Court Holds That Plaintiff Alleging Negligent Destruction of Evidence Failed to Sufficiently Prove Proximate Cause in Underlying Claim


This entry was posted by on .

In 27-35 Jackson Ave., LLC v. Samsung Fire & Marine Inc. Co., No. A-2925-19, 2021 N.J. Super LEXIS 120, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division (Appellate Division) considered whether the lower court properly granted the defendant’s summary judgment motion. In its motion, the defendant argued that the plaintiff could not establish proximate cause between the defendant’s alleged conduct of destroying or losing evidence and the plaintiff’s inability to prove liability against other responsible third parties. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s ruling, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of a viable liability claim against potentially responsible third parties in the underlying claim. Continue reading

This entry was posted in Negligence, New Jersey, Spoliation and tagged , , , .
Signing Agreement

The Right of Workers’ Compensation Reimbursement is Alive and Well in Indiana


This entry was posted by on .

When the direct door to a subrogation recovery closes, the reimbursement door remains open.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, construing Indiana law, recently clarified the distinction between workers’ compensation subrogation rights and workers’ compensation lien rights. Workers’ compensation subrogation professionals should always keep this critical difference between direct subrogation and reimbursement in mind when evaluating any claim. Continue reading

This entry was posted in Illinois, Indiana, Subrogation, Waiver of Subrogation, Workers' Compensation and tagged , , , , , .
Gavel

Nevada’s Common Law Meaning of the Term “Substantial Completion” in the Statute of Repose


This entry was posted by on .

Statutes of repose establish a legislature’s determination of when defendants should be free from liability. As set forth in Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 11.202, the statute of repose for construction improvements in Nevada is six years after “substantial completion.” In Somersett Owners Ass’n v. Somersett Dev. Co., 492 P.3d 534 (Nev. 2021), the Supreme Court of Nevada (Supreme Court) discussed when a construction improvement is substantially complete, as defined by the common law, for purposes of NRS 11.202. Because the plaintiff did not establish that its suit was filed within six years of when the rockery walls at issue were substantially complete, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court below. Continue reading

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

The Deal Stands: Finding of Good Faith Settlement in California Precludes Contribution and Indemnity


This entry was posted by on .

Courts across the country have historically taken positions encouraging settlements between civil litigants. Thus, as long as there is good faith involved in the negotiation process, settlements and their effects on other parties are generally upheld. Recently, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California (District Court) considered whether a settlement between the plaintiff and one of several defendants met the good faith standard, thereby barring claims for contribution and indemnity from the co-defendants. Continue reading

This entry was posted in California, Cargo - Transportation, Contribution-Apportionment, Indemnification 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 September 15, 2021 and September 16, 2021, the CPSC announced the following recalls related to products that present fire hazards:

  1. Gas One Recalls Propane Adapter Hoses Due to Fire Hazard. According to the CPSC, “[t]he hose can swell during use causing gas to leak, posing a fire hazard.”
  2. Harbor Freight Tools Recalls to Repair Propane Portable Heaters Due to Fire Hazard (Recall Alert). According to the CPSC, “[t]he fitting at the back of the heater can fail to be sufficiently tight, causing the heater to leak propane gas, posing a fire hazard.”
This entry was posted in CPSC Recalls, Products Liability and tagged .
Recall Alert

Razor USA Recalls GLW Battery Packs Sold With Hovertrax 2.0 Self-Balancing Hoverboards


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 August 25, 2021, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Razor USA Recalls GLW Battery Packs Sold with Hovertrax 2.0 Self-Balancing Hoverboards Due to Fire Hazard.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he lithium-ion GLW battery packs in the self-balancing scooters/hoverboards can overheat, posing a risk of the products smoking, catching fire and/or exploding.”

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

Intertex Recalls Blower Fans


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 August 18, 2021, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Intertex Recalls Blower Fans Due to Fire Hazard.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he capacitor in the recalled VP-33 blower fans can overheat, posing a fire hazard.”

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

Pennsylvania Court Finds that Two Possible Causes Can Prove a Product Malfunction Theory of Liability


This entry was posted by on .

In Allstate Ins. Co. v. LG Elecs. USA, Inc., No. 19-3529, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127014, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania considered whether plaintiff’s expert engineer’s opinion that there were two possible causes of a fire—both related to alleged product defects within a refrigerator manufactured by the defendant—was sufficient to support the malfunction theory of products liability. The court found that because both potential causes imposed liability on the product manufacturer and the expert ruled out misuse of the product, as well as all external causes of the fire, it was not necessary for the engineer to identify a specific cause under the malfunction theory. The court also found that the expert’s investigation and opinions met the criteria set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and the Federal Rules of Evidence and, thus, were admissible. Continue reading

This entry was posted in Experts, Experts – Daubert, Pennsylvania, Products Liability, Subrogation and tagged , , , , , .
Gavel

Idaho Supreme Court Tells Wine Bottle Manufacturer to Stop Whining Over Personal Jurisdiction


This entry was posted by on .

In Griffin v. Ste. Michelle Wine Estates Ltd., No. 47703, 2021 Ida. LEXIS 127, the Supreme Court of Idaho considered whether an Italian wine bottle manufacturer’s contacts with Idaho were sufficient under the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution to permit the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the manufacturer in Idaho for a plaintiff’s product liability action. Stated another way, the court considered whether a manufacturer located outside the United States (with no domestic presence) could be sued in Idaho because its’ product reached Idaho and caused injury. Continue reading

This entry was posted in Idaho, Jurisdiction, Litigation, Products Liability and tagged , , .