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 March 9, 2023, the CPSC announced the following recalls related to products that present fire hazards:

  1. Fantasia Trading Recalls Anker Power Banks Due to Fire Hazard | CPSC.gov. According to the CPSC’s website, “[t]he lithium-ion batteries in the recalled power banks can overheat, posing a fire hazard.”
  2. Monoprice Recalls Pure Outdoor Cooking System Due to Fire Hazard (Recall Alert). According to the CPSC’s website, “[t]he insulation coating on the stove can ignite during use, posing a fire hazard.”
  3. Bedshe International Recalls Bedsure Electric Heating Blankets and Pads Due to Fire and Thermal Burn Hazards (Recall Alert). According to the CPSC’s website, “[t]he controller for the electric heating blankets and pads can malfunction, posing fire and thermal burn hazards.”
  4. Vornado Air Recalls Portable SRTH Small Room Tower Heaters Due to Fire Hazard. According to the CPSC’s website, “[t]he heaters have a miswiring due to a manufacturing error which can cause the tower heater to overheat, posing a fire hazard.”
This entry was posted in CPSC Recalls, Products Liability and tagged .

Relion Battery Recalls Relion Insight Series Lithium Batteries


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 March 2, 2023, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Relion Battery Recalls Relion Insight Series Lithium Batteries Due to Thermal Burn and Fire Hazards.

According to the CPSC’s website, “[t]he batteries can overheat, posing thermal burn and fire hazards.”

Product images from the CPSC website are set forth below:

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

A Tort, By Any Other Name, is Just a Tort: Massachusetts Court Bars Contract Claims That Sound in Negligence


This entry was posted by on .

In University of Massachusetts Building Authority v. Adams Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 2023 Mass. App. Unpub. LEXIS 28, 102 Mass. App. Ct. 1107, the Appeals Court of Massachusetts (Appeals Court) considered whether the lower court properly held that the plaintiff’s breach of contract and indemnification claims were time-barred by the statute of repose because they sounded in tort.  The Appeals Court held that while the six-year statute of repose only applies to tort claims, they can also bar claims for breach of contract and indemnification if they sound in tort.  The Appeals Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling, finding that the plaintiff’s breach of contract and indemnification claims were just negligence claims disguised as non-tort claims.

In 2013 and 2014, the University of Massachusetts (UMass) retained various contractors to renovate the dining hall for one of its campus buildings, which included the installation of new ductwork for the kitchen’s exhaust system.  The dining hall opened for service in September 2014.  In the Spring of 2018, it was discovered that the ductwork for the kitchen had collapsed.  Further investigation revealed other deficiencies with the exhaust system.  On December 1, 2020, UMass filed a lawsuit against various contractors, asserting negligence, breach of contract, and indemnification. The breach of contract claims alleged breach of express warranties.

Continue reading →

This entry was posted in Construction Defects, Contracts, Massachusetts, Negligence, Statute of Limitations-Repose, Subrogation 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 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 23, 2023, the CPSC announced the following recalls related to products that present fire hazards:

  1. Two Million COSORI® Air Fryers Recalled by Atekcity Due to Fire and Burn Hazards (Recall Alert). According to the CPSC’s website, “[a] wire connection in the air fryers can overheat, posing fire and burn hazards.”
  2. More than 1.2 Million Mainstays Three-Wick Candles Recalled by Star Soap Star Candle Prayer Candle Due to Fire and Laceration Hazards; Sold Exclusively at Walmart. According to the CPSC’s website, “[t]he candle wicks can burn too close to the side of the container, causing the glass to break, posing fire and laceration hazards.”

 

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

Michigan Court Waives Goodbye to Subrogation Claims, Except as to Gross Negligence


This entry was posted by on .

In Ace American Insurance Company, et. al. v. Toledo Engineering Co., Inc., et. al., No. 18-11503, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15222 (Ace American), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan determined whether insurers could pursue their subrogation claims against the defendants despite a waiver of subrogation in each of the contracts the insured had with the respective defendants. Based on the language of the contracts and the circumstances leading up to the loss, the court held that the insurers could not pursue their subrogation claims – other than their claims for gross negligence – due to waivers of subrogation in the applicable contracts.

In Ace American, the insured, Guardian Industries, LLC (Guardian), retained Toledo Engineer Co., Inc. (TECO) and Dreicor, Inc. (Dreicor) to renovate a glass furnace in the insured’s glass manufacturing plant. Guardian and TECO entered into a contract on December 6, 2016. Guardian and Dreicor entered into a contract on September 29, 2013, that the parties later updated on June 3, 2016. Both defendants began work on the project in the spring of 2017 and were finished with the portion of the work known as the “Cold Tank Repair” prior to the loss.

Continue reading →

This entry was posted in Michigan, Subrogation, Uncategorized, Waiver of Subrogation and tagged , , .
Signing Agreement

Florida Court Puts the Claim of Landlord’s Insurer In The No-Fly Zone


This entry was posted by on .

In United States Aviation Underwriters v. Turnberry Airport Holdings, LLC, No. 3D22-270, 2023 Fla. App. LEXIS 1207 (U.S. Aviation), the Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District (Appellate Court) considered whether the insurer for a commercial landlord could pursue subrogation against the landlord’s tenant.  Based on the terms of the lease between the landlord and the tenant, the Appellate Court held that the landlord’s insurer could not pursue subrogation.

In U.S. Aviation, the defendant, Turnberry Airport Holdings, LLC (Turnberry Airport) leased space to an insured aircraft owner.  The lease contained the following provision:

TENANT agrees that all policies of insurance obtained by it in connection with the Space or as required hereunder shall contain appropriate waiver of subrogation clauses.

Continue reading →

This entry was posted in Florida, Landlord-Tenant, Subrogation, Sutton Doctrine and tagged , , .

Help Me Help You – How Working With Claimant’s Counsel Can Maximize Your Lien Recovery; “Part One: We Are the Necessary Evil”


This entry was posted by on .

In the most recent episode of the Subro Sessions Podcast, Brett Tishler and Michael Abed of the Subrogation Department discuss workers’ compensation subrogation, what it is and why helping the injured worker’s counsel pursue a third party claim can maximize your lien recovery.

Continue reading →

This entry was posted in Podcast, Subrogation, Uncategorized 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 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.  Recently, the CPSC announced the following recalls related to products that present fire hazards:

  1. Paradise Grills Recalls Outdoor Kitchens Due to Fire and Burn Hazards. According to the CPSC’s website, “[l]iquid propane (LP) gas can accumulate inside the closed lid and cabinets, causing an explosion when the user relights the grill, posing fire and burn hazards to the user.”
  2. Textron Specialized Vehicles Recalls E-Z-GO PTVs Due to Fire Hazard (Recall Alert). According to the CPSC’s website, “[t]he electronic board that powers the USB port can overheat and ignite adjacent components, posing a fire hazard.”
  3. BRP Recalls Side-By-Side Vehicles Due to Fire Hazard (Recall Alert). According to the CPSC’s website, “[t]he recalled vehicles can have a defective fuel hose assembly which could lead to a fuel leak, posing a fire 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 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 19, 2023, the CPSC announced the following recalls related to products that present fire hazards:

1. Ross Stores Recalls Taylor and Finch Six-Wick Scented Candles Due to Fire and Injury Hazards. According to the CPSC’s website, “[t]he product can combust while lit causing the glass container to break, posing fire and injury hazards.”

2. Lifetime Brands Recalls Hot Chocolate Pots Due to Fire Hazard; Sold Exclusively at Williams-Sonoma. According to the CPSC’s website, “[t]he hot chocolate pots are mislabeled as microwave safe. If microwaved, the metallic paint on the pots can spark, posing a fire hazard.”

3. Vanessa Fire Tables Recalled Due to Fire Hazard; Imported by Ove Decors. According to the CPSC’s website, “[t]he gas hose can come into contact with the heat shield, melting the hose and igniting the fire table, posing a fire hazard.”

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