Recall Alert

Recalled Products Sold by PTAC Crew And PTAC UDA After Recalls Were Announced


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 28, 2021, the CPSC, PTAC Crew and PTAC USA warned consumers regarding units that PTAC Crew and PTAC USA refurbished and resold after they were previously recalled between 2004 and 2018. The recall relates to packaged terminal air conditioner (PTAC), packaged terminal heat pump (PTHP) and room air conditioner (RAC) units. You can find the full details of the recall at the link below:

Recalled Products Sold by PTAC Crew and PTAC USA After Recalls Were Announced.

According to the CPSC, “[h]azards include fire and/or burn depending on the product.”

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

Pool Heaters Recalled by Pentair Water Pool and Spa


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 28, 2021, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Pool Heaters Recalled by Pentair Water Pool and Spa Due to Fire Hazard.

According to the CPSC, “[a] connection in the heater can leak the combustible air-gas mixture, posing a fire hazard.”

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

Amazon Can Be Held Strictly Liable For Hoverboard Sale


This entry was posted by on .

Whether Amazon can be held strictly liable for products sold by third parties through its website is a question courts often face. In Loomis v. Amazon.com, LLC, No. 297995, 2021 Cal. App. LEXIS 347 (Apr. 26, 2021), the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District (Second District), held that, under the circumstances, Amazon could be held strictly liable. Continue reading

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

Consumer Product Safety Commission Announces Two Kawaskai 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 April 22, 2021, the CPSC announced the following recalls related to products that present fire hazards:

  1. Kawasaki USA Recalls Recreational Off-Highway Utility Vehicles Due to Fire Hazard (Recall Alert). According to the CPSC, “[t]he fuel pump retainer plate bolts can come loose causing fuel leakage over time, posing a fire hazard.”
  2. Kawasaki USA Recalls All-Terrain Vehicles Due to Fire Hazard (Recall Alert). According to the CPSC, “[t]he fuel pump retainer plate bolts can come loose causing fuel leakage over time, posing a fire hazard.”
This entry was posted in CPSC Recalls, Products Liability and tagged .
Recall Alert

Metal Ware Recalls NESCO Coffee Bean Roasters


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

Metal Ware Recalls NESCO Coffee Bean Roasters Due to Fire Hazard.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he coffee bean roasters can overheat, posing a fire hazard.”

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

Audio-Technica Recalls Charging Cases Sold with Wireless Headphones


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 14, 2021, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Audio-Technica Recalls Charging Cases Sold with Wireless Headphones Due to Fire Hazard.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he portable charging cases can overheat, posing a fire hazard.”

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

Verizon Recalls 2.5 Million Ellipsis Jetpack Mobile Hotspots Imported by Franklin Wireless


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 8, 2021, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Verizon Recalls 2.5 Million Ellipsis Jetpack Mobile Hotspots Imported by Franklin Wireless Due to Fire and Burn Hazards.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he lithium ion battery in the hotspots can overheat, posing fire and burn hazards.”

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

Goal Zero Recalls Power Cables


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 7, 2021, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Goal Zero Recalls Power Cables Due to Fire Hazard.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he pins inside the connector on the power cord can deform and overheat, posing a fire hazard.”

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

New Hampshire Applies Crete/Sutton Doctrine to Bar Subrogation Against College Dormitory Residents


This entry was posted by on .

Pursuant to the Sutton Doctrine, first announced in Sutton v. Jondahl, 532 P.2d 478 (Okla. Ct. App. 1975), some jurisdictions consider a tenant a coinsured of its landlord absent an express agreement to the contrary. In Ro v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co., No. 2019-0620, 2021 N.H. LEXIS 34 (Mar. 10, 2021), the Supreme Court of New Hampshire held that the Sutton Doctrine, adopted by New Hampshire in Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Crete, 846 A.2d 521 (N.H. 2004), extends to resident students in a college dormitory. Thus, absent specific language to the contrary, a student is an implied coinsured under the fire insurance policy issued for his or her dormitory. Continue reading

This entry was posted in Anti-Subrogation Rule, Landlord-Tenant, New Hampshire, Subrogation, Sutton Doctrine and tagged , , , .
Gavel

Saved By The Statute: The Economic Loss Doctrine Does Not Bar Claims Under Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law


This entry was posted by on .

In Earl v. NVR, Inc., No. 20-2109, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 6451, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Third Circuit) considered whether, under Pennsylvania law, the plaintiff’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) claims against the builder of her home were barred by the economic loss doctrine. The UTPCPL is a Pennsylvania statute that prohibits “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” 73 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 201-3. The Third Circuit previously addressed the impact of the economic loss doctrine on UTPCPL claims in Werwinski v. Ford Motor Co., 286 F.3d 661 (3d Cir. 2002). In Werwinski, the court held that the plaintiff’s UTPCPL claim was barred by the economic loss doctrine. The Court of Appeals overturned its decision in Werwinski and held that the economic loss doctrine does not bar UTPCPL claims since such claims are statutory, and not based in tort. Continue reading

This entry was posted in Construction Defects, Economic Loss Rule, Pennsylvania and tagged , , , .