Product Recall

E-filliate Recalls DEWALT Wireless Earphones


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 1, 2021, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

E-filliate Recalls DEWALT Wireless Earphones Due to Burn and Fire Hazards.

According to the CPSC’s website, “[t]he wireless earphones can overheat while charging or in use, posing burn and fire hazards.”

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

Goodman Manufacturing Company Recalls Evaporator Coil Drain Pans Installed with Condensing Gas Furnaces


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

Goodman Manufacturing Company Recalls Evaporator Coil Drain Pans Installed with Condensing Gas Furnaces Due to Fire Hazard.

According to the CPSC’s website, “[t]he molded plastic drain pan located at the bottom of the evaporator coil, when installed with a residential condensing gas furnace in an up-flow configuration, can overheat, melt, and deform, posing a fire hazard.”

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

Utah Digs Deep and Finds “Design Defect” Includes Pre-Construction Geotechnical Reports


This entry was posted by on .

The Supreme Court of Utah recently found that an incorrect pre-construction geotechnical engineering report is a “defective design.” Thus, actions arising from an incorrect geotechnical report are appropriately governed by Utah’s Economic Loss Statute (Statute), Utah Code Ann. § 78B-4-513(1). Continue reading

This entry was posted in Construction Defects, Economic Loss Rule, Utah and tagged , , , , .
Product Recall

RH Recalls Outdoor Torches


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 November 12, 2021, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

RH Recalls Outdoor Torches Due to Fire Hazard (Recall Alert).

According to the CPSC’s website, “[t]orch fuel can leak from the top of the torch canister and ignite, posing a fire hazard.”

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

Kaboom! Illinois Applies the Anti-Subrogation Rule to Require a Landlord’s Subrogating Property Insurer to Defend a Third-Party Complaint Against Tenants


This entry was posted by on .

In Sheckler v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co, 2021 IL App (3d) 190500, 2021 Ill. App. LEXIS 593, Auto-Owners Insurance Company (Insurer) paid its insured, Ronald McIntosh (McIntosh), for property damage following a fire in an apartment he rented to Monroe and Dorothy Sheckler (the Shecklers). Insurer filed suit against Wayne Workman (Workman), who performed service work on an oven in the Shecklers’ apartment that leaked gas and resulted in a fire. Workman filed a third-party complaint against the Shecklers for contribution and the Shecklers tendered the defense of the claim to Insurer. Insurer refused the tender and the Shecklers filed a declaratory judgment action. In the court below, the Shecklers argued that, as tenants, they were co-insureds on McIntosh’s property insurance policy. Following a liberal interpretation of precedent from the Supreme Court of Illinois in Dix Mutual Insurance Co. v. LaFramboise, 597 N.E. 2d 622 (Ill. 1992), an Illinois appellate court ruled that Insurer – who provided property insurance – must defend the tenants of a rental property from contribution claims if the tenants are co-insureds under the landlord’s policy. Continue reading

This entry was posted in Anti-Subrogation Rule, Illinois, Implied-Co-Insured, Landlord-Tenant, Sutton Doctrine and tagged , , .
Recall Alert

Power Handles Manufactured by Elektron Music Machines Recalled


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 November 3, 2021, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Power Handles Recalled Due to Fire and Burn Hazards; Manufactured by Elektron Music Machines.

According to the CPSC’s website, “[t]he power handle can short circuit and overheat, posing fire and burn hazards.”

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

myCharge Recalls Powerbanks


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 27, 2021, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

myCharge Recalls Powerbanks Due to Fire and Burn Hazards.

According to the CPSC website, “[t]he powerbank’s lithium-ion battery can overheat and ignite, posing fire and burn hazards.”

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

Jurisdiction by Consent: Georgia Holds that Corporations Registered to do Business in the State Consent to Being Sued There


This entry was posted by on .

In Cooper Tire & Rubber Co, v, McCall, No. S20G1368, 2021 Ga. LEXIS 626 (Cooper Tire), the Supreme Court of Georgia (Supreme Court) held that Georgia courts can exercise general personal jurisdiction over foreign corporations that are registered to do business in the state. In Cooper Tire, the plaintiff, Tyrance McCall, filed a lawsuit against Cooper Tire & Rubber Company (Cooper Tire) in Georgia state court for personal injuries he sustained in a car accident. Cooper Tire filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Continue reading

This entry was posted in Georgia, Jurisdiction and tagged , .
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 , , , .