Monthly Archives: May 2016

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 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 May 26, 2016, the CPSC issued the following recall notices related to products that present fire hazards:

Rheem Recalls to Repair Water Heaters Due to Fire and Burn Hazards; Sold Exclusively at Home Depot

http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Recalls/2016/Rheem-Recalls-to-Repair-Water-Heaters/

Hollander Sleep Products Recalls Mattress Pads Due to Violation of Federal Flammability Standard; Sold Exclusively at Bed Bath & Beyond

http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Recalls/2016/Hollander-Sleep-Products-Recalls-Mattress-Pads/

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

Water Technologies Recalls Gas 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 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 May 24, 2016, the CPSC issued the following recall notice related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Water Heating Technologies Recalls Gas Water Heaters Due to Fire Hazard

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

Maryland Appellate Court, In a Matter of First Impression, Affirms the Dismissal of a Case as a Spoliation Sanction


This entry was posted by on .

In Cumberland Insurance Group v. Delmarva Power d/b/a Delmarva Power & Light Company, 130 A. 3d 1183 (Md. App. 2016), the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland (the Court) addressed an issue of first impression: the appropriate spoliation sanction when the physical object that was destroyed is, itself, the subject of the litigation. The Court, finding that the plaintiff was at fault and that the destruction of the house at issue irreparably prejudiced the defendant’s ability to defend the case, held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed the plaintiff’s case as a spoliation sanction.

Continue reading →

This entry was posted in Discovery, Maryland, Spoliation and tagged , .