Author Archives: Michael J. Ciamaichelo

Gavel

Title or Possession Required . . . Louisiana Court Rules That Amazon Is Not Liable for a Defective Product


This entry was posted by on .

Courts continue to disagree as to whether Amazon is liable for defective products sold by third parties on its website. Amazon does not neatly fit into the traditional definition of “seller” in products liability law, which historically involves conveying title or possession of the product to the customer. Although Amazon often is involved in the sale of and/or logistics for third-party products, Amazon does not pass title to the customer and sometimes never touches the product. It is crucial for subrogation professionals to understand the ways in which third-party products are sold on Amazon because it is often a determining factor for courts in defining Amazon for purposes of products liability. Continue reading →

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

Amazon Avoids Liability (Again) for Defective Products Sold by Third Parties Through Its Website


This entry was posted by on .

On June 25, 2021, the Texas Supreme Court held that Amazon cannot be liable for defective third-party products sold on its website, even when Amazon controls the transaction and delivery of the product, because Amazon never relinquishes or holds title to the products. This opinion should result in the reversal of a prior decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas – which found that Amazon was a “seller” under Texas law – and causes further division in the jurisdictions in the United States regarding whether Amazon can be held liable for defective third-party products. Continue reading →

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

Amazon Loses (Again) . . . New York Court Rules That Amazon Can Be Liable for Defective Product


This entry was posted by on .

New York has joined a growing number of jurisdictions ruling that Amazon can be liable for defective products sold by third-party sellers on its website. The rationale for New York’s recent ruling is based upon Amazon’s level of control over the sale of the product. There are three ways which products are sold on Amazon: (1) Amazon sells, processes and ships the product; (2) a third-party sells, processes and ships the product (i.e., Amazon does not take possession of the product); and (3) a third-party sells the product and Amazon “fulfills” the order by storing, processing and shipping the product through its “Fulfillment by Amazon” (FBA) logistical program. The FBA program has been the lynchpin in many of the recent decisions decided against Amazon, including a recent New York case. Under the FBA, the sellers store their inventory at Amazon’s warehouse until the product is purchased, at which time Amazon retrieves the product from its warehouse shelf, packages it, and ships it to the consumer. Accordingly, Amazon has significant control over products “fulfilled” through the FBA. Continue reading →

This entry was posted in New York, Products Liability and tagged , , .
Product Fire

Arkansas Federal Court Denies Defendants’ Attempt to Exclude Evidence


This entry was posted by on .

In Am. Nat’l Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Broan-Nutone, No. 5:18-CV-5250, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203267 (W.D. Ark.), a subrogating carrier filed a product liability lawsuit alleging that a defective bathroom fan caught fire and caused property damage. Prior to trial, the defendants/manufacturers filed motions to: (i) prevent the plaintiff’s experts from testifying for allegedly spoliating evidence; and (ii) prevent the admission of the fire marshal’s report as hearsay and/or as prejudicial, confusing and/or misleading. The court denied the defendants motions, thereby allowing all of the evidence to be presented by the subrogating carrier at trial. Continue reading →

This entry was posted in Arkansas, Evidence, Spoliation and tagged , , , .

Update – Property Owner’s Defense Goes up in Smoke in Careless Smoking Case


This entry was posted by on .

Property owners owe a duty of reasonable care to avoid causing harm to neighboring properties. In Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 v. Erie Ins. Exch., 2020 Md. LEXIS 347 (July 27, 2020) (Steamfitters Local), a matter originally discussed in a June 2019 blog post, the Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed that, where the property owner knows or should have known that people are habitually discarding hundreds of cigarette butts into a mulch bed along the boundary of the neighboring property, the property owner owes a duty to its neighbors to prevent the risk of fire. Continue reading →

This entry was posted in Experts, Maryland, Negligence, Premises Liability, Subrogation and tagged , , , , .
Product Fire

Arkansas Federal Court Fans the Product Liability Flames Utilizing the Malfunction Theory


This entry was posted by on .

To establish a product liability claim in Arkansas, the plaintiff must prove that the product was supplied in a defective condition, which rendered it unreasonably dangerous and that the defective condition was the proximate cause of the claimed damage or injury. Ordinarily, a plaintiff relies upon direct evidence of a product defect to establish its product liability claim. However, in some cases, the product sustains so much damage that it is impossible for a plaintiff to obtain direct evidence of a defect. Continue reading →

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

Texas Federal Court Rules Amazon Can Be Sued for Defective Product


This entry was posted by on .

Recently, in McMillan v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 18-CV-2242, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102025, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas ruled that Amazon.com, Inc. (Amazon) could be held liable as a “seller” under Texas’ product liability statute for injuries caused by a defective product sold by a third-party vendor on its website. Although the court’s analysis is based on Texas law, the decision puts one more crack in Amazon’s armor. Continue reading →

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

Careless Smoking Causation Defense Goes Up in Smoke in Connecticut


This entry was posted by on .

In Conn. Interlocal Risk Mgmt. Agency v. Jackson, 2019 Conn. LEXIS 230 (Sept. 1, 2019) (Conn. Interlocal), the Supreme Court of Connecticut considered a careless smoking case and whether, as a matter of first impression, Connecticut should adopt the alternative liability doctrine first set forth in Summers v. Tice, 199 P.2d 1 (Cal. 1948). Recognizing that the doctrine is a sound one, the court adopted it for cases proceeding in Connecticut. Continue reading →

This entry was posted in Connecticut, Negligence, Subrogation and tagged , , , .
Fire

Property Owner’s Defense Goes Up in Smoke in Careless Smoking Case


This entry was posted by on .

Property owners owe a duty of reasonable care to avoid causing harm to neighboring properties. When a property owner knows or should know about a condition that poses a risk of danger to neighboring properties, the property owner must exercise reasonable care to make the condition safe. The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland recently held that, where hundreds of discarded cigarette butts had accumulated in a bed of mulch over an extended period of time prior to the fire at issue, the owner of the property with the mulch beds owed a duty of care to its neighbors to prevent a foreseeable fire. Continue reading →

This entry was posted in Experts, Maryland, Negligence, Premises Liability, Subrogation and tagged , , , , .
Meeting Handshake

Insurers Subrogating in Arkansas Must Expend Energy to Prove That Their Insureds Have Been Made Whole


This entry was posted by on .

Arkansas employs the “made whole” doctrine, which requires an insured to be fully compensated for damages (i.e., to be “made whole”) before the insurer is entitled to recover in subrogation.[1] As the Riley court established, an insurer cannot unilaterally determine that its insured has been made whole (in order to establish a right of subrogation). Rather, in Arkansas, an insurer must establish that the insured has been made whole in one of two ways. First, the insurer and insured can reach an agreement that the insured has been made whole. Second, if the insurer and insured disagree on the issue, the insurer can ask a court to make a legal determination that the insured has been made whole.[2] If an insured has been made whole, the insurer is the real party in interest and must file the subrogation action in its own name.[3] However, when both the insured and an insurer have claims against the same tortfeasor (i.e., when there are both uninsured damages and subrogation damages), the insured is the real party in interest.[4] Continue reading →

This entry was posted in Arkansas, Made Whole, Parties, Subrogation and tagged , , , .