Author Archives: Gus Sara

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 , , , .
Fire

Pennsylvania Court Finds that Two Possible Causes Can Prove a Product Malfunction Theory of Liability


This entry was posted by on .

In Allstate Ins. Co. v. LG Elecs. USA, Inc., No. 19-3529, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127014, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania considered whether plaintiff’s expert engineer’s opinion that there were two possible causes of a fire—both related to alleged product defects within a refrigerator manufactured by the defendant—was sufficient to support the malfunction theory of products liability. The court found that because both potential causes imposed liability on the product manufacturer and the expert ruled out misuse of the product, as well as all external causes of the fire, it was not necessary for the engineer to identify a specific cause under the malfunction theory. The court also found that the expert’s investigation and opinions met the criteria set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and the Federal Rules of Evidence and, thus, were admissible. Continue reading

This entry was posted in Experts, Experts – Daubert, Pennsylvania, Products Liability, Subrogation and tagged , , , , , .
Fire

An Insured In-Part: Michigan Court Holds That Tenant Is an Implied Co-Insured on Landlord’s Property Insurance Only With Respect to the Leased Premises


This entry was posted by on .

In Westfield Inc. Co. v. Ritcher, No. 20-CV-12692, 2021 U.S. Dist. Lexis 94926, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan considered whether a residential tenant was an implied co-insured on the landlord’s insurance policy, and thus shielded from a subrogation claim brought by the landlord’s carrier for fire damage caused by the tenant’s negligence. The court found that the tenant was an implied co-insured on the landlord’s insurance policy, but only with regards to the apartment that the tenant leased. The tenant was not shielded from claims for damage to the rest of the building, the contents of other residents and the landlord’s rental loss income. Continue reading

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

When an Insurer Proceeds as Subrogee, Defendants Should Not Assert Counterclaims Against the Insured/Subrogor


This entry was posted by on .

In a subrogation action, one party is substituted to the rights and remedies of another with respect to a lawful claim. The substituted party (the subrogee) is legally able to pursue any right or seek any remedy that would be available to the subrogor regarding that claim. But can a defendant in a subrogation action assert any claim against the subrogee that it would have against the subrogor? In Federated Mut. Inc. Co. v. Kosciusko County, No. 3:20-CV-960, 2021 U.S. Dist. Lexis 88735, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana considered whether a defendant could assert counterclaims against the insureds/subrogors in an action filed in the name of their subrogee. The court held that since the insurerds/subrogors were not a party to the action and the defendant could assert the substance of its counterclaim as a defense, the defendant could not file counterclaims against the insureds/subrogors in the insurer’s subrogation action. Continue reading

This entry was posted in Indiana, Litigation, Parties, Subrogation and tagged , , , , .

Examination of the Product Does Not Stop a Pennsylvania Court From Applying the Malfunction Theory


This entry was posted by on .

Pennsylvania recognizes the malfunction theory in product liability cases. This theory allows a plaintiff to circumstantially prove that a product is defective by showing evidence of a malfunction and eliminating abnormal use or reasonable, secondary causes for the malfunction. The malfunction theory is available to plaintiffs as an alternative to proving a traditional strict product liability case in those circumstances where direct evidence of a product defect is not found. In Pa. Nat’l Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Sam’s East, Inc., 727 MDA 2020, 2021 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 752, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (Superior Court) considered whether the plaintiffs could avail themselves to the malfunction theory if the plaintiffs’ expert was able to examine the product. Continue reading

This entry was posted in Litigation, Pennsylvania, Products Liability, Subrogation 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 , , , .
Gavel

What’s the Gist? Massachusetts Court Looks Past the Labels to the Gist of the Plaintiff’s Allegations to Find Claims Barred by the Statute of Repose


This entry was posted by on .

In Lennar Northeast Props. v. Barton Partners Architects Planners, Inc, C.A. No. 16-cv-12330-ADB, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11800, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts considered whether a property owner’s construction defect claims against a contractor were barred by the six-year statute of repose for improvements to real property. Massachusetts’ statute of repose, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2B, bars tort actions against those involved in the design, planning, construction or general administration of an improvement to real property more than six years after the earlier of the dates of (1) the opening of the improvement to use; or (2) substantial completion of the improvement and the taking of possession or occupancy by the owner. Finding that, despite the fact that the plaintiff’s actions were labeled as contract, breach of warranty and consumer protection act claims, the complaint alleged actions sounding in tort. Thus, the court applied the statute of repose to these claims. Continue reading

This entry was posted in Construction Defects, Litigation, Massachusetts, Statute of Limitations-Repose, Subrogation and tagged , , , , , .
House Flood

Pennsylvania Federal Court Excludes Expert Testimony That Tries To Force a Square Peg Into a Round Hole


This entry was posted by on .

In Kenney v. Watts Regulator Co, No. 20-2995, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4539 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 11, 2021), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania considered whether to exclude the plaintiff’s liability expert’s testimony regarding the sufficiency of the defendant’s product maintenance instructions. The plaintiff offered the testimony in support of his failure-to-warn product defect claim. The District Court excluded the testimony because the facts of the case did not support the plaintiff’s failure-to-warn claim, which rendered the testimony irrelevant. This case establishes that expert testimony can be excluded if there is an improper fit between the testimony and the underlying claim. Continue reading

This entry was posted in Experts, Experts – Daubert, Litigation, Pennsylvania, Products Liability and tagged , , , .
Gavel

Nothing Personal – Missouri District Court Holds that Defendant’s Nationwide Retail Website Does Not Subject it to Specific Jurisdiction


This entry was posted by on .

In Allied Ins. Co. of Am. v. Jpauljones L.P. & Tek Elec. Co., 1:19-CV-00237-SNLJ, 2020 U.S. Dist LEXIS 179225, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri considered whether defendant Jpauljones, L.P. (JPJ) was subject to specific personal jurisdiction in Missouri because its website sold products to Missouri residents. The court held that the defendant’s nationwide retail website, with no particular focus or target on Missouri, does not in itself subject the defendant to specific jurisdiction in Missouri. This case further narrows the reach of specific jurisdiction based solely on the defendant’s direct internet-based sales into the forum. Continue reading

This entry was posted in Jurisdiction, Missouri, Products Liability and tagged , , , , .
Construction Defect

Massachusetts District Court Holds Contractors Are Not Additional Insureds on Developer’s Builder’s Risk Policy


This entry was posted by on .

In Factory Mut. Ins. Co. v. Skanska United States Bldg., No. 18-cv-11700-DLC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95403 (Skanska), the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts considered whether contractors on a construction job were additional insureds on the developer’s builder’s risk insurance policy. After a water loss occurred during construction, the builder’s risk insurance carrier paid its named insured for the resultant damage, and subsequently filed a subrogation action against two contractors. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that the anti-subrogation rule barred the carrier from subrogating against them because they were additional insureds on the policy. The court found that based on the particular language of the additional insured provision in the policy, the defendants were not additional insureds for purposes of the subrogation action. Continue reading

This entry was posted in Anti-Subrogation Rule, Insurance Coverage, Massachusetts, Subrogation and tagged , , , , .