Author Archives: Gus Sara

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 Gus Sara on March 5, 2021.

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 Construction Defects, Contracts, Indemnification, Massachusetts, Status of Repose, Subrogation.

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

This entry was posted by Gus Sara on February 9, 2021.

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 Experts, Experts – Daubert, Pennsylvania, Products Liability.

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

This entry was posted by Gus Sara on October 28, 2020.

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 Amazon-eBay, Internet Sales, Jurisdiction, Missouri, Products Liability.

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

This entry was posted by Gus Sara on July 7, 2020.

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 Additional Insured, Anti-Subrogation Rule, Insurance Coverage, Massachusetts, Subrogation.

Virginia Allows Condominium Association’s Insurer to Subrogate Against a Condominium Tenant

This entry was posted by Gus Sara on June 10, 2020.

In Erie Insurance Exchange v. Alba, Rec. No. 190389, 2020 Va. LEXIS 53, the Supreme Court of Virginia considered whether the trial court erred in finding that a condominium association’s property insurance provider waived its right of subrogation against a tenant of an individual unit owner. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision, holding that the insurance policy only named unit owners as additional insureds, not tenants, and thus the subrogation waiver in the insurance policy did not apply to tenants. The court also found that the condominium association’s governing documents provided no protections to the unit owner’s tenant because the tenant was not a party to those documents. This case establishes that, in Virginia, a condominium association’s insurance carrier can subrogate against a unit owner’s tenant where the tenant is not identified as an additional insured on the policy.

The Alba case involved a fire at a condominium building originating in a unit occupied by Naomi Alba (Alba), who leased the condominium under a rental agreement with the unit owner, John Sailsman (Sailsman). The agreement explicitly held Alba responsible for her conduct and the conduct of her guests. An addendum to the lease stated that Sailsman’s property insurance only applied to the “dwelling itself” and that Alba was required to purchase renters insurance to protect her personal property. Along with the rental agreement, Alba received the condominium association’s Rules & Regulations, Declarations and Bylaws. Continue reading →

This entry was posted in Implied-Co-Insured, Subrogation – Equitable, Virginia, Waiver of Subrogation and tagged Condominiums, Subrogation, Virginia, Waiver of Subrogation.

New Jersey Supreme Court Requires Proof of Diminution of Market Value to Establish Damages

This entry was posted by Gus Sara on May 8, 2020.

In Kornbleuth v. Westover, 2020 N.J. LEXIS 298, the Supreme Court of New Jersey considered whether the trail court properly dismissed the plaintiffs’ trespass claim against their neighbors for failing to offer evidence of diminution of the market value of their property. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, finding that the plaintiffs’ damages could not be determined, as a matter of law, because they did not offer evidence of the diminution of market value of their property as a result of the trespass. Although the plaintiffs presented evidence of the cost to restore the property, the court held that determining the applicable measure of damages for a trespass claim is dependent on the diminution of market value and whether or not the restoration costs are proportionate to that value. Continue reading →

This entry was posted in Damages - Real Property, Litigation, New Jersey and tagged Damages, New Jersey, Trespass.

Mississippi Supreme Court Applies AIA Subrogation Waiver to Non-Work Property Damage

This entry was posted by Gus Sara on April 17, 2020.

In Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Fowlkes Plumbing., L.L.C., No. 2019-FC-10285-SCT, 2020 Miss. LEXIS 44, the Supreme Court of Mississippi considered whether the subrogation waiver in the General Conditions of the Construction Contract, American Institute of Architects (AIA) form A201-2007, applied to claims for damages to property unrelated to the construction work. Siding with the majority of jurisdictions that have addressed this issue, the court interpreted the AIA subrogation waiver to apply to any property damage, whether or not related to the construction work (i.e. the Work), if the property insurance covering the non-Work property also insured the construction work. Continue reading →

This entry was posted in AIA Contracts, Construction Defects, Contracts, Mississippi, Subrogation, Waiver of Subrogation and tagged AIA Contract, Construction Defects, Contract, Mississippi, Subrogation, Waiver of Subrogation.

Commercial Tenant’s Subrogating Insurer Barred by Lease Terms from Pursuing Landlord

This entry was posted by Gus Sara on March 18, 2020.

In Travelers Indem. Co. of Am. v. Schwarz Props., L.L.C., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18176, the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina considered whether the lease between a commercial tenant and its landlord barred the tenant’s insurance carrier from subrogating against the landlord for damages to the tenant’s goods. The court found that the tenant’s carrier could not subrogate against the landlord because the lease clearly and explicitly stated that the landlord was not responsible for the tenant’s property. In addition, the lease required the tenant to insure its own property and to hold the landlord harmless for any damage to the tenant’s goods. This case establishes that, in North Carolina, negligence claims between a landlord and tenant may be barred if the lease includes clear and explicit exculpatory and indemnification provisions. Continue reading →

This entry was posted in Landlord-Tenant, North Carolina, Subrogation, Sutton Doctrine and tagged Gross Negligence, Landlord-Tenant, North Carolina, Subrogation, Water Damage.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Induced to Narrowly Interpret Exceptions to the Economic Loss Doctrine

This entry was posted by Gus Sara on February 25, 2020.

In Hinrichs v. Dow Chem. Co., 2020 WI 2, 2020 Wisc. LEXIS 2 (2020), the Supreme Court of Wisconsin considered whether two recognized exceptions to the economic loss doctrine—the “fraud in the inducement” and “other property” exceptions—applied to allow the plaintiffs’ tort claims to go forward. The court held that the fraud in the inducement exception only applies to alleged fraud that is unrelated to either the quality or characteristics of the product for which the parties contracted or performance of the contract. In addition, the court held that the fraud in the inducement exception did not apply to the plaintiffs’ tort claims because the alleged fraud was related to the quality and characteristics of the product, and thus was not extraneous to the contract. The court also held that the “other property” exception to the economic loss doctrine did not apply because the product at issue was integrated into a more complete product, and when that happened, the completed product ceased to be “other property” for purposes of the economic loss doctrine. This case narrows the application of two exceptions to the economic loss doctrine, which is a common defense in product defect cases. Continue reading →

This entry was posted in Economic Loss Rule, Fraud - Misrepresentation, Products Liability, Wisconsin and tagged Economic Loss Doctrine, Products Liability, Wisconsin.

Massachusetts Court Holds Statute of Repose Does Not Apply to Claims for Failure to Maintain Property

This entry was posted by Gus Sara on February 3, 2020.

In Penn-America Insurance Company v. Bay State Gas Company, 96 Mass. App. Ct. 757 (2019), the Appeals Court of Massachusetts considered whether the plaintiff’s claims against the defendant, arising from an alleged defect in the defendant’s natural gas line, were time-barred by the six-year statute of repose for improvements to real property. The Appeals Court held that the statute of repose did not apply to the plaintiff’s claims, which were related to the defendant’s alleged failure to maintain its property. Thus, in Massachusetts, the statute of repose does not apply if the plaintiff’s claim is rooted in the failure to maintain an improvement, rather than negligent design or construction of the improvement. Continue reading →

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