Recall Alert

Towsleys Recalls 3-In-1 Qi Wireless Chargers, Power Banks and Travel Chargers


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 25, 2020, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Towsleys Recalls 3-in-1 Qi Wireless Chargers, Power Banks and Travel Chargers Due to Fire Hazard.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he chargers and power banks can overheat, posing a fire hazard.”

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

Massachusetts Pulls Phased Trigger On Its Statute of Repose


This entry was posted by on .

In D’Allesandro v. Lennar Hingham Holdings, LLC, 486 Mass 150, 2020 Mass. LEXIS 721, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts answered a certified question regarding how to apply the Massachusetts statute of repose, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2B, in regards to phased construction projects. The court held that, in this context, the completion of each individual “improvement” to its intended use, or the substantial completion of the individual building and the taking of possession for occupancy by the owner or owners, triggers the statute of repose with respect to the common areas and limited common areas of that building. Additionally, the court held that where a particular improvement is integral to, and intended to serve, multiple buildings (or the development as a whole), the statute of repose is triggered when the discrete improvement is substantially complete and open to its intended use.

Continue reading

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

Consumer Product Safety Commission Fire Pit and Heated Blanket 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 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 10, 2020, and November 12, 2020, the CPSC announced the following recalls related to products that present fire hazards:

  1. Fire Pit Tables Sold Exclusively at Big Lots Recalled Due to Fire Hazard; Manufactured by Sunjoy. According to the CPSC, “[a]n incorrectly installed burner kit hose can melt and ignite, posing a fire hazard.”
  2. InvoSpa Recalls Heated Blankets Due to Fire and Burn Hazards; Sold Exclusively at Amazon.com (Recall Alert). According to the CPSC, “[t]he recalled blankets can overheat, posing fire and burn hazards.”
This entry was posted in CPSC Recalls, 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 , , , .
Recall Alert

Kohl’s Recalls Three-Wick Sonoma Goods For Life Branded Candles


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 10, 2020, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Kohl’s Recalls Three-Wick SONOMA Goods For Life Branded Candles Due to Fire and Burn Hazards.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he candle’s high flames can ignite the surface of the wax or cause the glass to break, posing fire and burn hazards.”

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

Ring Recalls Video Doorbells (2nd Generation)


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 10, 2020, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Ring Recalls Video Doorbells (2nd Generation) Due to Fire Hazard.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he video doorbell’s battery can overheat when the incorrect screws are used for installation, posing fire and burn hazards.”

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

Coulter Ventures Recalls Rogue Home Timers Due to Fire Hazard


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 4, 2020, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Coulter Ventures Recalls Rogue Home Timers Due to Fire Hazard; Sold Exclusively at Rogue Fitness.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he lithium-ion battery inside the timer can burn due to overheating, posing a fire hazard.”

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

Schneider Electric Recalls Surgeloc™ Surge Protection Devices


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 28, 2020, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Schneider Electric Recalls Surgeloc™ Surge Protection Devices Due to Fire Hazard.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he Surgeloc Surge Protection Device can experience an arc event, which can result in a fire hazard.”

This entry was posted in CPSC Recalls, 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 , , , , .

Strictly Speaking, the Plaintiff’s Fault Matters in Products Liability Actions in Georgia


This entry was posted by on .

Many states, finding that the purpose of the strict liability doctrine is to protect otherwise defenseless victims from defective products, hold that principles of comparative negligence do not apply to strict liability actions. Georgia is not one of those states. In Johns v. Suzuki Motor of Am., S19G1478, 2020 Ga. LEXIS 760, the Supreme Court of Georgia recently held that Georgia’s comparative fault statute, OCGA § 51-12-33, applies to strict products liability claims brought pursuant to Georgia’s product liability statute, OCGA § 51-1-11. Continue reading

This entry was posted in Comparative-Contributory Negligence, Georgia, Negligence, Products Liability, Uncategorized and tagged , , , .