Consumer Product Safety Commission Recalls

This entry was posted by William L. Doerler on February 2, 2024.

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 February 1, 2024, the CPSC announced the following recalls related to products that present fire hazards:

BISSELL Recalls Multi Reach Hand and Floor Vacuum Cleaners Due to Fire Hazard. According to the CPSC’s website, “[t]he vacuum’s battery pack can overheat and smoke, posing a fire hazard.”

Snap Recalls Lithium-Ion Battery Sold for Pixy Flying Cameras Due to Fire Hazard. According to the CPSC’s website, “[t]he lithium-ion battery in the camera can overheat, posing a fire hazard.”

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

Pacific Cycle Recalls E-Bikes

This entry was posted by William L. Doerler on January 26, 2024.

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 January 25, 2024, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Pacific Cycle Recalls E-Bikes Due to Fire Hazard

According to the CPSC’s website, “[t]he wiring harness that manages the charging of the lithium-ion battery was not properly assembled, creating a risk of overheating and fire while charging.”

Product images from the CPSC website are set forth below:

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

Bokser Home Recalls Mattress Pads

This entry was posted by William L. Doerler on January 22, 2024.

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 January 18, 2024, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Bokser Home Recalls Mattress Pads Due to Fire Hazard and Violation of Federal Mattress Pad Flammability Regulation.

According to the CPSC’s website, “[t]he recalled mattress pads violate the mandatory federal flammability regulation for mattress pads, posing a fire hazard.”

Product images from the CPSC website are set forth below:

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

Investigating Residential Electrical Fires – Part 1

This entry was posted by Matt Ferrie on January 16, 2024.

Matt Ferrie, Partner, is returning to host the newest episode of Subro Sessions. This episode is the first part of a series entitled “Investigating Residential Electrical Fires.” Joining Matt is Bert Davis, Principal for Romauldi, Davidson & Associates and BDA Engineering. Matt and Bert address common misconceptions and factors to consider when investigating property damage subrogation cases in residential electrical fires.

Check out all of our Subro Sessions podcast episodes.

This entry was posted in Subrogation and tagged Podcast, Subrogation.

Consumer Product Safety Commission Expands Recall of Daikin Evaporator Coil Drain Pans

This entry was posted by William L. Doerler on January 12, 2024.

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 January 11, 2024, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Daikin Comfort Technologies Manufacturing (formerly Goodman Manufacturing Company L.P.) Expands Recall of Evaporator Coil Drain Pans to Include Additional Units.

According to the CPSC’s website, “[t]he molded plastic drain pan located at the bottom of the evaporator coil can overheat, melt and deform, posing a fire hazard.”

Product images from the CPSC website are set forth below:

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

Homedics Recalls Massagers

This entry was posted by William L. Doerler on January 5, 2024.

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 January 4, 2024, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Homedics Recalls Massagers Due to Fire and Burn Hazards.

According to the CPSC’s website, “[t]he massagers can overheat while charging, posing fire and burn hazards.”

Product images from the CPSC website are set forth below:

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

Reasonable Expectations – Pennsylvania’s Case by Case Approach to the Sutton Rule

This entry was posted by Melissa Kenney on January 4, 2024.

In Mutual Benefit Ins. Co. a/s/o Michael Sacks v. Koser, No. 1340 MDA 2023, 2023 Pa. Super. LEXIS 574, 2023 PA Super 252 (Mutual Benefit), the Superior Court of Pennsylvania discussed whether a landlord’s property insurer could file a subrogation action against tenants that had negligently damaged the landlord’s property. Despite there being more than one clause in the lease holding the tenants liable for the damages, the court held that because there was a provision requiring the landlord, not the tenants, to insure the leased building, the insurer could not subrogate against the tenants.

In Pennsylvania, a tenant’s liability for damage to a leased premises in a subrogation action brought by a landlord’s insurer is determined by the reasonable expectation of the parties to the lease agreement. Under this approach, to determine if subrogation is permitted, the court considers the circumstances of the case and examines the terms of the lease agreement. Continue reading →

This entry was posted in Landlord-Tenant, Pennsylvania, Subrogation, Sutton Doctrine and tagged Landlord-Tenant, Pennsylvania, Subrogation, Sutton Doctrine.

BlendJet Recalls 4.8 Million BlendJet 2 Portable Blenders

This entry was posted by William L. Doerler on January 3, 2024.

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 December 28, 2023, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

BlendJet Recalls 4.8 Million BlendJet 2 Portable Blenders Due to Fire and Laceration Hazards.

According to the CPSC’s website, “[t]he recalled blenders can overheat or catch fire and the blender blades can break off, posing fire and laceration hazards to consumers.”

Product images from the CPSC website are set forth below:

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

Compliance Doesn’t Pay: Compliance Evidence Inadmissible in Strict Liability Actions

This entry was posted by Kyle Rice on January 2, 2024.

In Sullivan v. Werner Co., No. 18 EAP 2022, 2023 Pa. LEXIS 1715 (Dec. 22, 2023), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Supreme Court) clarified that in light of its decision in Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 628 Pa. 296 (2014), evidence that a product complied with industry standards is inadmissible in an action involving strict product liability.

In Tincher, the Supreme Court overruled prior case law and reaffirmed that Pennsylvania is a Second Restatement Jurisdiction. As stated in Sullivan, discussing Tincher, under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, a “seller of a product has a duty to provide a product that is free from ‘a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the consumer or [the consumer’s] property.’ To prove breach of this duty, a ‘plaintiff must prove that a seller (manufacturer or distributor) placed on the market a product in a “defective condition.””

Continue reading →

This entry was posted in Evidence, Pennsylvania, Products Liability and tagged Evidence, Pennsylvania, Product Liability, Products Liability – Risk-Utility.

The Sounds of Silence: Pennsylvania’s Sutton Rule

This entry was posted by William L. Doerler on December 29, 2023.

In Westminster Am. Ins. Co. a/s/o Androulla M. Toffalli v. Bond, No. 538 EDA 2023, 2023 Pa. Super. LEXIS 626, 2023 PA Super 272, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (Appellate Court) recently discussed the impact of silence on the Sutton Rule with respect to the landlord, Androulla M. Toffalli (Landlord), securing insurance. After holding that the tenant, Amy S. Bond (Bond) t/a Blondie’s Salon – who leased both commercial and residential space in the building pursuant to written leases – was not an implied “co-insured” on Landlord’s insurance policy, the Appellate Court reversed the decision of the trial court.

In this case, Bond rented the ground floor of a property located in Monroe County pursuant to a written commercial lease (Commercial Lease) and operated Blondie’s salon out of the leased location. In addition, Bond rented and lived in a second-floor apartment pursuant to a residential lease (Residential Lease). Both leases required the tenants (Tenants) to obtain insurance for personal items. The leases, however, did not require Landlord to obtain fire insurance for the property.

Continue reading →

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