In 2700 Bohn Motor, LLC v. F.H. Myers Constr. Corp., No. 2021-CA-0671, 2022 La. App. LEXIS 651 (Bohn Motor), the Court of Appeals of Louisiana for the Fourth Circuit (Court of Appeals) considered whether a subrogation waiver in an AIA construction contract was enforceable and, if so, whether the waiver also protected subcontractors that were not signatories to the contract. The lower court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on the subrogation waiver in the construction contract. The plaintiffs appealed the decision, arguing that the subrogation waiver violated Louisiana’s anti-indemnification statute. The plaintiffs also argued that even if enforceable, the subrogation waiver did not apply to the defendant subcontractors since they were not parties to the contract. The Court of Appeals ultimately held that the subrogation waiver did not violate the anti-indemnification statute because the waiver did not shift liability, which the statute was intended to prevent. In addition, the Court of Appeals found that the contract sufficiently satisfied the required elements for the defendant subcontractors to qualify as third-party beneficiaries of the contract.
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
In Jensen v. Matute, 2020 La. App. LEXIS 160, the Court of Appeal of Louisiana considered whether the plaintiff could recover compensatory, loss of use damages following a rear-end car collision. The court held that because the plaintiff was able to mitigate the loss of use and, consequently, suffered no actual loss of use damages, he had no recoverable claim. Continue reading