The Subrogation Strategist

In Amp Servs., LLC v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., No. 5:24-CV-00235-MEO-DCK, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231369, the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (District Court) considered whether to exclude the opinions of the defendant insurer’s fire investigator, who concluded that a warehouse fire was incendiary. The District Court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion to exclude, holding that the investigator’s causation opinion was not a reliable application of his chosen methodology because he failed to eliminate two competent ... Continue Reading

In Westhoff Engineering, LLC v. Pratt, No. 05-26-00191-CV, 2026 Tex. App. LEXIS 9791 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 26, 2026), the Court of Appeals of Texas (Court of Appeals), examined whether a certificate of merit under Section 150.002 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code was deficient because the affiant engineer did not attest to experience with the specific type of system at issue. The Court of Appeals held that the statute does not require practice in a particular sub-specialty and affirmed the denial of the engineering firm’s motion to dismiss.

Kenneth Pratt (Pratt ... Continue Reading

In Encotech Eng'g Consultants, Inc. v. Miramon, No. 15-25-00173-CV, 2026 Tex. App. LEXIS 9117, the Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifteenth District (Court of Appeals) the plaintiff filed suit against several engineering firms, including Encotech Engineering Consultants, Inc. (Encotech). Encotech filed a motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeals considered whether a certificate of merit filed against Encotech was deficient because it made collective assertions of negligence against all defendants. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of Encotech’s motion ... Continue Reading

Product defect cases can be some of the most challenging losses for subrogation practitioners to prosecute. There are logistical concerns such as whether enough of the subject product survived the loss to reach a theory of liability. There are practical concerns such as identifying a viable manufacturer or distributor to pursue. Then of course, there are legal concerns. Proving the legal elements necessary to support a product defect case in court is complex, and it only becomes more so when states like Arizona add layers to the equation.

In Maywald v. Toyota Motor Corp. LLC, No ... Continue Reading

In Universal Property & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Amazon.com Services, LLC, No. 24-6195, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130880 (Universal Property), Amazon.com Services, LLC (Amazon) argued that the jury should reduce the plaintiff’s recovery against Amazon by apportioning fault to non-party entities upstream from Amazon in the chain of distribution. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (District Court) rejected Amazon’s argument.

In Universal Property, the property insurer brought a products liability action against Amazon after an electric ... Continue Reading

In Haire-Cochran v. 24 Restore, Inc., No. A25-1206, 2026 Minn. App. LEXIS 153, the Court of Appeals of Minnesota (Court of Appeals) addressed whether construction work performed after a fire loss to a property constituted an “improvement to real property” under Minnesota Statute of Limitations, section 541.051, subdivision 1(a). The statute sets forth a reduced two-year limitations period for claims arising out of “the defective and unsafe condition of an improvement to real property.” The lower court dismissed the plaintiff’s case on grounds of the two-year statute ... Continue Reading

A recent decision from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania reinforced a fundamental requirement in product liability cases that can sometimes be overlooked: proving the product was actually defective. In Motto v. Newell Brands, Inc., No. 24-1338, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23804 (E.D. Pa. 2026), the plaintiff homeowners alleged that a defective candle in a glass jar caused a fire that damaged their home. They brought claims for strict product liability, negligence and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability against the manufacturer and ... Continue Reading

In Clearfield County v. Transystems Corp., No. 10 WAP 2025, 2026 Pa. LEXIS 774, Clearfield County (the County) filed suit against Transystems Corporation (Transystems Corp.) based on architectural and engineering plans for a jail completed in 1977. Transystems Corp. filed an Answer that asserted a defense that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because, pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5536, the County did not file its complaint within 12 years of completion of the jail. The County filed preliminary objections contending that, among other things, the doctrine of nullum tempus occurrit ... Continue Reading

In Duffy v. Tatum, 2026 Pa. Super. LEXIS 112, 2026 PA Super 41, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (Superior Court) considered whether an arbitration provision contained in the online Terms of Service on the defendant’s website were enforceable. The plaintiff, Daniel Duffy (Duffy), visited the website of defendant, Dolly, Inc. (Dolly), to purchase moving services. Duffy selected the number of movers, items to be moved and the type of vehicle needed. To complete the booking, the website required Duffy to checkmark a box labeled “By checking this box I accept the Dolly Terms of ... Continue Reading

The economic loss doctrine (ELD) has been a thorn in the side of subrogation practitioners for some time. Particularly in states that enforce it strictly, an adverse ruling based on the doctrine can sometimes be an unexpected pull of the rug from under what would otherwise be a strong subrogation case. Because of the harsh consequences that such a ruling can have, it is crucial to be aware of how the state you are handling a case in deals with the ELD and what the effects are on potential recoverability.

In Sierra Summit, LLC vs. Humphreys & Partners Architects, Nev., LLC, No ... Continue Reading