In Federal Ins. Co. v. J. Gallant Elec. Servs., Inc. No. 1-22- CV-00123-MSM-LDA, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218185, the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island considered whether it could exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state, third-party defendant.Continue Reading
In State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Coway USA, Inc., No. 22-cv-3516, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192849, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (District Court) considered whether the plaintiff produced sufficient evidence to establish that the defendant sold and/or marketed a product and, thus, could be held liable for an alleged defect in the product. The plaintiff, a subrogating insurance carrier, brought strict product liability and breach of warranty claims against the defendant—the installer of a bidet in its insured’s home—claiming that the defendant also marketed and sold the bidet. The sole evidence to support a finding that the defendant sold the bidet was the homeowner’s testimony that she bought the product from the installer. The court found that the insured’s testimony, without any documentation or other corroborating evidence, was insufficient to establish that the defendant sold the product. Since proof of a sale is a required element for strict product liability and breach of warranty claims, the District Court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the case. Continue Reading
In Lithko Contr., LLC v. XL Ins. Am. Inc., No. 31, Sept. Term, 2023, 2024 Md. LEXIS 256, the Supreme Court of Maryland considered whether a tenant who contracted for the construction of a large warehouse facility waived its insurer’s rights to subrogation against subcontractors when it agreed to waive subrogation against the general contractor. The court ultimately decided that the unambiguous language of the subrogation waiver in the development agreement between the parties did not extend to subcontractors. The court also held that the tenant’s requirement that subcontracts include a subrogation waiver did not, in this case, impose a project-wide waiver on all parties. The court, however, found that the requirement that the subcontracts include a similar, but not identical, waiver provision rendered the subcontract’s waiver clauses ambiguous and remanded the case to the lower court to determine if the parties to the development agreement – i.e., Duke Baltimore LLC (“Duke”) and Amazon.com.dedc, LLC (“Amazon”) – intended that the waiver clause in the subcontracts covered claims against subcontractors.Continue Reading
In Phila. Indem. Ins. Co. v. Gonzalez, No. 1-23-0833, 2024 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1372, the Appellate Court of Illinois considered whether the terms of a lease agreement limited a tenant’s liability for fire damages, a fire caused by her negligence, to her apartment unit only. The plaintiff insured the subject apartment building, which incurred damage to several units as result of a fire in the tenant’s unit. The lease defined “Premises” as the specific apartment unit occupied by the tenant and held the tenant responsible for damage caused to the Premises. While the court found that the lease permitted the plaintiff to subrogate against the tenant, it held that the lease terms limited the damages to the tenant’s apartment unit only.
In Gonzalez, the plaintiff’s insured owned a multi-unit apartment building in Chicago. In September 2019, the building owner entered into a lease agreement with the defendant for apartment Unit 601. The lease stated that Unit 601 was the “Leased Address (Premises).” Another provision stated that building owner “hereby leases to Tenant(s) and Tenant(s) hereby leases from Landlord(s) for use as a private dwelling only, the Premises, together with the fixtures and appliances (if any) in the premises…” The lease also stated that “Tenant shall be liable for any damage done to the premises as a result of Tenant’s or Tenant’s invitees, guests or others authorized to reside in the Premises [sic] direct action, negligence, or failure to inform Landlord of repairs necessary to prevent damage to the Premises.”Continue Reading
The newest episode of the Subro Sessions podcast, is hosted by Gus Sara, Partner, and Michael DeBona, Counsel, who are joined by guest J. Pablo Ross, PE, of Ross Engineering. The episode, entitled “Water Losses 101: A Discussion of Common Causes of Water Losses and How to Investigate Them – Part 2,” gives insight into the role of the attorney in a joint-evidence investigation, steps that subrogation professionals and experts take to complete the analysis, make appropriate recommendations to the client and the process of evidence lab examinations.
In Ohio Sec. Ins. Co v. Brakefire, Inc., CA. No. 5:24-cv-267, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97606 (Brakefire), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio considered whether a subrogating plaintiff’s negligence claim against a fire sprinkler maintenance company was barred by the maintenance contract between the parties. The court held that even though the plaintiff only asserted a negligence claim, the action was essentially rooted in the contract and, thus, the subrogation waiver and accelerated one-year limitations period in the contract barred the plaintiff’s action entirely. In addition, the court held that because the claim was based on the obligations set forth in the contract, the plaintiff could not proceed in tort.
In Brakefire, the plaintiff’s insured, Skyways Petroleum, LLC owned and operated a Comfort Inn & Suites Hotel (Comfort) in Kent, Ohio. Prior to February 2022, Comfort contracted with defendant Brakefire, Inc. (Brakefire) for maintenance of the fire suppression sprinkler system. The contract contained a limitation of liability provision which stated that no action shall be brought against the service provider “more than one (1) year after the accrual of the cause of action.” The provision also stated that the parties “agree that their respective insurance companies shall have no right of subrogation against the other on account thereof.” In February 2022, the hotel experienced a severe water loss caused by a sprinkler pipe freezing and bursting. As the hotel’s property insurance carrier, the plaintiff paid over $3.5 million to repair the damages.Continue Reading
The newest episode of the Subro Sessions podcast, is hosted by Gus Sara, Partner, and Michael DeBona, Counsel, who are joined by guest J. Pablo Ross, PE, of Ross Engineering. The episode, entitled “Water Losses 101: A Discussion of Common Causes of Water Losses and How to Investigate Them - Part 1,” explores the most common property damage claim our subrogation team encounters. Gus, Michael and Pablo define the causes, types of losses including product failures, HVAC failures, pipe freezes, overflows and give an overview of what a typical investigation looks like when developing ... Continue Reading
In New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co. v. Lallygone LLC, No. A-2607-22, 2024 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 120, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey (Appellate Division) considered whether New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company (the carrier) could bring a subrogation action after its insured, Efmorfopo Panagiotou (the insured), litigated and tried claims related to the same underlying incident with the same defendant, Lallygone LLC (the defendant). The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s finding that the prior lawsuit extinguished the carrier’s claims.
The newest episode of the Subro Sessions podcast is out now. This episode is entitled, “Stop Suing Yourself: A Brief Discussion on the Anti-Subrogation Rule” and is hosted by Gus Sara, Partner, and Katherine Dempsey, Associate. Gus and Katherine share their expertise on the Anti-Subrogation Rule by discussing its history, purpose and how it applies in various states across the country.
In Eric L. Davis Eng’g, Inc. v. Hegemeyer, No. 14-22-00657-CV, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 8899, the Court of Appeals of Texas (Court of Appeals) considered whether the plaintiffs’ certificate of merit, in support of their professional malpractice claim against the defendant engineers, adequately set forth the experience and qualifications of the expert who submitted the certificate. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the certificate of merit was inadequate because it failed to establish that the expert practiced in the same specific areas as the defendants in relation to the work at issue. The lower court denied the defendants’ motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, finding that there was sufficient information for the lower court to have reasonably found that the plaintiffs’ expert practiced in the same area as the defendants.
In Hegemeyer, the plaintiffs sued Eric L. Davis Engineering, Inc. (Davis) and Kenneth L. Douglass (Douglass), alleging improper design of their home’s foundation. The plaintiffs retained Davis to design and engineer the home and Douglass prepared the plans for the home. The plans called for the installation of post-tension cables in the home’s foundation. The plaintiffs alleged that the foundation design was improper and brought professional malpractice claims against Davis and Douglass.Continue Reading
In Commercial Painting Co. v. Weitz Co. LLC, No. W2019-02089-SC-R11-CV, 2023 Tenn. LEXIS 39 (Weitz), the Supreme Court of Tennessee (Supreme Court) considered whether the economic loss doctrine barred the plaintiff’s claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation and punitive damages arising out of a contract with the defendant for construction services. The court held that the economic loss doctrine only applies to product liability cases and does not apply to claims arising from contracts for services. This case establishes that, in Tennessee, the economic loss doctrine does not bar tort claims in disputes arising from service contracts.
In Weitz, defendant, Weitz Co. LLC (Weitz), was the general contractor for a construction project and hired plaintiff Commercial Painting Co. (Commercial) as a drywall subcontractor. Weitz refused to pay Commercial for several of its payment applications, claiming that the applications were submitted untimely and contained improper change order requests. Commercial filed a lawsuit against Weitz seeking over $1.9 million in damages, alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, enforcement of a mechanic’s lien, and interest and attorney’s fees under the Prompt Pay Act of 1991. Weitz filed a counterclaim for $500,000 for costs allegedly incurred due to Commercial’s delay and defective workmanship. In response, Commercial amended its complaint to add claims for fraud, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, rescission of the contract and $10 million in punitive damages. Commercial alleged that Weitz received an extension of the construction schedule but fraudulently withheld this information from Commercial and continued to impose unrealistic deadlines.Continue Reading
Gus Sara, Partner, and Joe Kuffler, Counsel, reunite to host another episode of Subro Sessions, entitled, “Reading the Small Print: A Discussion of Contractual Impediments to Subrogation” to discuss common issues with contractual provisions.
Subrogation professionals run into various contractual provisions, including subrogation waivers, limitation to liability and damages caps, accelerated statute of limitations, indemnification/hold harmless clauses, notices and pre-suit requirements and venue/forum clauses. Gus and Joe present relevant case scenarios and ... Continue Reading
In State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Tamagawa, Index No. 510977/2021, 2023 N.Y. Misc. Lexis 5434, the Supreme Court of New York considered whether an insurance carrier can settle its property subrogation lawsuit with the defendant, and discontinue the lawsuit, while the carrier’s insured still had pending claims with the carrier and claims for uninsured losses against the defendant. The court held that the carrier’s claims for the amount paid are divisible and independent of the insured’s claims and that the carrier’s settlement did not affect the insured’s right to sue for any unreimbursed losses. The court’s decision reminds us that, in New York, a carrier can resolve its subrogation claim before the insured is made whole.Continue Reading
The newest episode of the Subro Sessions podcast is out now. Hosted by Gus Sara, Partner, and Joseph Kuffler, Counsel, this episode tackles a part of the subrogation process that’s all about timing: the statute of repose.
In the latest episode of Subro Sessions, these White and Williams professionals tackle the core principles and issues brought up by the statute of repose. Gus and Joe will define the statute of repose, explain it’s intended purpose and how it is applied, and use real-life examples from their experiences dealing with this topic.
In Patton v Pearson, No. M2022-00708-COA-RC-CV, 2023 Tenn. App. LEXIS 231, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee (Court of Appeals) considered whether the lower court erred in dismissing an insurance carrier’s lawsuit against its insured’s tenant for damages sustained in a fire. While the lawsuit was filed in the name of the landlord (i.e., the insured), discovery revealed that the lawsuit was actually a subrogation lawsuit, brought by the landlord’s insurance carrier. The lower court granted the tenant’s motion for summary judgment based on the Sutton Doctrine, holding that the tenant was an implied co-insured under the landlord’s policy. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that although the lease agreement did not reference insurance, the Sutton Doctrine applied, which barred the landlord’s carrier from subrogating against the tenant.
In HDI Glob. SE v. Magnesium Prods. of Am., Inc., No. 360385, 2023 Mich. App. LEXIS 2602 (Magnesium Prods.), the Court of Appeals of Michigan (Court of Appeals) considered whether the lower court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs’ claim for loss of income based on the economic loss doctrine. The court found that while the defendant manufacturer owed a duty to the general public to exercise reasonable care in its manufacturing process, that duty did not apply to the economic damages alleged by the plaintiffs.Continue Reading
Listen to the newest episode of the Subro Sessions #podcast where we launch a new series: “Subro Trauma Center - Discussions on Common Issues that Arise in Subrogation Claims and How to Address Them,” hosted by Gus Sara, Lian Skaf and Matthew I. Ferrie. The series analyzes common symptoms of subrogation claims, diagnoses potential problems and discusses how to treat the symptoms or problems to secure a recovery. Gus, Lian and Matt share their tips and experiences in “Part 1: Subrogor Problems - Handling Claims Involving an Uncooperative or Difficult Insured" to provide an ... Continue Reading
In Chubb Lloyds Inc. Co. of Tex. v. Buster & Cogdell Builders, LLC, No. 01-21-00503-CV, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 676, the Court of Appeals of Texas, First District (Court of Appeals) considered whether the lower court properly dismissed the plaintiff’s subrogation case by enforcing a subrogation waiver in a construction contract which was not fully executed. The contract was signed by only one of the two subrogors and was not signed by the defendant general contractor. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that despite the lack of signatures, the evidence established mutual assent to the contractual terms by all parties.
The plaintiff’s subrogors, Jeffrey and Mary Meyer (collectively, the Meyers), retained defendant Buster & Codgell Builders (BCB) to expand their residence. BCB drafted a contract using the American Institute of Architects (AIA) standard form contract for residential construction. The AIA contract included, by reference, a subrogation waiver that applied to BCB and its subcontractors. Prior to beginning the work, BCB emailed Jeffrey Meyer a version of the contract that only had one signature block for both Jeffrey and Mary Meyer. Minutes later, BCB sent a second version of the contract which had a signature line for each of the Meyers. However, Jeffrey Meyer signed the first version of the contract and emailed it back to BCB. In the subject line of his email, Mr. Meyers asked that BCB countersign and return the contract. BCB did not sign and return the contract.Continue Reading
In University of Massachusetts Building Authority v. Adams Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 2023 Mass. App. Unpub. LEXIS 28, 102 Mass. App. Ct. 1107, the Appeals Court of Massachusetts (Appeals Court) considered whether the lower court properly held that the plaintiff’s breach of contract and indemnification claims were time-barred by the statute of repose because they sounded in tort. The Appeals Court held that while the six-year statute of repose only applies to tort claims, they can also bar claims for breach of contract and indemnification if they sound in tort. The Appeals Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling, finding that the plaintiff’s breach of contract and indemnification claims were just negligence claims disguised as non-tort claims.
In 2013 and 2014, the University of Massachusetts (UMass) retained various contractors to renovate the dining hall for one of its campus buildings, which included the installation of new ductwork for the kitchen’s exhaust system. The dining hall opened for service in September 2014. In the Spring of 2018, it was discovered that the ductwork for the kitchen had collapsed. Further investigation revealed other deficiencies with the exhaust system. On December 1, 2020, UMass filed a lawsuit against various contractors, asserting negligence, breach of contract, and indemnification. The breach of contract claims alleged breach of express warranties.Continue Reading