The Subrogation Strategist

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 Trustees of Boston University v. Clough, Harbour & Associates LLP, 495 Mass. 682, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts held that the tort statute of repose for improvements to real property did not bar a contract claim where the breach of the contract was based in negligence.

In Trustees of Boston University, Clough Harbour & Associates LLP (CHA) contracted with Boston University to design a new athletic field for Boston University. The contract included an indemnification provision that provided: “[CHA] shall indemnity [the university] from and against any and all expenses ... Continue Reading

In L.W. v. Audi AG, 108 Cal. App. 5^th 95, the Court of Appeal of California (Court of Appeal) recently held that a foreign manufacturer can be subject to specific personal jurisdiction in California state courts. In L.W., a minor child suffered injuries when an Audi Q7 allegedly malfunctioned and surged forward, pinning the child against a garage wall. The plaintiffs brought suit against Audi AG (Audi Germany) and Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. doing business as Audi of America (Audi America). Audi Germany designed, manufactured and then sold the Audi Q7 to Audi America. Audi ... Continue Reading

In Johnson v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 4:22-CV-04086, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59196, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas held that Amazon.com, Inc. (Amazon) can be liable for negligent undertaking claims when products sold on its website are defective.

In Johnson, the Plaintiff, Joshua Johnson (Johnson), purchased a bathmat on Amazon. The bathmat was designed, manufactured and sold by Comuster, a Chinese entity. Nine months after purchasing the bathmat, the bathmat shifted while Johnson was taking a shower and caused him to fall. Johnson sustained a severe cut on his arm that required surgery and left significant scarring.Continue Reading

In Brown v. City of Oil City, No. 6 WAP 2022, 2023 Pa. LEXIS 681 (2023), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Supreme Court) recently held that a contractor can be liable for dangerous conditions it creates even if the hazard is obvious or known by the property owner. In City of Oil City, the City of Oil City (Oil City) contracted with Harold Best and Struxures, LLC and Fred Burns, Inc. (collectively Contractors) to reconstruct the concrete stairs to the city library. Contractors completed their work at the end of 2011. In early 2012, Oil City received reports of issues with the stairs. Oil City notified Contractors that it considered the stairs dangerous and that Contractors’ defective workmanship created the condition. Neither Oil City or Contractors took any action to fix the stairs or warn of the danger and the stairs’ condition worsened with time.

On June 29, 2022, in N.J. Mfrs. Ins. Grp. a/s/o Angela Sigismondi v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115826 (Sigismondi), the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey held that Amazon.com, Inc. (Amazon) is a “seller” under New Jersey’s product liability statute and can thus face strict liability for damages caused by products sold on its platform. Although the analysis is state-specific, Sigismondi may serve as an important decision for allowing product defect claims to proceed against Amazon when so often the third-party vendor that lists the product is unlocatable, insolvent, or not subject to the jurisdiction of United States courts.Continue Reading