The Subrogation Strategist

In Wang v. Maserati N. Am., Inc., C.A. No. 23-2402, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61446, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (District Court) considered the admissibility of the opinions of the plaintiffs’ liability expert and whether the plaintiffs’ product liability claims could survive summary judgment. The case arose from a fire in the garage on the plaintiffs’ property, where a Maserati vehicle was parked. The plaintiffs brought a product liability action against the vehicle manufacturer, alleging that a failure within the engine compartment ... Continue Reading

In State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. a/s/o Miriam Perez v. Pentair Flow Techs., LLC No. 7:21-CV-6679, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36875, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (District Court) reconsidered whether the plaintiff established sufficient circumstantial evidence to move forward with its product liability claim against the defendant. The District Court, again, denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the circumstantial evidence presented by the plaintiff satisfied the two-prong test for establishing products ... Continue Reading

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

In Okla. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Omega Flex, Inc., No. CIV-22-18-D, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197755, the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (the District Court) determined spoliation sanctions were not warranted after a home was demolished for repair following a joint scene examination.

The insurer, Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company (Insurer) provided a policy of insurance to Michael and Sondra Diel (the Diels). On July 11, 2020, the Diels’ home was struck by lightning and their attic caught fire. Following the loss, Insurer retained both counsel and fire origin and cause experts to inspect the Diels’ property. Insurer’s counsel informed in-house counsel for Omega Flex, Inc. (Omega Flex) via a letter dated July 14, 2020, that a preliminary investigation indicated the fire may have been caused by an Omega Flex product—specifically, TracPipe Corrugated Stainless Steel Tubing (CSST). Insurer’s counsel invited Omega Flex to inspect the property, noting: “It is anticipated that the loss will exceed $300,000” and stating that any inspection “must be completed during the next two weeks. At that time, the homeowner will proceed with demolition to rebuild.” (Emphasis added).Continue Reading

In Safeco Insurance Company of Indiana as Subrogee of Ramona Smith v. Blue Sky Innovation Group, Inc., et al, No. 22A-CT-1924, 2023 Ind. App. LEXIS 157, the Court of Appeals of Indiana (Appellate Court) reversed a trial court ruling that granted the motion to dismiss filed by Michaelis Corporation (Michaelis), a restoration company. The Appellate Court ruled that the trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiff’s spoliation and negligence claims against Michaelis, who discarded evidence relating to the cause of the fire at issue.Continue Reading