The Subrogation Strategist

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

While determining the value of property is important, it is equally critical to assess whether the financial costs and inconvenience of not having it should factor into compensation for not being able to use that property. In Lafayette City-Par. Consol Gov’t v. Triple T Enters, No. 25-26, 2025 La. App. LEXIS 2039 (Lafeyette City), the Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Third Circuit (Court of Appeals) considered whether the trial court properly awarded loss of use damages after an intoxicated driver destroyed the fire department’s custom-built fire pumper truck in a motor vehicle ... Continue Reading

In Ghaznavi v. Arby Constr., Inc., No. 14-24-00213-CV, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 839, the Court of Appeals of Texas (Court of Appeals) considered whether the trial court properly excluded the plaintiffs’, Kambiz Moavenzadeh Ghaznavi and Anahita Nokkonejad (collectively, the Ghaznavis), liability expert. The case arose from a fire at the Ghaznavis’ residence. The trial court held that because the Ghaznavis’ expert did not physically inspect certain fire damaged areas before they were repaired, the expert’s testimony was unreliable and thus inadmissible. The Court of ... Continue Reading

In Terra Mgmt. Grp., LLC v. Keaten, 572 P.3d 126 (CO 2025), the Supreme Court of Colorado (Supreme Court) considered whether the trial court properly imposed sanctions on the defendants for failing to preserve evidence before the commencement of litigation. The trial court noted that the defendants, who owned and managed an apartment building, began removing the evidence from an apartment after the plaintiffs complained of toxins originating from the apartment building. As a sanction, the trial court imposed a negative inference that the defendants’ destruction of evidence ... Continue Reading

In Morningside Ministries v. Koontz McCombs Construction, Ltd., No. 08:23-00332-cv, 2025 Tex. App. Lexis 3584 (Morningside), the Court of Appeals of Texas (Court of Appeals) considered whether the plaintiff’s construction defect claims were “inherently undiscoverable,” thereby tolling the applicable limitations period under the discovery rule. The lower court granted the defendants’ summary judgment motions, finding that the plaintiff’s breach of contract and breach of express warranty claims were brought outside of the four-year limitations period. On ... Continue Reading

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