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 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 Homesite Ins. Co. a/s/o Adam Long v. Shenzhen Lepower Int’l Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 6:23-CV-981, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22002, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (the Court) considered whether Homesite Insurance Company (the Carrier) sufficiently pled a strict products liability claim against Shenzhen Lepower International Electronics Company Ltd. (Shenzhen). Finding that the Carrier’s complaint did not plausibly allege a strict products liability claim under any of the three available theories of liability, the Court granted Shenzhen’s motion to dismiss the Carrier’s complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
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
A federal court in West Virginia recently ruled that a negligence claim could proceed against Amazon related to a spy camera used to take unsolicited photos of a teenage girl. M.S. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-0046, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213236 (S.D. W. Va. Nov. 30, 2023). The negligence claim is specifically interesting for subrogation professionals as it potentially provides an additional avenue for recovery against Amazon in addition to a product liability claim.
In 2021, the plaintiff, M.S. (a minor), visited the United States as a foreign-exchange student. During her stay, she lived with Darrel Wells, a 55-year-old man. Mr. Wells purchased a spy camera that was disguised as a bathroom towel hook on Amazon. The camera was listed for sale by an unknown third party and satisfied through the “Fulfillment by Amazon” program. The product description showed the camera serving as a towel hook with the caption: “It won’t attract any attention[:] A very ordinary hook,” as shown in the photo below from the pleading.Continue Reading
In subrogation cases where the insured’s damages were caused by a defective product, the fact that the product at issue is or was subject to a recall announced by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) may help to establish that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer’s possession and control. On August 31, 2023, the CPSC announced the following recalls related to products that present fire hazards:
- Electrolux Group Recalls Frigidaire Gas Cooktops Due to Risk of Gas Leak, Fire Hazard. According to the CPSC’s website, “[p]lastic control knobs with a ...
The economic loss doctrine is a legal principle that has confused and frustrated subrogation practitioners since its inception. Unfortunately, once practitioners understand the basic theory, they realize how frustrating it can be. If there was any doubt about the doctrine’s effect in New York, the Appellate Division put that to rest in a recent ruling on a subrogation case in which it bolstered the economic loss doctrine defense.
On May 4, 2023, Montana changed its product liability laws when the Governor signed SB 216, which was effective upon passage and applies to claims that accrue on or after May 4, 2023. Among the changes is the adoption of a sealed container defense and the application of comparative negligence principles in strict liability actions. Montana also adopted a defense based on certain actions not being brought within 10 years. In addition, Montana adopted a rebuttable presumption with respect to a product’s defective condition. A jury must be informed about this rebuttable presumption with respect to certain warnings claims, premarket licensing procedures or claims involving drugs and/or medical devices. The changes to the Montana Code are further described below.
Recent Posts
Categories
- Products Liability
- Jurisdiction
- Rhode Island
- Subrogation
- Podcast
- Uncategorized
- Negligence
- New York
- Contracts
- Landlord-Tenant
- Sutton Doctrine
- Statute of Limitations-Repose
- Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Waiver of Subrogation
- Texas
- Pennsylvania
- Evidence
- Workers' Compensation
- Construction Defects
- Florida
- Economic Loss Rule
- Water Loss
- Malpractice
- Spoliation
- Tennessee
- Indiana
- Michigan
- Assignment
- Comparative-Contributory Negligence
- Contribution-Apportionment
- Missouri
- Parties
- Public Policy
- Civil Procedure
- New Jersey
- Res Judicata
- Cargo - Transportation
- Damages
- Damages – Personal Property
- Certificate of Merit
- Litigation
- West Virginia
- Wyoming
- Oklahoma
- Georgia
- Limitation of Liability
- Builder's Risk
- Contractual Subrogation
- Equitable Subrogation
- Illinois
- Insurable Interest
- Mississippi
- Experts - Reliability
- Experts – Daubert
- Made Whole
- CPSC Recalls
- Delaware
- Settlement
- Subrogation – Equitable
- Maryland
- Construction
- Premises Liability
- Joint or Several Liability
- Montana
- Duty
- Privity
- New Mexico
- Right to Repair Act
- AIA Contracts
- Massachusetts
Tags
- Product Liability
- CPSC Recalls; Products Liability
- Jurisdiction
- Jurisdiction - Personal
- Rhode Island
- Products Liability
- Subrogation
- Podcast
- Texas
- Certificate of Merit
- Contracts
- Waiver of Subrogation
- Subro Sessions
- Louisiana
- Construction Defects
- Civil Procedure
- Landlord-Tenant
- Expert Qualifications
- Experts
- Negligence
- Evidence
- Statute of Repose
- Amazon
- Construction Contracts
- Amazon-eBay
- New York
- workers' compensation subrogation
- Sutton Doctrine
- Maryland
- Made Whole
- Evidence - Hearsay
- Georgia
- Loss of Use
- Vehicles
- Illinois
- West Virginia
- Pennsylvania
- Negligent Undertaking
- Limitation of Liability
- Statute of Limitations - Contractual
- Water Damage
- Statute of Limitations
- Arizona
- Warranty - Implied
- Florida
- Economic Loss Doctrine
- Malfunction Theory; Design Defect
- Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Malpractice
- Negligence – Duty
- Independent Duty
- Ohio
- Spoliation
- Tennessee
- Settlement
- Indiana
- Michigan
- Connecticut
- Contracts - Enforcement
- Public Policy
- Unconscionable
- Apportionment
- Comparative Fault
- Missouri
- Parties
- Design Defect
- Failure to Warn
- Manufacturing Defect
- Pleading
- Removal
- Entire Controversy Doctrine
- Motion to Intervene
- New Jersey
- Res Judicata
- Subrogation; High-Net-Worth; Damages; Art; Cargo-Transportation; Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Products Liability – Risk-Utility
- Architects-Engineers
- Lithium-ion battery
- Internet Sales
- Anti-Subrogation Rule; Wyoming; Landlord-Tenant; Sutton Doctrine
- Oklahoma
- Sanctions
- Spoliation – Fire Scene
- Exculpatory Clause
- Gross Negligence
- Builder’s Risk
- Contractual Subrogation
- Equitable Subrogation
- Insurable Interest
- Mississippi
- Statute of Limitations – Discovery Rule
- Daubert
- Experts - Reliability
- Delaware
- Standing
- Improvement
- Third Party
- Accepted Work
- Montana
- Circumstantial Evidence
- Independent Contractor
- Privity
- Res Ipsa
- Workers’ Compensation
- New Mexico
- Right to Repair Act
- Statute of Limitations - Tolling
- AIA Contract
- Condominiums
- Contracts - Formation
- Non-Party at Fault
- Massachusetts
Authors
Archives
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023