The Subrogation Strategist

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 Rich v. Plumbing No. 1:23-cv-00705-SAG, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2263, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland considered two motions for summary judgment, each arguing that the court should exclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert. Although the court allowed the plaintiff to file a supplemental brief, it ultimately granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Consequently, the court deemed the testimony of the plaintiff’s one and only expert inadmissible.

The plaintiff, Whitney Rich, on behalf of C.W., brought this action after her ... Continue Reading

The purpose of certificate of merit (sometimes referred to as affidavit of merit) statutes is to identify frivolous claims before the court wastes time and resources during litigation. More common in medical malpractice cases, several states have enacted similar requirements for professional negligence claims dealing with construction-related issues. While a subrogation attorney should not be bringing a frivolous case to suit anyway, the requirement adds another step in the process that plaintiffs need to properly navigate.Continue Reading

In Smith v. Spectrum Brands, Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142262, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (District Court) considered whether the plaintiffs’ liability expert met the requirements of Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and could testify that a filter pump for an aquarium tank was defectively designed and caused a fire at the plaintiffs’ home. The defendant filed a motion to exclude the plaintiffs’ liability expert on grounds that the expert’s opinion did not satisfy the reliability element of Rule 702 because the expert never conducted physical testing on the filter pump. The court found that the cognitive testing employed by the expert through various methods, including visual inspections of the evidence, a review of photographs of the scene and literature from the manufacturer, and research on similar products, was sufficiently reliable to admit his opinion.Continue Reading