The Subrogation Strategist

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 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 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 Ryan Eng’g, Inc. v. Mond Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., No. 14-23-00960-CV, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 1681, the Court of Appeals of Texas (Court of Appeals) affirmed a trial court ruling denying the Motion to Dismiss of defendant Ryan Engineering Inc. (Ryan) with respect to the professional negligence claim asserted by the plaintiff, Mond Homeowners Association, Inc. (the Mond). Ryan argued that the Mond’s certificate of merit, filed pursuit to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 150.002(f), made “collective assertions” of negligence against Ryan and two other defendants. The ... 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 April 3, 2025, the CPSC announced the following recalls related to products that present fire hazards:

1. Honda Recalls Accessory Heaters for Side-by-Side Vehicles Due to Fire and Burn Hazards. According to the CPSC’s website, “[t]he recalled accessory heaters ...

Inverse condemnation is a legal theory that is not common in the subrogation industry. However, when dealing with a loss where property damage is the result of action by a public entity, it is a claim that may be available. While there are distinct considerations with raising an inverse condemnation claim, pleading it can also have advantages over common negligence causes of action. Understanding when inverse condemnation is an available claim is the first step in such an analysis.

Although it is not a subrogation case, the Court of Appeal of California (Court of Appeal) recently ... 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 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 March 27, 2025, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

APOTHEKE Recalls Pumpkin Ginger 3-Wick Scented Candles Due to Fire, Burn and Laceration Hazards; Sold Exclusively at Crate & Barrel.

According to the CPSC’s ... 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 March 20, 2025, the CPSC announced the following recalls related to products that present fire hazards:

1. VC Group Recalls Wireless Portable Power Banks with Lithium-Ion Batteries Due to Fire and Burn Hazards. According to the CPSC’s website, “[t]he ...

In subrogation cases where the insured’s damages were caused by a defective product, the fact that the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) issued a warning about the product at issue may help to establish that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer’s possession and control. On March 13, 2025, the CPSC issued a warning urging consumers to “Immediately Stop Using O3waterworks-branded Sanitizing Home Spray Bottles with Lithium-Ion Batteries Due to Fire Hazard.” According the CPSC, “[t]he lithium-ion battery inside the bottle can overheat, posing ... Continue Reading