Subrogation & Recovery Law Blog : Insurance Subrogation Lawyer & Attorney : Cozen O'Connor Law Firm : Property Damage & Insurance Commentary

On July 13, 2010, the Appellate Court of Connecticut affirmed a $664,373.02 verdict issued by a trial court sitting non-jury in 2007. Utica Mutual Ins. Co. v. Precision Mechanical Services, Inc. The case arose from a fire at the Commons Condominium Complex in Branford, Connecticut. An employee of the defendant was installing a shower diverter in one of the units. He was a licensed plumber soldering pipes when he ignited insulation in the wall. In November of 2007, the trial court, sitting non-jury, awarded Utica Mutual $664,373.02 after three days of trial.

On appeal, defendant argued that plaintiff failed to offer expert testimony regarding the standard of care, improperly excluded defense experts, and plaintiff did not sustain its burden of proof on damages. The three judge appellate panel rejected each contention. With respect to the first issue, the court determined that the question of whether a reasonable person should operate a torch within the vicinity of combustible materials did not go beyond the field of the ordinary knowledge and experience of the fact-finder and therefore held that expert testimony was not required to determine if the defendant’s performance complied with the requisite standard of care. The trial court allowed one defense expert to testify, but then refused to consider the testimony when deciding the case. The defense expert testified that the damages had been greatly enhanced by the lack of fire stops in the condominiums. The appellate court held that the trial court reasonably concluded that it should not consider his testimony or any evidence that the fire spread due to an alleged lack of fire stops, given the defendant’s failure to apprise the plaintiff of its claim through an affirmative pleading. The defendant had not raised contributory negligence as a defense in its answer or any other pleading.

With respect to damages, the appellate court found that Utica Mutual had presented the testimony of its insurance adjuster, who had more than fourteen years of experience in the profession, and was sent a written form by the public adjusters representing the Commons that detailed line by line the areas that had to be repaired. Utica’s adjuster had also retained a contractor to determine the scope of the damages. The contractor prepared a final report that concluded that the repair costs were $676,842.67. Utica paid the Commons $664,373.02 because of the insured fire loss and received a subrogation receipt from the Commons stating that amount had been paid. The Connecticut Appellate Court determined that such evidence afforded a sufficient basis for determining with reasonable certainty that the plaintiff’s damages were $664,373.02. The court also awarded 6% interest from July 9, 1997, when Utica Mutual received the subrogation receipt. The decision represents a complete and total victory for the subrogating carrier.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Subrogation professionals should be aware of a recent opinion in New York where computer fire modeling utilized by the defendant's expert was held to be inadmissible.   In Santos v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., No. 000790/07 (N.Y.Sup. Ct. Jun. 28, 2010), a trial court held that the defendant had not presented sufficient evidence that computer fire modeling was generally accepted as reliable in the fire investigation community. 

In larger fire losses, computer fire modeling can be a useful tool that fire experts use to assist in evaluating hypotheses related to fire origin and fire spread.  Fire modeling is also used for illustrative purposes, such as presenting an origin and cause investigator's opinions to a jury.  Although they can be helpful, fire models have their limitations.  NFPA 921, the recognized guide for fire investigations, cautions: "[t]o conduct valid modeling and testing it is important that the investigator gather data that is as accurate and complete as possible."  Fire models are generally only as good as the accuracy of the data that is used in the model. 

The Santos decision is surprising in light of the fact that several federal courts have held that fire modeling is reliable.  For an expert opinion to be admissible in federal court, the opinion must pass the rigors of the Daubert standard.  In federal court, expert testimony must be both relevant and reliable, which entails a preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and can be applied to the facts at issue. 

In state courts in New York, expert opinions must pass the Frye test, which is viewed as a more liberal standard than Daubert.  Under the Frye test, expert testimony based on scientific principles or procedures is admissible only if a principle or procedure has gained general acceptance in its specified field.  Here, the court found that the defendant only presented evidence that computer fire modeling was generally accepted in the regulatory and design community, but failed to meet the burden of demonstrating that modeling is generally accepted in the fire investigation community. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 On July 6, 2010, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) issued a safety alert recommending that residential fire sprinkler systems containing antifreeze be drained and the antifreeze be replaced with water. While NFPA emphasized that residential sprinklers remain reliable and effective, a recent fire incident involving a sprinkler system containing a high concentration of antifreeze solution raised concerns surrounding the combustibility of antifreeze solutions in residential sprinkler systems. The subject incident involved a grease fire in a kitchen where a sprinkler system with a reported 71.2% concentration of antifreeze deployed. The fire resulted in a single fatality and serious injury to another individual.

Following this incident, NFPA initiated a research project in conjunction with the Fire Protection Research Foundation. The initial test results showed that antifreeze solutions consisting of 70/30% glycerin and 60/40% propylene glycol may provide an unacceptable risk of harm to occupants in certain types of fire scenarios, in particular kitchen grease fires. There were successful tests where kitchen grease fires were extinguished or contained with a 50/50% glycerin solution, but NFPA felt there should be additional testing to more fully understand if there is a risk associated with a 50/50% glycerin solution. Further testing on antifreeze is planned in the future.

Potential fire spread issues, such as the aforementioned, should always be considered when evaluating a case for subrogation potential. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

All of us in the subrogation and recovery business are well acquainted with product manufacturers attempting to have claims thrown out of court on technical legal grounds. Almost every product liability case now involves such challenges.  Recently, a federal district court judge soundly rejected General Electric Company’s (G.E.) attempts to do just that in Louisiana. The opinion was both interesting and important because the Court did not accept G.E.’s attempts to disqualify a competent expert or narrowly construe the Louisiana Products Liability Act (“LPLA”).

On February 27, 2008, a fire damaged the Denham Springs, Louisiana home of Thomas and Janice Campbell. The Campbells were insured by Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Group (“Citizens”). The local fire marshal concluded that the fire started in a G.E. range. Citizens retained Ted Kaplon, an electrical engineer. Mr. Kaplon also determined the fire started in the range but could not identify a specific defect. The parties also disputed whether the Campbell range was subject to a recall for “faulty wiring.”

After the lawsuit was filed, G.E. filed motions to exclude the expert opinion of Mr. Kaplon and for summary judgment. G.E. contended that Mr. Kaplon was not qualified to render an opinion concerning the defective condition of the range and how that defect caused the fire because he did not conduct any testing or rely on literature to support his opinions. The Court determined that he qualified as an expert by his education, training, and experience, which included: bachelor’s and master’s degrees in electrical engineering; registration as a professional engineer in Louisiana and six other states; testimony as an expert in several courts including the Middle District of Louisiana; investigation of between 3,000 and 4,000 fire scenes over thirty years to determine the origin and cause of fires, including hundreds of kitchen fires involving ranges; and his investigation conformed with NFPA 21, a guideline for investigating fires promulgated by the National Fire Protection Association (“NFPA”). His testimony was based on sufficient facts because he visited the fire scene, examined the evidence, and issued a detailed report. He also based his testimony on widely accepted and apparently reliable methods, specifically the standards promulgated by the NFPA. Mr. Kaplon was not offered as an expert in the LPLA, electric ranges or their alleged defects, but was offered as an expert in fire investigation and causes.

G.E. also moved for summary judgment under the LPLA because Citizens did not present any evidence of the specifications or performance standards for the range and because Citizens could not show how the range or its wiring deviated in any material way from those specifications or standards. The Court determined that Louisiana law interpreting the LPLA clearly allows Citizens to prove the range is defective through circumstantial evidence. There was no reason why Citizens could not use circumstantial evidence in order to make the inference that a product was unreasonably dangerous when that product left G.E.’s control. This inference shifts the burden of proof to the manufacturer such that the manufacturer must prove that the product was not defective when it left the manufacturer’s control. Citizen did not need to conclusively exclude all other possible explanations for the fire, it only had to show the unlikelihood of other reasonable explanations. Since Citizen did not offer any evidence as to a design defect or inadequate warnings, the Court granted the summary judgment motion as to those claims but denied the rest.

This case is an example that selection and retention of qualified experts who perform thorough investigations is critical in fighting off technical motions from manufacturers in product defect cases.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On Monday, June 21, 2010, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha LTD. v. Regal-Beloit Corp. By a 6-to-3 vote, the court said the Carmack Amendment does not apply to a shipment originating overseas under a single through bill of lading. The terms of the through bill of lading govern the parties’ rights.

The court framed the issue as “whether the terms of a through bill of lading issued abroad by an ocean carrier can apply to the domestic part of the import’s journey by a rail carrier, despite prohibitions or limitations in another federal statute.” Relying on the text of the Carmack Amendment, the court determined that a shipment’s point of origin is critical in deciding whether a Carmack-compliant bill of lading is required. The court’s opinion states:

… for Carmack’s provisions to apply the journey must begin with a receiving rail carrier, which would have to issue a Carmack-compliant bill of lading. It follows that Carmack does not apply if the property is received at an overseas location under a through bill that covers the transport into an inland location in the United States. In such a case, there is no receiving rail carrier that “receives” the property “for [domestic rail] transportation,” § 11706(a), and thus no carrier that must issue a Carmack-compliant bill of lading. The initial carrier in that instance receives the property at the shipment’s point of origin for overseas multimodal import transport, not for domestic rail transport.

A carrier that accepts goods for further transport from another carrier in the middle of an international shipment under a through bill of lading does not become a receiving carrier under Carmack.

In this case, the court continued, the shippers or cargo owners made the decision to select “K” Line for their through transportation needs. “K” Line received the goods in China, issued through bills of lading for shipment to inland destinations in the Untied States, and subcontracted with Union Pacific for rail transportation in the United States. The through bills of lading provided the liability and venue rules for the foreseeable event that the cargo was damaged during carriage. Had the bills of lading for the overseas transportation ended at a port in the United States and the cargo owners then contracted directly with Union Pacific to complete a new journey to the inland destinations in the United States, Union Pacific would have been a receiving carrier and would have been required to issue a separate Carmack-compliant bill of lading.

In finding Carmack inapplicable to the inland portion of an international shipment under a through bill of lading, the court’s decision effectively protects carriers within the United States from the liability regime provided by the Carmack Amendment when a shipment originates overseas. Since the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) governs shipments traveling to or from a port in the United Sates by an ocean carrier engaged in foreign trade, a carrier’s liability under a through bill of lading could be limited under COGSA’s liability regime. COGSA permits carriers to limit their liability to $500 per package. In addition, a forum selection clause in a through bill of lading that provides for jurisdiction or arbitration in a foreign country, such as Japan, is enforceable.

When faced with a cargo loss where the shipment originated overseas, it is important to obtain a copy of any bills of lading issued by the carriers and understand the importance of their terms. Cozen O’Connor stands ready to assist you in navigating those waters.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On June 7, 2010, in a unanimous decision, the United State Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit in Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., holding that relation back under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(C) depends on what the party to be added knew or should have known, not on the amending party's knowledge or timeliness in seeking to amend the pleading.

In Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A, Petitioner Krupski sought compensation for injuries she suffered while on a cruise.  Her passenger ticket, which was issued by Coast Cruise Lines and listed respondent Costa Crociere S.p.A. as the carrier. In addition, it required written notice of the claim to the carrier or its agent, required any lawsuit to be filed within one year of the injury and designated a specific federal district court as the exclusive forum for such suit. The front of the ticket listed Costa Cruise’s Florida address and made references to “Costa Cruises.”

After Krupski’s counsel notified Costa Cruise of her claims but did not reach a settlement, Krupski filed a diversity negligence action against Costa Cruise.   During the next few months the limitations period expired and after this limitations period had ended, Costa Cruise brought Costa Crociere's existence to Krupski's attention three times, including in its responsive pleading and a motion for summary judgment. 

Krupski responded and moved to amend her complaint to add Costa Crociere as a defendant. The district court allowed Krupski to amend her complaint and dismissed Costa Cruises.  Later the court dismissed Costa Crociere (who had the same attorney as Costa Cruises to represent its interests) on the basis that the amended complaint did not satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c), which governs when an amended pleading "relates back" to the date of a timely filed original pleading and is thus timely even though it was filed outside an applicable limitations period.

The Rule requires that within the Rule 4(m) 120-day period for service after a complaint is filed, the newly named defendant “knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against it, but for a mistake concerning the proper party’s identity.” Rule 15(c)(1)(C)(ii). The District Court found this condition pivotal to Krupski’s attempt to relate back. The District Court held that she had not made a mistake about the proper party’s identity because, although Costa Cruise had disclosed Costa Crociere’s role in several court filings, she nonetheless delayed for months filing an amended complaint. The Eleventh Circuit agreed, finding that Krupski either knew or should have known of Costa Crociere’s identity as a potential party because she furnished the ticket identifying it to her counsel well before the limitations period ended. It was therefore appropriate to treat her as
having chosen to sue one potential party over another. Moreover, the 11^th Circuit Court held that the relation back was not appropriate because of Krupski’s undue delay in seeking to amend the complaint.

The Supreme Court reversed the 11^th Circuit Court’s holding in a decision authored by Justice Sotomayor.  The Supreme Court found that Krupski made a mistake in failing to name Costa Crociere, despite being aware of its existence, and that her undue delay in amending the complaint has no bearing on whether the amended complaint relates back under Rule 15(c).  The language in Rule 15(c) results in a remarkable distinction with discretion offered under Rule 15(a), which does allow a court to consider delay in deciding whether to grant a motion to amend a pleading to add a party or a claim.  The question under 15(c) is what the prospective defendant reasonably should have understood about the plaintiff's intent in filing the original complaint against the first defendant.  The plaintiff's post-filing conduct is otherwise irrelevant to whether an amended complaint relates back.  Thus, The Supreme Court’s holding illustrates that the relation back under Rule 15(c)(1)(C) depends on what the party to be added knew or should have known, not on the amending party’s knowledge or timeliness in seeking to amend the pleading.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A California court recently held that an insurer had a duty to preserve an allegedly defective tire for use as evidence in the insured's product liability case.  Cooper v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 177 Cal.App.4th 876 (2009,  4th Dist., Div. 2).  Plaintiff Bryan Cooper, an insured of State Farm, was involved in a single car accident allegedly caused by tread separation of a tire.  State Farm acquired possession of the vehicle and tire after the claim was paid to Plaintiff.  State Farm's expert concluded that the tire was defectively manufactured.  State Farm notified plaintiff of its expert opinion and promised Plaintiff it would retain the tire.  Plaintiff sued the tire manufacturer.  Before Plaintiff's litigation against the manufacturer was resolved, State Farm disposed of the car and tire.

The appellate court held that Plaintiff could legally bring an action against State Farm for the destruction of the tire.  The court concluded that Plaintiff set forth a case because he relied on State Farm's promise to preserve the tire, the expert opinion created an inference that the tire was defective, and Plaintiff's damages could be reasonably ascertained.

California does not recognize an independent tort for intentional spoliation of evidence. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1, 74 Cal Rptr.2d 248 and Temple Community Hospital v. Superior Court (1999)20 Cal.4th 464, 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 852.  The Cooper court shows that an insurer may still be liable for destruction of evidence on theories of promissory estoppel or voluntary assumption of a duty.  In other words, the Court is not saying an insurer, in general, must preserve evidence.  But, it is saying that once the insurer promises to preserve evidence it may be liable for breaking that promise.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The fire loss involves your insured’s fireplace. The fire originally starts in the fireplace, but spreads to nearby combustibles, catching the structure on fire. Is there a subrogation case? 

Once a fireplace loss comes in, thorough analysis of the fireplace system needs to take place. Generally, fireplaces are masonry built of bricks, blocks, or stone and mortar. The other fireplace type is a light-weight metal chimney and metal firebox. Hybrids exist, so careful examination of the fireplace is necessary. Masonry fireplaces are massive structures. Due to their weight, settling or movement are common problems to be evaluated. Settling often occurs where the firebox meets the facing. Specifically, where the fire brick meets the facing. That weak spot can permit fire to travel to adjacent combustibles. Fireplace fires burn up to temperatures of 2,000 degrees, easily igniting inappropriately exposed combustibles. The firebox itself needs to be checked. The joints in the firebox expand and contract. Those need to be checked to insure that they did not fail, permitting the fire to escape.

Factory-built fireplaces are commonplace today. They have become readily available in the last 25 years.  Most are made of metal and are sold as complete systems with a specific chimney.  Installation manuals need to be obtained to make sure the original installation of these factory-built fireplaces was correct. Applicable codes insist that factory-built fireplaces be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications/listing. Clearances (usually two-inch air space) is required from nearby combustible framing. If the clearance is not correct, nearby wood will dry out over time and lower the ignition temperature of the adjacent combustible framing. Called pyrolysis, if this process continues unabated, a fire will likely result.

As to all fireplaces, what material was burned is important to determine. What was the quantity used? Was over-firing a contributing factor? Areas to be examined include but are not limited to the foundation, ash dump, hearth, firebox, lintel, damper, smoke shelf, smoke chamber, flashing, flue, crown, spark arrestor, and cap. Additionally, review sweep records on the fireplace. Was the fireplace maintained? When was the last sweep work done? What repairs have been made to the fireplace? Was the fireplace fireblocking done correctly? All these factors and others need to be properly evaluated to determine if a fireplace loss has subrogation potential.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The recent California Appellate Court decision of Interstate Fire & Casualty Insurance Company v. Cleveland Wrecking Company (2010) 182 Cal.App.4^th 23, illustrates that under the right circumstances, a liability insurer can subrogate against a third party to recover amounts paid to resolve a first party personal injury claim. The case involved a construction site personal injury claim by an employee of Subcontractor A. The employee filed a personal injury claim against General Contractor and Subcontractor B. Both Subcontractor A and Subcontractor B had contracts with General Contractor, requiring each subcontractor to defend and indemnify General Contractor for any claims arising out of the subcontractor’s operations, and required each subcontractor to name General Contractor as an additional insured under their general liability insurance policy. Subcontractor A procured the liability insurance and named General Contractor as an additional insured. Subcontractor B did not. General Contractor tendered its defense to both subcontractors. Subcontractor A and its insurer, Interstate, accepted the tender. Subcontractor B rejected the tender. Ultimately, General Contractor, through Interstate, as well as Subcontractor B, resolved their claims with the injured employee and filed good faith settlement motions approving the settlements which, under California law, barred any claims for equitable contribution. Thereafter, Interstate filed a subrogation action against Subcontractor B, claiming Subcontractor B breached its contract with Interstate’s additional insured, (General Contractor), by failing to defend and indemnify General Contractor for the claims brought by Subcontractor A’s employee. The trial court dismissed Interstate’s complaint determining Interstate had no rights of subrogation against Subcontractor B, as Subcontractor B’s alleged breach of the contract did not cause any damage to the General Contractor, and the good faith settlement barred any claims of negligence against Subcontractor B for causing the loss. 

The California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s ruling, holding that Interstate had a right of subrogation against Subcontractor B, based on Subcontractor B’s alleged breach of the indemnity provisions in the contract with General Contractor. The court acknowledged that the good faith settlement determination did, under California law, bar any equitable contribution claim based on the comparative negligence of Subcontractor B in causing the injury. However, the court held the contractual claim for indemnity survived the good faith settlement determination, and that Interstate, as the insurer, could step in the shoes of its insured, General Contractor, to pursue the claim. The court extensively reviewed and discussed many of California’s subrogation cases spanning the past 40 years and concluded that the equities of the insurer were superior to that of Subcontractor B, and that there was no basis to prevent the insurer from pursuing its claim for breach of the indemnity provisions within the contract. 

The lesson learned from the case is where a defendant or cross-defendant is not willing to contribute its fair share or acknowledge responsibility under a contractual indemnity agreement, a subsequent subrogation action against the non participating defendant may be a viable option. As the Interstate case illustrates, even if one of the defendants participates in the settlement, but fails to live up to all of its contractual responsibilities, a viable subrogation claim may exist, pending the provisions in the parties’ contracts, and the specific facts of the case.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link