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

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court Civil Procedural Rules Committee developed Recommendation 240 which would have amended Pa.R.C.P. 1020 to require that all claims arising from the same property loss be bought in a single action, even where there are different claimants with distinct damages.  This proposal would have overturned settled Pennsylvania appellate precedent.  Subrogation attorneys from Cozen O'Connor appeared before a committee of the Philadelphia Bar Association to voice opposition to this proposed rule change. It is of interest to note that the opposition we proffered on behalf of the subrogation community was echoed and expanded upon by representatives of the plaintiffs' personal injury bar, who also questioned the need for the proposed amendment.  All affected constituencies were united in their opposition to this unnecessary rule change, noting that there already are existing procedural mechanisms to allow parties to move for consolidation of related claims, or not, depending upon the circumstances of each case.

At this time, all reports we have received indicate that the Committee's proposal is being withdrawn.

We will continue to monitor carefully all aspects of this proposed amendment, and will report further as information becomes available.

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

Where the subrogating insurer and insured both have recovery claims and are competing for a limited amount of available money from a defendant, issues arise as to who is entitled to recovery, and/or how the recovery should be divided. These issues fall within the realm of the “made whole rule”, which generally provides, that under certain circumstances (i.e. limited assets of a wrongdoing defendant, non participation of the subrogating insurer in recovery lawsuit), the insured is entitled to be “made whole” for uninsured damages from the wrongdoing defendant, before the subrogating carrier can recover from the insured (via a lien or policy provisions) or from the defendant who caused the injury.

In a recent California Supreme Court decision involving med pay reimbursement, 21^st Century Insurance Company v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal. 4^th 511, 213 P. 3d 972, an insured attempted to expand the scope of the made whole rule by including the insured’s attorney’s fees as part of her uninsured loss, thereby eliminating the recovery of the subrogating carrier.   

21^st Century’s insured was injured in an automobile accident. 21^st Century paid the insured $1,000 under the med pay provisions of its automobile policy. The insured hired an attorney and pursed a personal injury claim against the third party who caused the accident. The case settled for $6,000, which comprised her total damages. The insured’s attorney received a fee approximating $2,000, leaving a net recovery of $4,000. 21^st Century requested reimbursement of $1,000.  The insured argued that because her damages, including attorney’s fees, were $8,000, and her recovery was only $6,000, no reimbursement to 21^st Century was required. Thus, the question before the court was whether “made whole” included the attorney’s fees incurred by the insured.

After reviewing cases in other states and noting states are divided on the issue, the Court ruled in favor of 21^st Century, concluding that attorney’s fees should not be included as part of the insured’s damages for purposes of determining whether the insured has been made whole in med pay reimbursement cases.  Instead, the “common fund doctrine” allows the insured to reduce the amount of reimbursement to the insurer by a pro rata share of the insured’s costs and attorney’s fees. In that manner, both the insured and insurer share in the cost of recovery in proportion to their respective recoveries. The end result of the court’s decision allowed reimbursement to the insurer of $600, representing the insurer’s $1,000 payment, less its 1/6^th pro rata share of attorney’s fees and costs.

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

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

New York Governor Paterson signed into law New York State Bill A40002, which amends CPLR 4545, New York's Collateral Source Rule.  The bill has many aspects, some of which relate to municipal health benefit plans which are not directly germane to subrogation concerns.  From a subrogation perspective, the bill both maintains existing restrictive language concerning subrogation rights, and further tightens the grounds upon which reimbursement may be obtained.

The pertinent section of the bill references "Any Action Brought To Recover Damages For Personal Injury, Injury To Property Or Wrongful Death…."   It then provides for "limitation of non-statutory reimbursement and subrogation claims in personal injury and wrongful death actions."  This section states that it shall be conclusively presumed that any settlement in a personal injury or wrongful death action does not include any compensation for the cost of healthcare services, loss of earnings or other economic loss to the extent they have been or will be reimbursed by a collateral source payer.  The only exception is when there is a right of reimbursement or subrogation that is statutorily established.

The Act does not purport to restrict rights of subrogation for property damage claims, notwithstanding the somewhat misleading reference to actions for "Injury To Property" in one of the headings.  Indeed, two separate memorandum prepared by bill sponsors explicitly stated that the bill is not applicable to property damage subrogation claims.  The bill was passed as a "program bill," with a truncated memorandum which did not contain this language, but the pertinent memoranda still comprise part of the relevant legislative history for this bill, to the extent any unfounded arguments are made regarding the intended application and scope of this bill.  We shortly will be posting one or both of the sponsor memos with this clear language.

Stay tuned for further developments regarding potential anti-subrogation legislation in other jurisdictions.

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

The Economic Loss Doctrine may bar tort claims when a defective product causes injury only to the product itself and not to other property or persons. In many jurisdictions there are exceptions to the doctrine, including when the damage is caused by a “sudden calamitous event.”Recently, the Supreme Court of Tennessee considered the application of this exception.

In Lincoln General Ins. Co. v. Detroit Diesel Corp., a bus caught fire due to an allegedly defective engine. The fire did not cause personal injuries or property damage to anything other than the bus. The subrogating insurer argued that the economic loss doctrine should not bar a products liability claim because the harm was caused by a “sudden calamitous event.” The court rejected the exception, instead following a “bright line rule” completely barring tort claims when a product causes damage only to itself.  The court reasoned that certain products “expose a product owner to an unreasonable risk of injury during an abrupt and disastrous occurrence" while others "merely disappoint a product owner’s expectations.”  The court explained that it would be difficult for parties and courts to apply a rule that focuses on the degree of risk and the manner in which the product was damaged, as opposed to a rule that hinges on the harm a plaintiff actually sustains.

Despite Tennessee's reluctance to carve out an exception, many states have successfully modified the application of the Economic Loss Rule by:

1. Creating component part exceptions. (California)
2. Confining the doctrine to products liability or very similar situations. (Florida);
3. Statutorily providing for new home warranty laws against construction defects.(Connecticut, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, and Virginia);
4. Statutorily providing for notice and right to repair and associated actions (California, Nevada);
5. Finding that builders have a duty in tort to act without negligence in the construction of residences (Colorado, South Carolina), or
6. Recognizing exceptions, such as an independent duties (Utah, Colorado), special relationships or foreseeability of plaintiff (Alaska, Delaware, West Virginia).

The Economic Loss Doctrine varies in its application from state to state.  If you have a large loss involving a product, it is prudent to review your jurisdiction’s interpretation of the doctrine, and exceptions to the same, prior to embarking on recovery efforts.

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

On June 15, 2009, a special panel on multidistrict litigation ordered 10 federal cases involving liability for allegedly defective Chinese manufactured drywall consolidated in the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Louisiana with Judge Eldon E. Fallon. It was also ordered that another 67 liability actions involving allegedly defective Chinese manufactured drywall pending in other federal districts, and any other related state or federal action, be treated as potential tag-along actions and consolidated in the same court.

This procedure, referred to as multidistrict litigation, is utilized in the federal court system to consolidate pending federal and state civil cases filed throughout the United States with common questions of fact. The consolidation allows one federal judge to manage, among other things, pretrial procedures, discovery, and dispositive motions. However, after all discovery and pretrial rulings, if issues remain to be tried, the case will be remanded back to the court where it was originally filed for trial.

Judge Fallon has entered a number of orders in the Chinese drywall multi-district litigation. One of interest was entered on October 9, 2009, as Pretrial Order No. 1(B). In that order, Judge Fallon sets forth the duties and obligations for the preservation of physical evidence that must be followed by all individuals in all jurisdictions.

In summary, all individuals and entities who have or intend to pursue claims relating to allegedly defective Chinese manufactured drywall must preserve certain portions of the defective drywall and the damaged property at their own expense. Parties are required to preserve multiple samples of the drywall, drywall end tape, HVAC coil material samples, plumbing component samples, electrical component samples, and other damaged property. All evidence must be photographed or videotaped. Photographs of the evidence should be taken before and after it is removed from the property and documented on a floor plan. Thereafter, all preserved evidence must be individually stored in double-bagged polyethylene zip-lock bags. The samples must be clearly labeled on the outside of one plastic bag and then placed inside the second plastic bag. The label should include the name and address of the property, the date the samples were taken, the type of evidence, and the location where the item was taken from within the property. Finally, the evidence must be stored in a reasonably climate controlled location and free of water or moisture. 

The preservation of evidence is key to any claim involving damage to property. As such, anyone pursuing or intending to pursue a claim for damage caused by allegedly defective drywall should read and strictly comply with Pretrial Order No. 1(B).

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

“Dangerous and generally a fruitless occupation.”- Justice Akenhead

No, Justice Akenhead was not talking about being a lawyer, but stating that it is inappropriate to rank possible causes of a fire in terms of probability in order to select the most probable. 

In Fosse Motor Engineers Ltd v Conde Nast (2008), Fosse, the owner of a warehouse, asserted negligence against its tenant and an employment agency that supplied workers in the building for that tenant. A fire occurred at the warehouse when only the workers and a security guard were present. Expert evidence could not identify which of several possible causes led to the fire. The possible causes were: a cigarette discarded by either Fosse’s employees or the agency workers; an electrical fault; or arson by an intruder. Fosse claimed the fire was caused by one of the agency workers carelessly discarding a cigarette or, if it was an intruder, because a door had been left open by the agency workers allowing the intruder access.

The Judge held that although the Court might eliminate all but one of the causes of the fire, it still had to decide that the remaining cause was the most probable. The judge accepted the evidence of the agency workers that the fire was not caused by their actions and discounted the electrical cause as being improbable. That left either someone working earlier or an intruder (entering before the agency workers). The Judge found that as it was not possible, on the balance of probabilities, to determine which of the two remaining feasible scenarios was the cause, Fosse had failed to prove its case.

What’s all the Fosse about?

Fosse provides a reminder that in England & Wales the burden rests upon the claimant to overcome the evidential burden. In some respects the fact that the Judge did not choose to decide between (what he regarded as) the remaining feasible causes was academic since, in either scenario, Fosse would not have been successful. However, the fact that the Judge chose not to decide may be useful in defending claims where the exact circumstances that gave rise to the allegation are unclear: It is therefore always worthwhile looking into causation issues with a critical eye. 

In Drake v Harbour (2008), the lack of proof of an exact cause did not prevent recovery. The claimant engaged the defendant electrician to rewire her home. She was away from the property during the work when a fire started in the loft where Harbour had been working. The Court of Appeal held that the fact that the claimant was unable to demonstrate the precise mechanism that led to the fire was not a bar to recovery; if a claimant proved that a defendant was negligent and a loss was caused that was of a kind likely to have resulted from such negligence, that would ordinarily be enough to infer that it was probably so caused. Further, as Harbour was suggesting that it was not his negligence that caused the fire, then it was his burden to suggest what the probable cause was, and to properly plead it.

Harbouring doubts?

Drake suggests that where negligence can be established you do not necessarily have to show the precise mechanism as an English Court might infer that it was the defendant's negligence that caused the loss; the onus then shifting to the defendant to prove that alternative causes are at least “as likely”.

Causation considerations
These two cases highlight the importance of considering the cogency of the factual (and expert) evidence in proceedings. Drake suggests that even if you don't know the precise mechanism, if you can show that the likely causes all would have emanated from the negligence of a specified person, that suffices. If an English Court can be satisfied that a party was negligent it may not always be necessary to show the most likely cause. In Fosse, though, because the causes may have had different culprits, and because negligence could not necessarily be shown, the causation hurdle could not be overcome.

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