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

On December 1, 2010, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 will be amended to exempt draft expert reports and certain categories of attorney/expert communication from discovery. In practice, this amendment will liberalize the communications your attorney can have with your testifying expert and reduce expenses that are incurred to comply with the Rule as it is currently written.

Current Rule
Under the current version of Rule 26, along with a written expert report a party must disclose “the data or other information considered by the witness in forming [his opinions]”. That “other information” would essentially be everything the expert read, looked at, or wrote down. Practically speaking, parties go to great lengths to conduct phone conferences with their testifying experts so nothing will be put in writing. In many cases a party will hire separate “consulting only” experts to assist in development of case theories. As written, the Rule has become a situation of form over substance.

Amended Rule
The amendment to Rule 26 requires that only the “facts and data considered by the witness” is discoverable. The Rules Committee has specifically stated that a primary purpose of the amendment is to extend the work-product privilege to draft expert reports. It will also allow for more natural communication between attorney and expert.[1] Under the amended rule, an attorney and expert will be able to speak and email much more freely about the development of the case and craft a report that truly captures the substance of the expert’s opinions.

In Subrogation Practice
In a subrogation case, experts are widely used. Expert reports are often prepared early on so the handling adjuster has something in writing for the file. Under the current Rule, the problem with the pre-litigation expert report is that as new or additional facts are developed through discovery, the report becomes obsolete or even incorrect. It is always challenging to receive a case with good subrogation potential but a poor expert report. You are forced to either hire a new expert (who likely will not have the benefit of firsthand information gathered when the loss was fresh) or produce the damaging report. Discovery of the early draft provides an opportunity for opposing counsel to impugn the credibility of your expert in deposition or trial. The Rule as amended can add value to an otherwise strong subrogation case, as well as save expenses by not having to jump through hoops to comply with the Rule as it is currently written.

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

The subrogating carrier of a unit owner or condominium association to pursue subrogation against another condominium unit owner, renter and/or member of the household of the unit varies by jurisdiction. 

Unlike most jurisdictions, the state of Missouri utilizes a statute which requires policies covering condominium properties to waive subrogation against unit owners and members of their household.  The reasoning behind the statute is that the property insurance premium on the building and common areas paid by and through the association, which is funded by the assessment monies of the unit owners, all of whom have an ownership interest in the common elements.  Therefore, the association members all benefit from the insurance protection on the common elements versus the individual protection afforded on personal condominium property or contents and on the use of the property by and through a separate condominium policy issued to a unit owner.  From this statute, policies issued to condominium associations in Missouri now commonly contain a “Condominium Association Coverage Endorsement,” which essentially precludes carriers from recoveries against a unit owner and/or its liability policy.  In fact, the endorsement trumps the terms of the condominium by-laws, regulations and building rules, which were traditionally documents that dictated subrogation opportunities under these circumstances. 

Despite the statute, subrogation may still be viable in Missouri when presented with similar facts.  In a different coverage scenario, where a property insurance carrier has provided separate condominium coverage to a unit owner, successful recovery efforts have been achieved in Missouri as to the unit owner’s loss of personal property and as to the loss of the use of the property.  In these cases, successful arguments have been made that the statute does not apply because (1) there is no joint interest in the insured property of a separate owner against another owner and (2) there is no sharing of the risk.  This model remains a viable avenue to pursue in Missouri by subrogated carriers when the insured is a unit owner, and many policies of insurance include arbitration clauses or provisions that facilitate the adjudication of these claims under this particular setting.

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

You have a fire loss at a commercial premise, and the insured's tenant is clearly at fault for the same. Is there subrogation?  Not so fast, preparing that demand or settlement brief may be premature as there may be language in the lease precluding subrogation against the tenant. In a trilogy of cases, the Supreme Court of Canada set forth the legal principles which may act to bar a subrogated claim in the context of a commercial tenancy. In Cummer-Yonge Investments Ltd. v. Agnew Surpass Shoe Stores Ltd., [1976] 2 S.C.R. 221 and Smith v. T. Eaton Co., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 749, the subject leases contained a covenant from the landlord to insure the property against loss from fire. The Supreme Court of Canada held that the covenant established that the landlord had intended to eliminate any right of action against the tenant. Since the insurer is in no better position than the insured as against the third party, the subrogated claim was dismissed. In Ross Southwood Tire Ltd. v. Pyrotech Products Ltd., [1976] 2 S.C.R. 35, the lease required the tenant to pay part of the cost of the property insurance secured by the landlord. The Supreme Court of Canada held that since the tenant contributed to the cost of the policy, the landlord and tenant were essentially joint insureds and the subrogated claim could not proceed.

The above cases demonstrate that it is critical to review the underlying lease prior to advancing the claim. Although the presence of a covenant to insure or contribute to insurance may result to bar the claim, the existence of the same only creates an inference of a waiver of subrogation which may be rebutted based on the wording contained in the other parts of the lease.  For instance, the following factors may assist in a finding against a waiver:
 

- a mere agreement to insure versus an actual covenant to insure

- the loss may not have been a peril sought to be covered under the subject policy

- deductibles or self insured retentions may not be barred

- the requirement of a cross liability clause in the tenant's liability policy

- an express versus an implied covenant

- the existence of an "entire agreement clause" in the lease

The above list is not exhaustive but illustrates that there are several factors which the Canadian courts may consider in determining whether a bar to subrogation exists. An early review of the lease ensures that time and costs are not needlessly expended on a clearly barred claim.

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

PTAC fires are causing a recent stir in apartment complexes and hotels. What is a PTAC, you ask? PTAC's are Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners/Heat Pumps. They are self contained machines installed through the wall with a sub unit for each room, which can be controlled independently. The units normally have the ability to heat as well as cool.

In December 2009, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission recalled about 30,000 Amana-brand, Comfort-Aire, and Century-brand PTAC units manufactured by Goodman Manufacturing. The recall covers units manufactured from February 2007 to April 2008.

According to the recall, the problem with the units appears to be overheating where the power cord connects to the power supply, causing a burn or fire hazard.  However, due to the relative newness of these fires, the specific problem is still unclear and a case-by-case evaluation should be employed. The power cords are manufactured by Tower Manufacturing, a U.S. Corporation. The circuit boards are manufactured by Everex Communications, also U.S. based. 

Goodman has also implemented a voluntary corrective action program (“CAP”) in which they provide new replacement power cords for the recalled units. However, it has been reported that these replacement cords have also been subject to failures/fires. With 30,000 units subject to the recall, and the potential of the corrective action program being unsuccessful, there will likely be more subrogation opportunities with fires involving PTACs.  

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

On July 29, 2010, the California Court of Appeals, Fifth District, held that an insurer waived its right to equitable subrogation when it entered into a settlement without identifying its insured or apportioning payment.  The case arose from a complicated personal injury action, causing the trial court to comment that "this is one of the most screwed up cases I've ever seen."  The court of appeals responded that  "we heartily agree."

Essex Insurance Company had defended a personal injury action on behalf of the individual who had hired the plaintiff.  That plaintiff was injured when he stepped on a nail while moving a refrigeration unit in a restaurant.  After making payment to the plaintiff, Essex sought recovery from a doctor whose alleged malpractice had resulted in plaintiff suffering two amputations.  The court of appeal denied Essex equitable subrogation, explaining that it only had the right to assert claims for monies paid out on behalf of its insured.  Since Essex failed to spell out the amounts paid on behalf of its insured, as opposed to payments on related claims, the court found that neither equitable subrogation nor indemnification were available.

The lesson of the Essex case is simple.  In order to preserve equitable subrogation and/or indemnity rights, the insurer must carefully craft all settlement documents and releases.  The court will not attempt to glean what amounts are made on behalf of the insured, as opposed to bad faith or fraud claims.  The Essex case reiterates the most basic tenet of subrogation-you can only stand in the shoes of your insured for payments made on its behalf.   

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

The old saying “the devil is in the details” has particular application when trying to prove a contents claim to opposing counsel or at trial. Insurance policies provide for actual cash value and replacement cost value and, with limited exceptions, the law provides for cost to repair or replace unless it exceeds fair market value. A typical claim will usually involve hundreds of individuals items purchased over a number of years that all have to be accounted for and properly priced.

Normally the homeowner, alone or with the help of a public adjuster, compiles a list and hopefully provides the relevant information relating to the item, purchase date, price, condition before the loss, and condition after the loss. The company or independent adjuster will have checked that list or prepared his or her own list. In some cases, however, all of the information may not have been obtained originally or the other side disputes one or more of the above.

While outside help may not be possible for several of the items above because that knowledge belongs exclusively to the insured, there are certain resources to consider which may assist in supporting a contents claim: (1) online data bases of historical products; (2) information from national retailers, internet participants, and distributors; (3) a highly specialized evaluation team; and (4) the ability to have multiple specialists simultaneously on a claim.  The list is not exhaustive, but may assist in ascertaining values for hard to find items and, ultimately, proving that the claim being submitted is reasonable.

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

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

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

The Third District Court of Appeal of Florida recently brought us closer to clarity on Florida's approach to when a landlord's insurer can sue a tenant.  State Farm of Florida Ins. Co. v. Loo, 2010 WL 445945 (Fla. 3d DCA Feb. 10, 2010).  For the most part, jurisdictions adopt one of three approaches in this context:

                (1) The Sutton Approach ("Anti-Subrogation Rule"): Under this approach, a jurisdiction adopts a bright-line rule barring a landlord's insurer from bringing a subrogation case on the ground that the tenant is deemed an "implied co-insured." Thus, an insurer may not subrogate against its own insured.  The policy behind this approach is that "when fire insurance is provided for a dwelling it protects the insurable interests of all joint owners including the possessory interests of a tenant absent an agreement by the latter to the contrary." Sutton v. Johndahl, 532 P.2d 478 (Ct. App. Ok. 1975). This is the majority rule.

                (2) The Anti-Sutton Approach: The converse of the Sutton Approach is the order of the day in these jurisdictions.  Essentially, absent an express or implied agreement to the contrary, these jurisdictions presume subrogation is permissible. This is the minority rule.

                (3) The Case-by-Case Approach: This is an approach that places great emphasis on the lease provisions in order to determine the intent of the parties as to which party should bear the risk of loss.  This is often referred to as a "middle of the road" approach.

Until recently, it was unclear which of these approaches Florida was applying.  Even today, the Florida Supreme Court has not formally adopted or rejected any.  Instead, the approach in Florida has evolved from a number of different decisions from various Appellate Courts.  The first attempt made to articulate this doctrine came in 1980 when the Third District Court of Appeal held that "a limitation of liability for one's negligent acts cannot be inferred unless such intention is expressed in unequivocal terms."  Tout v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 390 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).  Two subsequent cases revealed an evolution in Florida toward Sutton without a specific adoption of the approach.  See, gen., U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Norlin Indus., Inc., 428 So.2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Continental Ins. Co. v. Kennerson, 861 So.2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). 

However, the evolution toward Sutton was halted in Loo, supra.  Without overturning Tout or its progeny, the Court in Loo formally adopted the case-by-case approach pointing out that the Tout line of cases looked to the lease provisions to determine the intent of the parties as to who should bear the risk of loss.  In sum, for subrogation against a tenant to proceed, the lease must not contain "unequivocal terms" that the tenant is a co-insured.  Unequivocal terms are those that either (1) exculpate the tenant from liability for its own negligence, (2) require the landlord to maintain insurance for the benefit of the tenant, or (3) shift any risk of loss incurred as the result of the tenant's negligence to the landlord.

Perhaps one day the Supreme Court of Florida will weigh in on this issue with a formal adoption or rejection of one of the three approaches.  Until that day, subrogation against a tenant will be guided by the lease document's unequivocal (or lack thereof) articulation of the intent of the parties as to risk of loss.

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

Mutual consent and court ordered mediation is becoming more prevalent as a means to resolve matters in conflict as litigation costs escalate and court calendars suffer from over-crowding, greater demand and budgetary constraints. While mediation is a valuable forum to access for all parties, there are specific areas which are often overlooked in preparing a matter for presentation and discussion in this type of forum.

Selection of Your Mediator

What has escaped many litigators and companies in the artful practice of mediation is a full and comprehensive examination of the mediator involved in the process. Some of the most prominent aspects that should be examined with regard to choosing a mediator are as follows:

Background of the Mediator

1.         Does the mediator have sufficient or significant exposure or knowledge of the area or matter of the litigation?

2.         Does the mediator have an employment, education or cultural bias which prejudices or taints his or her viewpoint to either of the parties?

Character Aspects of the Mediator

1.         Is the Mediator passive or aggressive in his or her approach to mediation;

2.         Does the Mediator participate in the respective factual patterns of the parties or in the process of mediation?

Key Element for Choosing a Mediator

Litigation history has shown lawyers and their clients that the best mediators involve themselves in the process of bringing resolution of the parties through the parties. A key mistake often made by mediators is advancement of their personal knowledge to educate the parties during mutual or separate sessions. For example, for a mediator to advance their personal experience or knowledge of "adjustment of damages" in a subrogation case can often tip either party to ideas or legal concepts which were not previously part of their reasoning towards resolution. Hence, a mediator who introduces ideas, knowledge or ideas to either party can otherwise distort the process of mediation which ultimately is designed for the parties to facilitate through their own devices, a solution to their conflict.

In looking towards mediation as an integral part of the litigation process, it is vital for the participants to fully examine the "third party neutral" to insure that the process is fully respected for its aims and ideals.

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

Have you ever experienced the following all-too-common frustrating subrogation scenario:  Your cause and origin expert determines that a fire started from a particular product but, after destructive examination of the product, your engineer is unable to identify the defect which caused the product to fail.  Even though you cannot identify the specific defect, you are not necessarily out of luck. 

Courts in a number of states have long recognized that fires destroy direct physical evidence of a defect and therefore allow the product defect case to be presented with circumstantial evidence via a Malfunction Theory.  Under the Malfunction Theory, if one can prove the following elements then a  product liability claim still may exist:

1) The product is only a few years old;

2) The fire started inside the product;

3) Alternative ignition sources have been eliminated as a potential cause of the fire;

4) Your expert can explain how the product "could" have caused the fire even though the exact cause is unknown; and

5) The product was not misused. Often you can prove that the product was not misused if the fire started in an area where the insured did not have access to misuse it, i.e., the motor area of a microwave, the compressor area of a refrigerator, etc.  However, even if the insured had access to the area of the product where the fire occurred, you can still circumvent the misuse element by showing that the insured actually did not access this area or the insured's access of the area of origin was unrelated to the fire. 

The next time a product causes a fire, but the specific defect cannot be identified, do not rush to close the file.  Instead, check to see if your jurisdiction recognizes the Malfunction Theory.  If so, it could turn your dead-end products claim into a functional theory of liability. 

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

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

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently explained the limited applicability of California’s “made-whole” rule which may preclude an insurer from recovering any third party funds unless and until the insured has been made whole for the loss. 

In Chandler v. State Farm Mutual, the court opined that “an insurer is permitted to recoup a payout from a third-party tortfeasor’s insurance company before the insured has sued the third-party tortfeasor, and without first making the insured whole.” A two-party automobile accident provided the factual background for the court’s decision. The subrogating carrier's insured’s car sustained damages after another driver rear-ended the vehicle. As a result of the accident, the insured incurred $317.45 in rental car expenses while his car underwent repairs. The subrogating carrier paid 80% of these rental car expenses as required by the insurance policy, leaving its insured with $63.49 in out-of-pocket expenses.

After its payment, the carrier exercised its subrogation rights and settled with the third-party tortfeasor’s insurer. Subsequently, the insured requested reimbursement from the tortfeasor’s insurer for his $63.49 in out-of-pocket expenses, which that insurer rejected. Then, the insured sought to recover his out-of-pocket expenses from his own insurance (subrogating) carrier, which was also denied because the carrier had paid the full amount due under the policy.  After additional benefits were denied, the insured initiated an action against his insurance carrier claiming violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, conversion, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief. As the court noted, all of the claims essentially hinged on the applicability of the "made-whole" rule.

The court rejected each of the insured’s arguments and dismissed all claims against the insurance carrier because the "made-whole" rule did not apply. The court’s reasoning supported the policy considerations for both subrogation and the made-whole rule. First, where the insured has not yet sought to recover from the third-party tortfeasor, nothing indicates that the insured will not be made whole if he decides to initiate a suit. Moreover, allowing the insurer to subrogate furthers the fundamental purpose of subrogation: to hold third-party tortfeasors accountable for the injuries they inflict. If a carrier could not immediately subrogate, as the court explained, this purpose would be frustrated and the risk of loss would be placed on the insurer whenever the insured does not attempt to recover from the third-party tortfeasor. Finally, if an insurer was required to make its insured whole before subrogating against potentially responsible third-parties, it would remove the insured's incentive to pursue its claims and would obligate the insurer to pay for more than the express terms of the insurance policy require.

Based on the court’s conclusion and reasoning, an insured’s failure to bring its own action does not prevent the insurer from subrogating to the insured’s claim before the insured has been made whole. The court’s holding bolsters a subrogating carrier’s argument that subrogation rights may be exercised immediately upon payment and cannot be prejudiced by an insured’s inaction.

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

Legal reform is slowly but surely sweeping Mexico’s legal system. Mexico’s centuries-old legal system is being transformed into a system where oral trials will be publicly presented to the assigned judge. This new system will require judges to hear evidence orally, instead of through written briefs and memorandum.  The oral system will allow more transparency and accountability to the judges who have traditionally rendered their decisions without much public scrutiny.

Subrogation cases will greatly benefit from the new oral system, where the complexity of fire burn patterns, spread issues, and other scientifically technical evidence will be better explained through expert witnesses testifying before the judge in order to present their opinions. This will truly provide a refreshing dimension to litigating subrogation cases throughout Mexico.  

This new system is expected to be fully implemented throughout Mexico’s 31 states by 2016. So far, Chihuahua, Nuevo Leon, Oaxaca, Zacatecas, State of Mexico, and Baja California, have already began to have oral trials. Slowly but surely, the rest of the country will implement this new system that is expected to bring renewed confidence to Mexico’s legal system. 

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

Subrogation cases are often won, and lost, within the first few days of the incident.  Consider employing the following steps to maximize your recovery potential:

1. Get an attorney and experts involved immediately.  If possible, have your attorney involved from the start.  This gives the attorney an opportunity to inspect the scene, secure evidence and interview witnesses. Your attorney should also know what experts are needed based on the facts of the loss. Further, your attorney should know how these experts perform at deposition and in trial. 

2. Keep the accident scene intact - as long as possible.  Do not order the bulldozer in right away, or start debris cleanup, until your expert and attorney have had a chance to assess the scene and determine what possible target defendants may exist.

3. Balance cleanup efforts with the investigation.  It is important to make sure that the damaged property gets back on its feet right away. However, when feasible, try and provide a reasonable time period for experts and potentially responsible parties to inspect the accident scene.

4. Put the target defendants on notice right away. When possible, give target defendants an opportunity to inspect the scene in its original condition.  This may assist in avoiding spoliation arguments down the road.

5. Preserve the evidence.  Do not throw anything away.  Allow your experts and/or your attorney to inspect the scene and determine what to preserve.  If in doubt as to whether to store a piece of evidence or dispose of it, err on the side of caution and store it.

By following these simple steps you will be ahead of the curve and well on your way to maximizing recovery for your subrogation claim.

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

Colorado's legislature is considering passing a bill that would limit subrogation in personal injury cases.  House Bill 10-1186 is aimed at situations where the insured would not be made whole if the insurer was allowed to recover its payments through subrogation.  In other words, if there is a limited pool of money to go around, the insured needs to be fully compensated before the insurer can recover its payments.  If the bill is passed into law, an insurer would be prohibited from bringing a direct subrogation action against a third party if the insured was not fully compensated for his or her damages by the policy.  

As drafted, the proposed bill seems only to apply to personal injury and health care cases and does not include property damage cases.  Specifically, the bill defines an injured party in pertinent part as "a person who has sustained bodily injury as the result of the act or omission of a third party."  If passed, the bill would prohibit an insurer from recovering payments, either directly or from the insured, if the insured has not been fully compensated for his personal injuries. 

The bill was introduced in January 2010 and is currently with the Judiciary Committee.  Cozen O'Connor attorneys, along with lobbyists for other interested parties, recently met with the sponsors of the bill seeking modifications to the proposed language specifying that the bill only deals with health care matters.  The bill's future can be monitored at this blog or the Colorado legislature's website.

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

The Oregon Court of Appeals once again affirmed the viability of negligent construction claims while delivering another blow to the Economic Loss Doctrine.  In Cowan v. Nordyke, 232 Or.App. 384 (2009), plaintiff purchased a home from a Professional Home Designer (PHD).*  Of course, the home was not without problems, including water intrusion.  Plaintiff filed suit against the PHD claiming negligent design of the home and that the PHD's conduct fell below the standard of care for a reasonably prudent professional home designer.  The PHD’s motion for summary judgment was granted as Oregon does not recognize a tort for "professional negligence" by a PHD.  After attempts to amend the complaint to allege general negligence proved unsuccessful, plaintiff filed an appeal. 
While the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed that Oregon does not recognize "professional negligence" by a PHD, it reversed on the issue of allowing a claim against a PHD for general negligence. In reaching its decision, the Court explained that Oregon deviates from traditional negligence concepts of "duty, breach and causation."  In Oregon, liability rests on whether the defendant's conduct unreasonably created a foreseeable risk of harm to the plaintiff.  Foreseeability applies unless the parties invoke a "status, relationship, or particular standard of conduct that limits the defendant's duty."  Here, the PHD argued that the foreseeability standard did not apply because its duty to plaintiff was defined and limited by its status as an unlicensed contractor and an "owner builder," rather than a "builder-vendor."  The PHD further contended that there were adequate contractual protections for plaintiff and that it need only disclose that it built the house and to disclose known defects.  The court was not swayed and correctly held that that being an unlicensed contractor did not provide a shield to limit liability.  The Court reasoned that a jury can determine whether damages sustained by a plaintiff are reasonably foreseeable.  With regard to contractual protections and the disclosure of defects, the Court agreed that the required disclosure might provide sufficient protection for known defects.  However, the Court recognized that not all latent defects "come to light" while the builder occupies the home.  Therefore contractual disclosure is not an adequate substitute for holding a builder liable under the general negligence standard.

Oregon continues to recognize negligent construction claims grounded in general negligence.  As Oregon continues to recognize negligence in this context, it further erodes the Economic Loss Doctrine.  See also Bunnell v. Dalton Construction, Inc. (2006 (water damage to interior not economic loss) and Harris v. Suniga (2006) (damage to physical structures is not economic loss).
____________________________________________________________________________________________
* A Professional Building Designer specializes in designing light-frame buildings such as single family homes and agricultural buildings.  Unlike architects, Professional Building Designers are not legally required to pass exams or receive special licenses. 

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

The California Supreme Court in the case of Randall v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, 2009 DJD 16727 upheld the attorney-client privilege set forth in Evidence Code §954. The privilege attaches to any legal advice given in the course of an attorney-client relationship, regardless if the communication contains unprivileged material.

Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Costco”), retained counsel to provide legal advice regarding whether certain Costco warehouse managers in California were exempt from California’s wage and overtime laws. Counsel undertook this assignment and provided an opinion letter to Costco on the issue.

Several years later, Costco employees filed a class action against Costco, claiming that from 1999 through 2001, Costco had misclassified some of its managers as “exempt” employees and therefore had failed to pay them the overtime wages they were due as non-exempt employees. During the course of the litigation, plaintiffs sought to compel discovery of the opinion letter prepared by Costco’s counsel. Costco objected on the grounds that the letter was subject to the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. Plaintiffs disagreed, arguing that the letter contained unprivileged matter and that Costco had placed the contents of the letter in issue, thereby waiving the privilege.

The Supreme Court held that the attorney-client privilege attached to the letter in its entirety, irrespective of the letter’s content. Further, Evidence Code §915 prohibits disclosure of the information claimed to be privileged as a confidential communication between attorney and client “in order to rule on the claim of privilege.” In addition, the Court found that a party seeking relief from a discovery order that wrongfully invades the attorney-client relationship need not also establish that its case will be harmed by disclosure of the evidence.

The holding bolsters a subrogating carrier's argument that correspondence from its counsel which includes facts and opinions about a loss, recovery potential, site inspections and conversations with witnesses are protected by the attorney-client privilege. 

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

In Fireman’s Insurance Company v. Fire-Free Chimney Sweeps, Inc.,[1] the Court permitted a chimney sweep to pursue a contribution claim against the unit owner whose actions caused or contributed the fire. The chimney sweep, a defendant in the related subrogation action bought by the condominium association's insurer, filed a contribution claim against the unit owner where the fire started. The unit owner argued that he could not be directly liable to the condominium association or any of the individual unit owners pursuant to provisions in the condominium documents and his status as an additional insured under the condominium association’s policy. Therefore, he claimed that he could not be liable for contribution. However, the Court concluded that since the chimney sweep was a stranger to the contract documents, they were not a basis to restrict the chimney sweep’s right of contribution pursuant to the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasor’s Act. The Court noted that the proper question was not whether the chimney sweep and the unit owner were jointly and severally liable to the association and its insurer but, rather, whether they each performed some act that injured the association itself. 

The decision confirms that in proper circumstances a party protected by a waiver of subrogation may still be liable for damages caused by its negligent acts via a contribution cause of action.

[1] This opinion is yet unpublished. It is identified as Delaware Civil Action No. 07C-06-287-JOH

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

Cozen O’Connor attorneys successfully argued in the Delaware Superior Court that the adoption of a National Fire Protection Association standard by an administrative agency defined the standard of care for work performed by a chimney sweep. The Court accepted the argument advanced on behalf of a subrogating insurance carrier for a condominium association that a chimney sweep hired by the association to “clean and inspect” chimney flues was required to perform a full Level 1 inspection of the entire chimney and fireplace systems pursuant to NFPA 211. 

In Fireman’s Insurance Company v. Fire-Free Chimney Sweeps, Inc.,[1] the Court denied a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by a chimney sweep company. It claimed that its contract with a condominium association to “clean and inspect” chimneys and flues for the individual fireplaces in the condominium complex did not create any duty on the part of the chimney sweep to inspect the fireplaces connected to the chimneys. The Court found that NFPA 211, the standard relied upon by the plaintiff, required the chimney sweep to perform a full “Level 1” inspection which involves an evaluation of the chimney, flue and all appliances, including the fireplaces, that were attached to the chimney. 

The chimney sweep was hired by the association to clean and inspect the chimneys that were utilized by the 294 unit owners in the condominium complex. NFPA 211 mandates cleaning of chimneys and flues, including the evaluation of the appliance which is attached to the chimney, in order to insure that the entire system is safe and operational. One of the unit owners had replaced the original fireplace doors with an after-market set of doors which effectively blocked the flow of air around the prefabricated fireplace. This prevented the fireplace from properly cooling while it was in operation and resulted in the ignition of combustible wood members surrounding the fireplace. The after-market doors had been installed by this unit owner prior to the time that the chimney sweep company performed its cleaning and inspection. 

Plaintiff argued that had a full and complete Level 1 inspection been performed, the chimney sweep would have detected the fire hazard created by the after-market doors and should have provided warnings to the unit owner and condominium complex that the doors should be replaced in order to prevent fires.  The chimney sweep argued that its duty was limited to properly cleaning  and inspecting the flues. It asserted that since it had no access to the individual units it could not be responsible for the condition of the fireplaces in those units that it did not access. It did offer to inspect individual unit owner’s fireplaces for an additional charge of $40. Only a few of the unit owners availed themselves of this offer. 

The Court concluded that once a chimney sweep undertakes an inspection encompassed within the NFPA 211 standard, it has an absolute obligation to perform a full Level 1 inspection consistent with the standard and anything less would constitute negligence and negligence per se.  The court stressed code compliance as NFPA 211 is a standard intended to protect life and property from the risk of fires and explosions.  The Court essentially required a contractor like a chimney sweep to turn down a contract if it cannot carry out the steps in an adopted safety code, even if full compliance means mandating access to the private property of third parties.

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

A. What is A Standard Mortgage Clause?

First-party property insurance policies usually contain one of two types of mortgagee clauses: i) a loss-payable clause; or ii) a standard mortgage clause.

i)          The Loss-Payable Clause: This type of clause merely provides that insurance proceeds shall be paid to a mortgagee as "its interests may appear." Under a loss-payable clause, a mortgagee's right to recovery is dependent upon the insured mortgagor's compliance with policy obligations. That is to say, a mortgagee has no better position than the insured (mortgagor) to recover under the policy and is therefore subject to any act, neglect, omission or misrepresentation of the insured which might void or breach coverage under the policy. 

 ii)       The Standard Mortgage Clause: The Standard Mortgage Clause is the standard vehicle by which mortgagees insure their interest in encumbered property. The standard mortgage clause was incorporated into policies because the “loss payable” clause did not adequately protect the mortgagee’s interest in the insured property. Under the standard mortgage clause, a mortgagee is entitled to direct payment for a loss to the extent of its interest at the time of the loss, independent of whether the named insured mortgagor has complied with its policy obligations. Once the mortgagee has been paid for a loss to the extent of its full interest in the property, the insured mortgagor is entitled to payment for the remainder of the amount of loss, if any.

B. A Standard Mortgage Clause is an Independent Contract

A policy that contains a Standard Mortgage Clause contains, in essence, two contracts:

(1) a contract between the insurer and the insured mortgagor (such as a homeowner), and

(2) a contract between the insurer and the mortgagee (for example, a bank).

The separate contract between the insurer and the mortgagee remains in force even when the policy itself has been voided by an act, neglect, omission or misrepresentation attributable to the mortgagor, owner or occupant of the property. Thus, when the insured mortgagor voids the policy, for example, by doing something that materially changes the policy risk, the Standard Mortgage Clause protects the mortgagee by maintaining the insurance of the mortgagee’s interest in force. The insurer must pay the mortgagee’s loss to the extent of the policy limits even when the mortgagor has voided the policy.

C. Example of a Standard Mortgage Clause

The Standard Mortgage Clause, as approved by the Insurance Bureau of Canada, has two parts:

IT IS HEREBY PROVIDED AND AGREED THAT:

1. BREACH OF CONDITIONS BY MORTGAGOR, OWNER OR OCCUPANT

This insurance and every documented renewal thereof – AS TO THE INTEREST OF THE MORTGAGEE ONLY THEREIN – is and shall be in force notwithstanding any act, neglect, omission or misrepresentation attributable to the mortgagor, owner or occupant of the property insured, including transfer of interest, any vacancy or non-occupancy, or the occupation of the property for purposes more hazardous than specified in the description of the risk;

PROVIDED ALWAYS that the mortgagee shall notify forthwith the Insurer (if known) of any vacancy or non-occupancy extending beyond thirty (30) consecutive days, or of any transfer of interest or increased hazard (not permitted by the policy) shall be paid for by the Mortgagee – on reasonable demand – from the date such hazard existed, according to the established scale of rates for the acceptance of such increased hazard, during the continuance of this insurance.

2. RIGHT OF SUBROGATION

Whenever the Insurer pays the Mortgagee any loss award under this policy and claims that – as to the Mortgagor or Owner – no liability therefore existed, it shall be legally subrogated to all rights of the Mortgagee against the Insured; but any subrogation shall be limited to the amount of such loss payment and shall be subordinate and subject to the basic right of the Mortgagee to recover the full amount of its mortgage equity and in priority to the Insurer; or the Insurer may at its option pay the Mortgagee all amounts due or to become due under the mortgage or on the security thereof, and shall thereupon receive a full assignment and transfer of the mortgage together with all securities held as collateral to the mortgage debt.

…

SUBJECT TO THE TERMS OF THIS MORTGAGE CLAUSE (and these shall supersede any policy provision in conflict therewith BUT ONLY AS TO THE INTEREST OF THE MORTGAGEE), loss under this policy is made payable to the Mortgagee.

As you can see above, the first part of the Clause contains the language that provides that the policy remains in force as to the interest of the mortgagee despite any act, omission or misrepresentation of the mortgagor or any change in use that increases the risk.

The second part of the Clause provides that when its requirements are met, the insurer becomes legally subrogated to all the rights of the mortgagee against the insured to the extent of the payment it has made to the mortgagee.

D.  Can an insurer exercise its right of subrogation against an insured mortgagor under a standard mortgage clause without establishing that a policy is void?  

On a literal reading, the subrogation portion of the standard mortgage clause appears to suggest that an insurance company can simply allege that coverage has been vitiated by the insured mortgagor in order to exercise these subrogation rights. Thus, the question arises; can an insurer exercise its right of subrogation against an insured mortgagor under a standard mortgage clause without having to prove that the policy coverage has been vitiated?

Surprisingly, this question had received little judicial consideration in Canada until the recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision of Farmers’ Mutual Insurance Company (Lindsay) v. Pinder, 2009 ONCA 831 (CanLII).

A fire occurred at the home of Joyce and Cindy Pinder. Their insurance company denied coverage, alleging that there had been a material change in risk with respect to the installation of a new heating system, and that the Pinders had made willfully false statements regarding their contents claim. The Pinders sued their insurance company seeking a declaration that they were entitled to coverage.

The house was subject to a mortgage with the Bank of Montreal for which the insurance company paid $97,143.97 under a Standard Mortgage Clause.  Upon making the payment, the insurance company then commenced a subrogated action against the Pinders seeking summary judgment for the $97,143 that it paid the bank on the mortgage. The Pinders argued that since the issue of whether their policy was void had yet to be resolved, the Bank had not yet acquired the right of subrogation under the Standard Mortgage Clause.

The Court of Appeal clarified that:

1. First, the insurer must actually make a payment to the mortgagee for its loss. This condition was satisfied when the insurance company paid the bank $97,143.97.

2.  Second, the insurer must establish a claim that it has no liability to the insured mortgagor. In other words, before the insurance company could exercise the right of subrogation under the standard mortgage clause, it had to prove that the Pinders had vitiated coverage under the policy.  This was an issue that would require a trial and so could not be addressed on the insurance company’s summary judgment motion.

Accordingly, the Court held that the issue of whether the insurance company had a right of subrogation under the Standard Mortgage Clause would have to wait until a resolution of the Pinder’s coverage action. The Court ordered that the two actions be tried together.

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

While plastics have forever changed the way we live, the story isn't always as rosy as the American Chemistry Council infers in the quoted slogan.

Introduced in 1956, acetal (also known as polyacetal, polyformadehyde or polyoxymethlene) was developed for high stiffness, low friction and stability. This material was successfully used in the manufacture of automotive parts such as cams, bearings, gears, etc. But in the 1970's acetal was introduced into plumbing systems, with disastrous results. Over the last 30 years, acetal plumbing parts have shown a high failure rate, resulting in billions of dollars in property losses.

Publicized failures of acetal plumbing parts were seen in the 1980s. Acetal was used to fabricate fittings incorporated into residential water supply piping made of Polybutylene ("PB"). Homes across the country were suffering PB water system failures, causing water losses. Class action litigation ensued, with one of the largest in US history (Cox v. Shell Oil Co., et. al) settling for $950 million. A cause of the PB piping failures was degradation of the acetal fittings, which led to fracture and water release.

Acetal plumbing fittings resurfaced in the 1990s. This time, acetal was formed in fittings incorporated into flexible water supply lines manufactured by various companies, including Robert Manufacturing, Watts Industries and Fluid Master). Failures began to surface in late 1990 and 2000. The failures had a similar appearance, with the plastic coupling fittings suffering cracking or full fracture.

More recently acetal failures have arose in toilet valve assemblies, including those manufactured by Coast Foundry and Fluid Master. Acetal was used in certain models to fabricate the toilet valve shaft, float arm and trigger.

There are two primary causes of these failures. Acetal has been recognized within the plastics industry since as early as the 1950's to be sensitive to acid hydrolysis (a chemical reaction during which one or more water molecules are split into hydrogen and hydroxide ions) and oxidation (the addition of oxygen to a compound with a loss of electrons) by agents such a chlorine. And since chlorine is a required additive for virtually all domestic water systems, degradation of acetal plumbing products is an all to frequent occurrence. Low levels of chlorine in potable water supplies can be sufficient enough to cause stress corrosion cracking (sudden failure of normally ductile metals or tough thermoplastics ) to develop, a problem which has been experienced in both the USA and Europe. Acetal is also notch sensitive, meaning the materials susceptibility to fracture. Acetals have the highest crystallinity (degree of structural order in a solid) of any thermoplastics making it strong and fatigue resistant. This toughness (or lack of ductility) makes it susceptible to fracture where there is a notch, a sudden change in the surface section, a crack, or scratch. Because acetals are notch sensitive, sharp corners must be avoided in part design. This has been an issue in various acetal product designs, including the thread geometry of the water supply coupling nuts and toilet valve triggers, resulting in premature failures.

Many of the plastic components dealt with in subrogation have a tale to tale. Uncovering the material's "story" may be the key to recovery.

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

In Georgia, it is well known that actions for injury to real and personal property caused by any person furnishing the design or construction of an improvement to the property must be filed within eight (8) years after the substantial completion of the improvement. O.C.G.A. §9-3-51(a).  Further, an improvement to real property has been defined as a fixed alteration to the real property. Mullis v. Southern Co. Services, Inc., 250 Ga. App. 90, 296 S.E.2d 579 (1982). The Courts have held that if a component is an essential and integral part of the improvement to which it belongs, then it is itself an improvement to real property.  Therefore, in the event a claimant files an action against a contractor, architect, or subcontractor to recover damages to its real property, for example, one would surmise that he or she has eight (8) years from the date the work was substantially completed to file the claim. That is not the case insomuch as in 1994, the Georgia Court of Appeals, in effect, shortened the time period to file a claim against a contractor to recover damages to real property to four (4) years.

In Hanna, et al. v. McWilliams, et al., 213 Ga. App. 648, 446 S.E.2d 741 (1994), a homeowner brought an action against a general contractor and subcontractor to recover damages to real and personal property caused by the negligent installation of a fireplace. The Hanna Court held that the fireplace constituted an integral part of the home and an improvement. As a result, the statute of repose applied. The Hanna Court also examined whether the homeowner had eight (8) years after the substantial completion of the fireplace to bring an action against the contractors, as outlined in the statute of repose, or whether the four (4) year statute of limitations barred the claim.  The Court held, as it pertains to damages to real property, that the Plaintiff’s claims were subject to the four (4) year statute of limitations set forth in O.C.G.A. §9-3-30 and the action accrued at the time of the substantial completion of the project.  

The holdings in Hannah provide that in cases involving damages to real property, the statute of repose and statute of limitations will run concurrently after the date of substantial completion. When the four (4) year limitation for tort actions has been reached, the claimant is barred from pursuing a claim to recover damages to its real property as a result of the defect in an improvement to its land. Keep in mind that the application of Hannah is different for damages to personal property as the discovery exception to the statute of limitations applies. 

Claimant beware! Make sure you examine the dates when the repair and/or improvement was made to determine if you have a viable claim.

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

As was previously reported, New York Governor Paterson has signed a bill which purports to eliminate the alleged windfall of double recoveries to plaintiffs which were alleged to have resulted from the common-law Collateral Source Rule, which enabled collateral source payors, including subrogating insurers, to recover their losses as part of the damages claimed by injured insureds.  This bill does not impact property damage subrogation claims, which was made clear beyond peradventure by a memorandum prepared by one of the previous sponsoring committees.  The language of the prior sponsor's memo is as follows:

Collateral Source and Subrogation Changes: The various collateral source provisions of the CPLR were enacted to eliminate the common law collateral source rule, which prohibited tortfeasors from reducing their obligations to a plaintiff by the amount of benefits the plaintiff receives from other sources, such as insurance. The statute's purpose is to eliminate the windfall of double recoveries to plaintiffs which often resulted from the common law collateral source rule, while still ensuring that uncompensated losses are fully compensated. Notwithstanding the trend to eliminate the windfalls that result from the common law rule, and to safeguard public monies, presently all defendants except public employers may offset against awards for future costs or expenses any amounts that would with reasonable certainty be replaced or indemnified. This bill would ensure that public employers are treated the same as private employers in tort actions. New York City estimates that it would save $14.5 million annually from this reform.

At present, there is no statutory authority that addresses or limits the extent to which a benefit provider may claim contractual reimbursement or subrogation with respect to medical expenses it has paid pursuant to an insurance contract or other agreement. Likewise, there is no statutory authority that specifies whether or under what circumstances such a benefit provider may intervene as a party in a personal injury or wrongful death action. For example, in a medical malpractice action, a health insurer which has provided coverage to the plaintiff may demand reimbursement for its expenses, often unnecessarily prolonging cases, thwarting settlement talks and making cases more expensive to litigate. Thus, it has become important that a statutory framework be established to facilitate settlement of cases and reduce expenses for litigants. This bill would preclude a benefit provider to seek reimbursement or subrogation against a settling defendant for those benefits paid to or on behalf of plaintiff, unless specifically set forth by statute.  In doing so, this bill would make the savings to defendants more tangible, and allow cases to settle more quickly and without unnecessary expense. This provision of the bill would be applicable to actions for personal injury, medical, dental, or podiatric malpractice, or wrongful death and would be inapplicable to the subrogation of property damage claims. (Emphasis added).

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

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

“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

Article I, Section 19 of The California Constitution provides that just compensation be paid when private property is taken or damaged for public use.  *STOP*  Take a deep breath.  It is not as tough as it sounds.  In fact, after reading this blog you'll likely find yourself asking "Why haven't I used inverse condemnation as a cause of action in fire cases before?".

Insurance carriers have incurred more than a billion dollars in damages arising from the California wildfires over the past few years.  The causes of these fires include arson, discarded cigarettes and failed utility equipment owned or operated by government entities or privately owned public utility companies.  When the latter are to blame, rest assured that inverse condemnation is the preferred cause of action to champion your fire subrogation case.  It's both a shield and a sword against government entities and public utilities.

The Shield:      In California, government entities require an injured party to file a claim within six (6) months of an incident to preserve a cause of action for Dangerous Condition of Public Property.  Inverse condemnation does not require the filing of any claim form and has a three (3) years statute of limitations.  Even assuming you win the race to file a timely notice, you will still need to prove the public entity or utility had notice of the dangerous condition in order to prevail under a Dangerous Condition of Public Property cause of action.  Inverse Condemnation has no requirement to prove notice of the dangerous condition.

The Sword:  A plaintiff need only prove the necessary elements of the cause of action to prevail  - (1) a public entity or privately owned utility company (2) took/damaged (3) private property for (4) public use (5) without just compensation.  [Note: Flood/levee cases have some different requirements.].  A plaintiff does not need to prove (1) negligent conduct; (2) fault on the part of the government entity or public utility; (3) that the loss was foreseeable; or (4) how or why the loss even occurred.   Moreover, liability and causation are issues to be determined by a judge, not a jury, which eliminates potential bias against insurance companies.  As if this is not enough incentive, a plaintiff that prevails under an inverse condemnation cause of action is also entitled to recover attorneys'  fees and costs.

Inverse condemnation is a recognized cause of action in many jurisdictions, though its application varies from state to state.  Still, the next time you receive a fire loss in which a government entity or privately owned public utility company is a potential defendant, look to see if the elements of inverse condemnation are met.  If so, don't be afraid to wield the sword and reap the benefits.

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

In Canada, the right of subrogation is a product of the common law, although it may be modified by statute or contract. Unlike in the United States, Canadian common law provides that an insurer may sue only in the name of the insured in relation to a subrogated claim .That rationale has its roots in the need to provide a process by which the insurer would be able to exercise its subrogated rights. Historically, insureds were required to take all steps within their power to reduce a loss for which they had received indemnity, including exercising legal remedies against third parties. Since those remedies were personal to the insured, however, they could only be exercised in the name of the insured as a matter of procedural law. The common law did not provide a method whereby a person could be compelled to commence an action against another; therefore insurers had to apply to the Chancery Court to compel an insured to allow his or her name to be used for legal proceedings against third persons in order to reduce the loss.

The tenet still holds true today, and is illustrated by an exception to the rule discussed in the Ontario Court of Appeal case of Freudmann-Cohen v. Tran, 2004 CanLII 34765 (Ont. C.A.) . In Freudmann-Cohen, the plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident when her car was struck by another vehicle. Since the driver of the offending vehicle was underinsured, the plaintiff asserted a claim under her own automobile insurer for underinsured motorist coverage. Her insurer, Zurich, subsequently learned that the defendant had been delivering pizza for Pizza Nova franchise at the time of the accident and that the franchisee had insurance coverage. It then issued a third party claim in its own name against the defendant pursuant to Rule 29.01 of Ontario's Rules of Civil Procedure, which states that: "A defendant may commence a third party claim against any person who is not a party to the action and who...should be bound by the determination of an issue arising between the plaintiff and the defendant." Zurich argued that Rule 29.01 constitutes a procedural scheme, with the force of regulation, which overrides the normal subrogation principle requiring an insurer claiming a subrogated right to sue in the name of the insured in circumstances such as these.

The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed, and held that the subrogation principle obliging the insurer to sue in the name of the insured is a procedural requirement itself, as opposed to a substantive obligation. While subrogation is a matter of substance rather than form, this aspect of subrogation is a matter of the procedure to be followed in the exercise of the substantive right of subrogation. The court noted however that:

"[t]he fact that Zurich has resorted to the third party procedure to put its subrogated claim on behalf of the plaintiffs in play in the action does not mean that Zurich is asserting the plaintiffs’ claim against Pizza Nova in Zurich’s own name. As I have earlier pointed out, rule 29.01 merely provides a mechanism whereby the defendant Zurich may ensure that an issue regarding which the third party should be bound is determined in the action; it is not necessary that that issue arise out of a claim whereby the defendant says the third party is or may be liable to the defendant. In my view, Zurich is entitled to resort to the third party rule in its own name in these circumstances."

As this case demonstrates, the right of an insurer to bring a subrogated action is derivative; that is, it merely a right to make such claim for damages as the insured himself could have made. For this reason, the general rule still holds in Canada that a subrogated action must be brought in the insured's name, rather than that of the insurer.

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

Michigan appeared to join those states barring a landlord's subrogee from suing a tenant in the case of New Hampshire Insurance Group v. Labombard, 155 Mich. App 369, 375 (1986). There, the court held that a tenant is an implied co-insured in every lease, unless “expressly and unequivocal’ stated otherwise. But recent decisions give a new lease on life to recovery opportunities for insurers of landlords. In Laurel Woods Apartments v. Roumayah, 274 Mich. App. 631 (2007), the owner sued a tenant for a kitchen fire. The court held that the trial court erred when it granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition based on the Labombard decision, because defendant was contractually liable for the damages. The lease was found to shift the burden to the tenant for property damage caused to the premises. The court also rejected the argument that the lease’s failure to require the tenant to insure the premises precluded the landlord’s recovery. The Court of Appeals distinguished between negligence and contract claims, stating the following:

Labombard does not apply to this case.  Labombard was a negligence action, whereas this is a breach of contract action. The holding in Labombard makes plain that the Court was limiting negligence claims against tenants for fire damage to circumstances in which there is an express agreement allowing such liability. Thus, although the Labombard Court considered the parties' lease agreement, the holding in Labombard has no applicability here.

The court found the lease agreement to be “clear and unambiguous,” as follows:

[The lease states,] “Tenant shall also be liable for any damage to the Premises ... that is caused by the acts or omissions of Tenant or Tenant's guests.” Accordingly, defendants, who are defined as “Tenant,” are liable for “any damage” caused by their act or omission. Fire damage is clearly encompassed by the broad term “any damage.” And defendants' liability is not limited to damage caused by their negligence, but rather, it extends to any damage that they cause, negligently or otherwise.
 

On October 28, 2008, the Michigan Court of Appeals extended this decision to subrogation.   In an unpublished decision, American States Insurance Company v. Hampton,2008 W.L. 4724279 (Mich. Ct. App. 10/28/08) (unpublished), the subrogee’s contract claims were deemed to be unaffected by Labombard. Citing to Laurel Woods, the court found the lease had similar language, establishing a contractual right of recovery.   The Laurel Woods decision was reaffirmed in May 28, 2009 in American State Insurance v. Ratcliff, May 28, 2009, Wayne Circuit Court, LC No. 05-522975-NZ (unpublished). There, the commercial lease agreement required the tenant pay the landlord for the fire insurance premium. After a fire damaged the premises, the insurer paid the landlord for fire damage and brought a subrogation action against the tenant for negligence. The landlord subsequently joined the suit seeking damages for its uninsured loss. The seminal question was whether the landlord or tenant bore the risk for any damage in excess of the policy limit. The Court of Appeals ruled that the lease contained an express agreement requiring the tenant to bear responsibility for negligence. And that the lease terms were consistent with Laurel Woods. While this decision didn’t address the subrogation action, the trend continues of allowing recovery against tenants where the contract establishes the risk of loss against the tenant.

These unpublished decisions limiting the Labombard and finding a contractual basis to extend subrogation rights against tenants, provide an excellent basis to argue pre-suit and in suit that subrogation claims against tenants are not dead in Michigan.

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

Effective October 1, 2009, North Carolina's statute of repose for claims for defective products will be increased from six to twelve years for actions that accrue on or after October 1, 2009.  N .C .G .S. 1-46.1(a)(1) .  For actions that accrued prior to October 1, 2009, the former statue of six years after the date of initial purchase or consumption will apply. 

This will substantially and positively impact subrogation potential for defective product claims in North Carolina. Interestingly, the statute of repose for improvements to real property will remain six years from the later of the specific last act/omission giving rise to the cause of action or the date of substantial completion .   N.C.G.S.  1-50(a)(5)

It is key that in any claim you have that you are calculating both the statute of limitation and statute of repose periods.  Remember a statute of limitation begins to run from the date of the event or loss.  This is the length of time within which a legal cause of action or suit must be brought.  Whereas, as statute of repose may have begun to run months or even years before the event/loss.  A classic example would be a defective car which catches fire within the garage of a home.  In North Carolina, the statute of limitation for property damages based in tort is generally three years from the event.  However, the statute of repose for the product, in this case the car, will be calculated from the date of sale to the first purchaser.

Suit must be brought before the running of both the limitation and repose periods.

 It is entirely possible that the repose period may have run before the loss or will run shortly after the date of loss.  This was frequently the problem with product claims in North Carolina because of the short repose period of six years.  Now, for events that take place after October 1, 2009, a twelve year repose period will apply and more product claims can be brought as now products between 7-12 years in age will not automatically be excluded which would bar suit against the manufacturer.   In the example above, a claim that occurred prior to October 1, 2009, for a defective 11-year old vehicle is barred because the six year statute of repose still applies to claims before October 1, 2009.  If the fire had occurred today, October 1, 2009, the claim would not be barred because of the longer repose period of twelve years applies.  Note, you would still have to bring suit within one year of the loss (before the end of the 12th year), well before the running of the three year statute of limitation.  While the increase to 12 years for the product repose period is good news for those in the recovery business.

Keep in mind that North Carolina still has a fairly short six year statute of repose for improvements to real property.  So, if your house fire was due to defective original wiring in the garage and not the defective vehicle, you would have only a six year repose period that applies to your claim.  Like the example with the car, you might need to bring suit before the running of the limitation period if the six year repose period for the structure will run before the three year limitation period to bring suit expires."

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

As subrogation professionals, we see spoliation of evidence typically used as a defense by defendants who claim they did not get a chance to examine certain evidence. But sometimes we face the problem of a third party, sometimes the insured or its public adjuster or sometimes another insurance carrier, that is blocking access to evidence vital to the subrogation investigation. How do we deal with it? Aside from considering the particular problems unique to each individual case, the first step is communication with the would-be spoliator. That person should be made clearly aware of your need to examine the evidence and the consequences for blocking access. At the same time, it is important not to be overly aggressive and risk angering that person to the point of sabotage.

To assure your right of later legal action, if necessary, the common elements to convey are these:

1. you have a potential cause of action involving an item or items of evidence;
2. the would-be spoliator has voluntarily undertaken control over such item(s);
3. you are making a specific request for access to and continued retention of that item(s) of evidence; and
4. denial of that request could result in legal consequences.

The following is a template of a letter that might serve as starting point for those facing this problem:

To Whom it May Concern:

We are the insurance company for Insured Architects, which own the building that caught fire on September 22, 2009. We understand that you are the public adjuster for the tenant that occupied the space where the fire originated. The fire investigator we retained has determined that a certain printer on the premises was in the area of origin. We understand that you have voluntarily undertaken to take custody and control of the printer. As we discussed, the printer may be critical evidence in a potential subrogation claim against the manufacturer of the printer and/or others who may have been aware of problems with the printer or its surrounding parts, depending on what the completed investigation reveals.

We would like to take over the custody and control of the printer for purposes of completing our subrogation investigation. If you are not willing to transfer custody and control to us, we request that you provide our experts access to the printer for further examination at a laboratory facility so that we may complete our subrogation investigation. While we continue to work together to arrange such an inspection, you should continue to take all necessary steps to avoid damaging, modifying, or releasing the printer without providing us at least thirty (30) days written notice with an opportunity to take over custody and control of the printer. It is our hope to avoid legal action for failure to provide access to the printer for this purpose.

Please be sure to contact me regarding this matter as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Your Name

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

Unlike in the United States, one of the most frustrating problems for subrogators in England is that they are not able to obtain a third party’s insurance policy in order to ascertain how deep their opponents pockets are before pursuing a recovery action. 

This tactical advantage was effectively nailed closed (for now) following the court’s decision in the West London Pipeline and Storage Limited v. Total UK Limited (2008).  In that case, Total was seeking contribution from a third party (TAV) following the largest peace time explosion in Europe at the Buncefield oil depot in 2006.  Relying on the court’s controversial decision in Harcourt –v- Griffin (2007), Total made an application to the court under CPR Part 18 for information and the disclosure of TAV’s insurance information.  Total argued that the information was relevant to the issues in dispute and necessary for the efficient management of the case. 

Unfortunately for subrogators, TAV successfully argued that the court did not have jurisdiction to order disclosure of its insurance information, as it was not relevant to any issue in the case.  Agreeing with TAV, the court took the view that although they understood the claimant’s desire to know whether a Defendant is worth suing, the court was also keen to avoid the promotion of “deep pocket” or “speculative” litigation before English courts.   

Although the Total decision has been adopted by most courts in England, the argument that an insurance policy is a private matter between the insured and insurers has not extended to After-The-Event (“ATE”) insurance policies.  These are specific policies which some claimants take out to combat the loser pays rule, which is embedded in English litigation.  Claimants use ATE policies to cover their liability to pay a Defendant’s legal fees and disbursements, if their case is unsuccessful.   In the recent decision of Barr & Oths –v- Biff Waste Services Ltd [2009], the court took the view that such insurance policies are disclosable.  Among other things, the court held that there was a difference between liability insurance, which may have been in place for many years before the event giving rise to the litigation, and an ATE insurance policy that was probably taken out for the sole purpose of allowing a claimant to pursue litigation, which would otherwise not be possible.  As an ATE policy is a vital component to the litigation itself, its disclosure can be distinguished from the court’s decision in the Total case.

While the theory surrounding both decisions may seem sound, one cannot help but feel that just as a Defendant in England does not want to defend a claim for fear of being unable to recover its costs, a claimant does not want to obtain an empty judgement.  Surely as the “cards on the table” approach is the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules, wouldn’t it be in all parties interest to save time and costs by knowing where they stand from the outset of any case?

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

In recent years, technology and the internet have fostered a new trend in social media with websites such as Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter.  This undeniably stems from the desire for instant information.  How can technology and the internet assist in maximizing subrogation cases?  Consider these examples:

Youtube/Online Video:  Recently I received a new fire loss days after the fire occurred.  I began searching online for information and came across multiple Youtube videos of the fire still burning.  Some of the videos were taken from a helicopter by a major news organization and others were local/online reporters and bystanders documenting the fire spread.  One video even included an interview with the local fire department chief discussing the status of the fire.  These videos can be used to assist fire cause and origin investigators in their evaluation of where the fire started, how it spread and even identifying witnesses. 

E-Mailing Notice Letters:  The process of placing a potential defendant on notice of a new loss, and receiving a response, can often take weeks.  However, most companies have websites with e-mail contact information.  By utilizing their e-mail addresses, you can ensure (1) reasonable notice and (2) faster notification to liability carriers.  Further, you can activate the "Return Receipt" feature on your email to verify that the notice was actually received.  

Video-Conferencing:  Whether you are conducting a roundtable conference with subrogation counsel, interviewing an insured or even listening to a deposition, a simple telephone call may not always provide all of the details.  If a picture is worth a thousand words then video-conferencing is the equivalent of a dictionary.  Video-conferencing allows you to assess facial expressions and body language.  In essence, it puts you in the room.  Video-conferencing is readily available in most law firms and there are many inexpensive alternatives available, such as Skype which allows video calls over the internet to other Skype users. 

These are just a few examples of how technology and the internet can assist in maximizing subrogation recoveries. These tools should be utilized for effective and efficient handling of subrogation losses.

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