Maytag Recalls Refrigerators Due to Fire Hazard

Name of product: Maytag®, Jenn-Air®, Amana®, Admiral®, Magic Chef®, Performa by Maytag® and Crosley® brand refrigerators

Units: About 1.6 million

Manufacturer: Maytag Corp., of Newton, Iowa

Hazard: An electrical failure in the relay, the component that turns on the refrigerator’s compressor, can cause overheating and pose a serious fire hazard.

Incidents/Injuries: Maytag has received 41 reports of refrigerator relay ignition, including 16 reports of property damage ranging from smoke damage to extensive kitchen damage.

Description: The recall includes certain Maytag®, Jenn-Air®, Amana®, Admiral®, Magic Chef®, Performa by Maytag® and Crosley® brand side by side and top freezer refrigerators. The affected refrigerators were manufactured in black, bisque, white and stainless steel. They have model and serial numbers printed on a label located on the top middle or left upper side of the refrigerator liner and have the following model and serial number combinations:

Refrigerators with freezers on the bottom are not included in this recall.

Sold at: Department and appliance stores and by homebuilders nationwide from January 2001 through January 2004 for between about $350 and $1600.

Manufactured in: United States

Remedy: Consumers should immediately contact Maytag to determine if their refrigerator is included in the recall and to schedule a free in-home repair. Consumers should not return the refrigerator to the retailer where it was purchased.

Consumer Contact: For more information, contact Maytag toll-free at (866) 533-9817 anytime, or visit the firm’s Web site at www.repair.maytag.com

With headlines like this no one can afford to recognize and pursue every possible recovery avenue. The nation's top P/C firms saw a 67.7% drop in net income from 2007 to 2008, hitting a seven-year low. Those figures, compiled from a Highline Data report on sector earning in 2008, show the top 100 P/C firms netted only $15.8 billion last year compared with $48.8 billion the year before. The report finds the sector in its weakest position since right after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. NU Online News Service, Mar. 5, 2:43 p.m.

Catalina Lighting Recalls Halogen Clamp Lamps Due to Fire and Burn Hazard; Sold Exclusively At Staples Stores

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with the firm named below, today announced a voluntary recall of the following consumer product. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

Name of Product: Halogen Clamp Lamps

Units: About 2,000

Manufacturer: Catalina Lighting Inc., of Miami, Fla.

Hazard: The UV glass lens on the lamp can crack, exposing the halogen bulb, posing a fire and burn hazard.

Incidents/Injuries: Catalina Lighting has received 65 reports of broken lenses. No injuries have been reported.

Description: The halogen clamp lamps, also known as architect’s lamp, have 150 watt halogen bulb, an articulating arm, and a clamp desk lamp that adjusts up, down and swivels. Only lamps with model number 13456-US and lot numbers C06081581V185, C06081582V185 and C06081584V185 are included in the recall.

Sold at: Staples retail stores nationwide from July 2008 through October 2008 for about $50.

Manufactured in: China

Remedy: Consumer should immediately stop using the recalled lamp and contact Catalina Lighting to receive a free replacement lens.

Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact Catalina Lighting toll-free at (866) 949-8567 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday or visit the firm’s Web site at www.catalinalighting.com

January 05, 2009 

Lasko, a company that makes portable fans and heaters, has been fined $500,000 for failing to report to the government that some of its fans could overheat, smoke, or catch fire posing fire and burn hazards. Nine people were injured and Lasko received 42 reports of fans overheating, smoking, melting, or catching fire between November 2002 and September 2005. The defect resulted in the recall of 5.6 million fans in 2006. The 2006 recall involved various models of Lasko, Galaxy, Air King and General Electric fans manufactured between January 1999 and July 2001, and sold through February 2004 at discount department stores nationwide for between $10 and $25. An electrical failure in the motor caused the fans to malfunction. Check the original recall notice for model numbers and photos.The Consumer Product Safety Commission, which announced the penalty, says that federal law requires firms to report to the agency immediately (within 24 hours) after obtaining information reasonably supporting the conclusion that a product contains a defect that could create a substantial product hazard, an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, or violate any consumer product safety rule, regulation, standard or ban enforced by the CPSC. In agreeing to settle the matter, Lasko denies that it knowingly violated the law. Consumers who may still have the recalled fans should stop using them and contact Lasko to get a free fan cord adaptor, designed to shut off the fan motor if overheating occurs. Call Lasko at (800) 984-3311 or visit the firm's Web site.

November 18, 2008

Federal safety regulators have opened an official investigation on faulty tire valves that may have been installed as original equipment on more than one million 2007 Ford cars and trucks.

The valve stems in question were made for Dill Air Control Products of Oxford, N.C. by Shanghai Baolong Industries Co. in China. The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration started investigating the valve stems this past May after they were linked to a rollover crash of a 1998 Ford Explorer that killed a Florida man a year ago. Cracks in valve stems can cause tires to lose air, and such air loss at highway speeds can result in tire failure and a loss-of-control crash.

NHTSA says it has identified 37 complaints of cracked and leaking tire valves in 2007 models of Ford vehicles. The models identified include Grand Marquis, F-150, Mustang, Edge, Fusion, Expedition, Explorer, MKX, MKZ, Milan, Focus and Escape.

Eleven complaints allege that loss of tire pressure caused by a cracked and leaking valve resulted in under-inflated tires needing replacement. In addition, 23 of the 37 complaints said more than one valve was found to be severely cracked or cracked and leaking and needed to be replaced.

Dill informed NHTSA that as many as 30 million of the suspected valve stems have been distributed in the North American market. Soon after the original investigation was opened in May, one U.S. auto parts distributor, Tech International of Johnstown, Ohio, issued a recall on some of the faulty tire valves it had sold under the Topseal brand, also manufactured by Shanghai Baolong. Ford Motor Company uses valves stem supplied by Topseal as original equipment on its vehicles.

In documents on the newly-opened Ford probe, NHTSA says the original equipment snap-in tire valves may crack due to poor ozone resistance. "Air leakage from a cracked tire valve may result in tire damage, which could affect vehicle control," said NHTSA.

Most consumers will have a have a hard time figuring out with any certainty if they have any of the defective valve stems on their tires. That's because there is no visible identification of the valve once a valve stem is installed, The only way to to view the manufacturer's identification and part number found on the base of the valve is to remove the tire from the wheel and inspect it from the inside.

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with the firm named below, today announced a voluntary recall of the following consumer product. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

Name of Product: Blue Ember Gas Grills

Units: About 47,000

Importer: Fiesta Gas Grills, of Dickson, Tenn.

Manufacturers: Keesung Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and Unisplendor Corp., of China

Hazard: The gas grills can be assembled improperly exposing the gas burner hoses to excessive heat, posing fire and burn hazards to consumers.

Incidents/Injuries: Fiesta has received 14 reports of grill fires. No injuries have been reported.

Description: The recall involves Blue Ember liquid propane (LP) or natural gas outdoor grills. The recalled model and serial numbers are listed below. The model and serial numbers are printed on a rating plate label on the rear of the grill. The cabinet style grill has two doors and is silver-colored and black or silver-colored and gray. "Blue Ember" is printed on the grill's hood.

Sold at: Various home centers and retailers nationwide from November 2007 through June 2008 for about $450.

Manufactured in: China

Remedy: Consumers should immediately stop using the grills, and inspect the burner hoses to make sure they have been properly assembled. If the hose is to the rear of the installed heat shield, the grill has been improperly assembled and consumers should contact Fiesta for replacement hoses, assembly instructions, and if necessary, for assistance in examining the grill.

Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact Fiesta toll-free at (866) 740-7849 between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, visit the firm's Web site at www.fiestagasgrills.com (note: this is a .doc document), or email the firm at mnorman@fiestagasgrills.com

Will New Product Safety Law Be A Boon To Insurers?

BY DANIEL HAYS

NU Online News Service, Nov. 13, 3:25 p.m. EST

The new Consumer Product Safety Act may prompt some litigation by whistleblowers, but in the long run it should reduce claims

against insurers, according to an attorney who represents whistleblower interests.

That assessment of the law--which was disputed by a product liability lawyer-

-comes from Stephen Kohn, president of the non-profit National Whistleblower Center.

Mr. Kohn's viewpoint was rejected by Frank Citera of Greenberg Traurig in Chicago,

who heads firm's product liability practice group. He said he doubted whistleblower involvement will help insurers.

Mr. Kohn's group next week is sponsoring a seminar to brief attorneys on new protections in the law for employees

who are fired for going public with product problems.

The Act--passed on Aug. 8 in an effort to improve the safety of children's toys, and keep toxic playthings from the marketplace-

-gives whistleblowers the right to bring an action for a jury trial to obtain reinstatement and compensatory damages for emotional

distress and loss of reputation, as well as attorneys fees.

Mr. Kohn said the Act--which covers 15,000 products, from bicycle helmets to blasting caps--may result in individual whistleblower suits.

But he argues that if the worker's disclosure keeps a defective product off the market before consumers are harmed, it could avert

hundreds of millions of dollars in injury claims, and class actions.

"This is in the long-term best interests of the insurance companies," he said, adding that insurers should be supportive of whistleblowers because,

"it's a money saver."

It would be counterproductive for insurers, according to Mr. Kohn, "if they don't support and educate employees as to their rights."

Insurers, he suggested, "should require companies to have a mechanism to obtain internal [employee] complaints as a requirement to be insured." For publicly-traded companies, he noted, there is already a requirement that they have an employee concerns program, "but that only covers fraud against shareholders."

Insurance companies, according to Mr. Kohn, are in the best position to make sure companies have mechanisms to

learn about defects before there is a big lawsuit.

The attorney said he is currently handling the case of an employee who was fired in 2001 for raising an alarm about

defective bullet-proof vests, which had material that was degrading.

Two years after his firing, a policeman was shot through the vest and another suffered permanent injury from a bullet that penetrated.

Two years later, the Department of Justice withdrew the vest from the market.

Mr. Kohn said insurers most likely covered the two failures, but his client's actions "probably prevented hundreds of injuries."

Mr. Citera said Mr. Kohn's notion was "a perverse viewpoint." The whistleblower component of the law, he said,

has been one of great concern to companies.

"I think the Act will be a bit of a boon for the plaintiffs' bar that ultimately would impact the insurance industry," he predicted. In a perfect world, he said, a worker on the assembly line who sees a defect would prevent the product from hitting the market sooner, "but historically employees reluctant to blow the whistle."

Mr. Citera added that it would be unlikely the average employee would be aware of protections afforded by the Act.

And, in the course of his experience doing product recall cases, Mr. Citera said he could not recall many employee warnings.

Ultimately, he said he thought whistleblower involvement will have little impact on cutting down products that don't comply with the Act.

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

---

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 30, 2008 Release #08-413

Firm's Recall Hotline: (800) 925-6278 CPSC Recall Hotline: (800) 638-2772 CPSC Media Contact: (301) 504-7908

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with the firm named below, today announced a voluntary recall of the following consumer product. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

Name of Product: General Electric Toasters

Units: About 210,000

Importer: Wal-Mart Stores Inc., of Bentonville, Ark.

Hazard: An electrical short circuit can occur between the heating element and the bread cage, posing a fire and electrical shock hazard to consumers.

Incidents/Injuries: Wal-Mart has received 140 reports of fires or sparks coming from the toasters or the toasters tripping the circuit breaker in consumers' homes. No injuries have been reported.

Description: The recalled toasters have a chrome steel body, a black plastic base and controls with either two or four openings in the top. The GE logo is located on the front of the toasters just above the controls. Model numbers 169115 and 169116 are included in this recall. The model number is printed on the bottom of the toasters.

4-Slice	2-Slice
169115	169116

Sold at: Wal-Mart Stores nationwide from September 2007 through July 2008 for between $17 and $28.

Manufactured in: China

Remedy: Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled toasters and return them to any Wal-Mart for a full refund or replacement toaster.

Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact Wal-Mart at (800) 925-6278 between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at www.walmartstores.com

Question:

"If you insured several tenants in a apartment complex and one of your

insured's caused the fire and your other tenants had damaged and we paid a

claim for damages.

Can you subrogate against your own company for the tenant that caused the

fire ?

Another factor in all of this is that the loss is greater then the policy

limit. We have tenants that are insured with us and other tenants that are

insured with other carriers and also damage to the apartment itself.

Would the other carriers frown upon pro-rating the loss with us being added

as a claimant ? or would it be best to just refund the insured's back there

deductible based on the loss ratio ?"

Answer:

All too often, small fire losses, especially appliance fires are swept under the rug as far as subrogation investigation is concerned. This is most commonly a result of the impression that all of them have no value due to the expense for using cause and origin and engineering experts to prove the case. These are some methods to work with your subrogation teams and field staff on that may assist you.

1. Put a plan in place with your field staff, that when you have a small appliance fire, to overly photograph the entire area of the origin of the fire. This is not difficult, as in these cases the smoke and fire damage point directly to the origin as opposed to larger fires with massive damage.
2. As long as it is apparent that the appliance in question is the only possible ignition source of the fire, have them secure the evidence, as in all probability, claims will have insured proceed with repairs to avoid ale, and the manufacturer will not visit the fire scene due to the low potential expense exposure. In securing the evidence, the claims staff should have an evidence receipt form in which they document the securing and possession of the evidence as it changes hands, i.e. insured to adjuster to subrogation adjuster etc.
3. As soon as an appliance or other piece of evidence is secured, have notice of the evidence sent to the subrogation team so that they can assist in coordination of any further investigation as needed. Make it part of the process to have the adjuster secure all manufacturer, model, serial number, place and date of purchase information on the evidence form, and obtain and or copy any manuals receipts etc.
4. The manufacturers will request the item be shipped to them for testing. Get a written agreement up front which lays out the shipping of the evidence, including the tracking of the shipment, and the responsibility of the manufacturer of the evidence once it is in their possession. A full payment of submitted claim in the event of loss or spoliation of evidence usually does the trick, but make sure it is signed and secured before shipping the evidence.
5. If the evidence is questionable, or you have concerns about confirming cause before sending to manufacturer, contact an expert local to where the evidence will be stored, and have them do a short once over of the evidence and the file materials. Other alternatives include locating a appliance repair facility that may be able to give you some opinions or guidance, or local a mail in evidence program that meets your company's guidelines.

Well the team is headed to New Orleans this week for the National Association of Subrogation Professionals National Conference. Should be a great time to meet our peers and our clients. If you are there stop by our booth and say hi. Just look for the Harley!

By the way, have a safe and happy Halloween.

Over the past few weeks I have been working with a client on a equipement loss. Their insured had attempted through their service company to resolve a fire where only the product was damaged, and had just run under the warranty. We went to work and got everyone on notice and began the process of inspection. Oddly enough, at the first inspection the manufacturer sent a general c&o and not an engineer to look at their product. as such we had to reschedule to actually secure the unit so that the manufacturer's enginner could look at it in place. Upon contacting the manufacturers rep and relaying what was going on, they realized that the product did not meet their standards based on the information we provided, and agreed to fix the unit at no charge. The client contacted me with the news and was appologetic due to the work we had put into the file since officially it was being shut down with no recovery nor fee. I stopped them however and advised that the ultimate goal had been reached in taking care of their client, and that is what we are in business for.

Yes we are in business to earn a profit, but it will not be at the detriment of our clients, and it is what has and will set us appart from our competition.

Well I was sitting in arb today in a 3 personal panel for an interesting claim. A fire truck crossed a homeowner's bridge which collapsed almost totaling the fire truck. $100k loss in which neither side had good evidence or investigation, and in which neither provided readily available evidence that could have changed the outcome. Oddly enough both parties actually have personal representatives there, both of whom seemed very shocked when I and my fellow panelist pointed out the problems with each party's contentions and evidence. I must say it's a sad state of affairs when carriers cut corners on investigations in 100k plus claims!

That sentence might sound funny, but it has a very specific point. Subrogation is not some back of the bus position anymore with no potential for growth of improvement. Subrogation is a specialization of claims. Claims the big headed monster with all the experience and technical ability imaginable and subrogation is or should be a major part of it. Subrogation is one of the best audit areas in the chain of a claim file because subrogation specialist have to look at all aspects of the claim and what was done to establish their investigation, their damages and their case Hind sight is 20/20 after all. They are also the only portion of claims that actually puts revenue back into the company. At a much higher rate than underwriting does. An example of this is to take a state you do business in and calculate the recovery dollars in that state. Now that the same amount of new business it would take underwriting to equal those recovery dollars. It puts things into perspective for me anyway.