Patricia Noyes-Corrigan Successfully Defends Against a Motion for Summary Judgment

Summary Judgment – Patricia Noyes-Corrigan, representing the Plaintiff, successfully defended against a Motion for Summary Judgment (Docs 90 and 91, denied in part and allowed in part), as well as a Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff’s Expert Opinion Evidence (Doc 92, denied) filed by Defendants in a United States District Court products liability subrogation action involving an alleged faulty vent damper which had been installed in a decade old heating system. Plaintiff alleged the heating system shut down because of the vent damper which then caused the pipes in the home to freeze and burst with resulting water damage to the property. The Court found that genuine issues of material fact existed as to both the negligence and breach of warranty claims as to whether the product was defective and unreasonably dangerous based, upon among other things, its expert’s opinion that the alleged manufacturer’s defect existed when the product left the Defendants’ facilities and that it had not been improperly handled by the Chapins or other intermediate handlers in the ten years between the date of manufacture and the failure of the heating system. In particular, in denying Defendant’s Motion in Limine, the Court ruled that Plaintiff’s expert’s opinion evidence met the requirements of Fed. R. of Evid. 104 and 702 and demonstrated genuine issues of material facts for trial. The parties settled the matter in Plaintiff’s favor by agreement shortly thereafter prior to trial. Arbella Mutual Insurance Company a/s/o Kathleen Chapin and Timothy Chapin v. Field Controls, LLC, 1:16-cv-10656-LTS (Docs. 90, 91 and 92) (The Honorable Leo T. Sorokin) (4/5/2019) Decision on Summary Judgment