Union Ins. Co. v. RCA Corp.
Decision Date | 30 January 1986 |
Docket Number | No. 82CA1480,82CA1480 |
Citation | 724 P.2d 80 |
Parties | UNION INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RCA CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. . II |
Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Halaby & McCrea, Theodore S. Halaby, Leslie L. Schluter, Denver, for plaintiff-appellant.
Hall & Evans, Richard A. Waltz, Alan Epstein, Denver, for defendant-appellee.
Plaintiff, Union Insurance Company, appeals from a judgment entered on a jury verdict denying it recovery in this product liability action brought against defendant, Radio Corporation of America (RCA). Plaintiff's principal contention on appeal is that the trial court committed reversible error in instructing the jury pursuant to § 13-21-403(1), C.R.S. (1985 Cum.Supp.). We reverse.
In July 1974, Keith P. Holtz, plaintiff's insured, purchased an RCA television set. In September 1976, a fire occurred in the Holtz home. In July 1977, Holtz executed a proof of loss reflecting that he had received payment on his claim against plaintiff. Plaintiff then brought suit as subrogee of its insured, alleging that the fire was caused when the TV ignited because of defects in its design and/or manufacture.
At trial, over objection by plaintiff, the jury was instructed that:
This instruction combines and substantially reproduces approved instructions set forth in CJI-Civ.2d 14:24 and 14:25 (1984 Supp.). These instructions contain statutory rebuttable presumptions which were intended to apply to causes of action accruing on or after July 1, 1977. Colo.Sess. Laws 1977, ch. 199 at 820-21. See § 13-21-403(1), C.R.S. (1985 Cum.Supp.).
Plaintiff contends, inter alia, that the giving of this instruction was error because the cause of action to which it was subrogated accrued at the time of the fire, not when the proof of loss was executed. We agree.
A subrogee steps into the shoes of its subrogor and cannot therefore possess rights greater than those of its subrogor. See Employers Casualty Co. v. Wainwright, 28 Colo.App. 292, 473 P.2d 181 (1970). The claim of a subrogee insurance carrier is derivative of the claim of its subrogor insured. Subrogation merely alters the beneficial ownership of the claim, not its identity, and gives the insuror the right to prosecute against responsible third parties whatever rights its insured possesses against them. See 16 G. Couch, Cyclopedia of Insurance Law §§ 61:36 and 61:37 (R. Anderson 2d ed.1983).
Thus, it is generally held that statutes of limitation begin to run against a subrogee insurer at the time a claim accrues to its insured. See, e.g., Indiana Lumberman's Mutual Insurance Co. v. Curtis Mathes, Inc., 456 So.2d 750 (Miss.1984) ( ). See also Annot., 91 A.L.R.3rd 844 (1979). We see no reason in logic or policy why the result should be different in the present context. Because Holtz' cause of action against RCA accrued before the effective date of § 13-21-403, we conclude that the trial court erred in instructing the jury pursuant to that statute.
Defendant contends, however, that so instructing the jury was harmless error because plaintiff offered only circumstantial evidence that the TV caused the fire and, absent direct evidence of cause and defect, defendant was entitled to a directed verdict. We disagree.
To avoid a directed verdict in a strict liability case, a plaintiff must offer proof of each element set forth in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A sufficient to create an issue of fact as to the existence thereof. See Belle Bonfils Memorial Blood Bank v. Hansen, 665 P.2d 118 (Colo.1983). Proof of the defective condition of the product is central to the prima facie case. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A.
Contrary to defendant's contention, we are not here faced with an application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur: Plaintiff does not argue that the mere occurrence of the fire supports the inference that the TV was defective. Indeed, plaintiff introduced evidence that, from the time Holtz unpacked the television from its factory carton, it was used normally and neither disturbed internally nor abused. Extensive and detailed testimony by experts in fire investigation showed that the fire started in the specific location of the TV and identified the area in the TV at which ignition occurred. This testimony also excluded other possible causes of the fire. All of this evidence was substantially uncontroverted.
Defendant further contends that evidence showing that the TV ignited should not be sufficient to establish the inference that it was defective. However, direct proof of defect was impossible in this case because the TV was destroyed in the fire. A ruling that proof of defect is unattainable as a matter of law in circumstances such as these would effectively establish a conclusory presumption of non-liability in favor of strict product liability defendants whose products self-destruct in the process of causing injury to persons or property. We are not prepared to adopt such a view. Therefore, we hold that plaintiff's evidence was sufficient as a matter of law to create an issue of fact as to the element of defect. See Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 35 Conn.Sup. 687, 406 A.2d 1254 (1979); Fain v. GTE-Sylvania, Inc., 652 S.W.2d 163 (Mo.App.1983); Tigert v. Admiral Corp., 612 P.2d 1381 (Okla.App.1980) ( ). See also 2 L. Frumer & M. Freidman, Products Liability § 16A(4)(e)(ii) (1985); Annot., 51 A.L.R.3rd 8 (1973).
Defendant next contends that the giving of this instruction was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Olivero v. Trek Bicycle Corp., Civil Action No. 16–cv–0761–WJM–MJW
...which is insufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment." (ECF No. 33 at 15.)The Oliveros respond with Union Insurance Co. v. RCA Corp. , 724 P.2d 80 (Colo. App. 1986). The Union Insurance case arose from a house fire. Id. at 81 . The plaintiff insured that residence, paid the ins......
-
Truck Ins. Exchange v. Magnetek, Inc.
...a defect, not for proof of causation. See, e.g., Werth v. Makita Elec. Works, Ltd., 950 F.2d 643 (10th Cir.1991); Union Ins. Co. v. RCA Corp., 724 P.2d 80 (Colo.Ct.App.1986). To the extent those cases discuss a plaintiff's need to use circumstantial evidence and inferences to prove a defect......
-
Oja v. Howmedica, Inc.
...Under Colorado law, a plaintiff may prove a manufacturing defect by direct or circumstantial evidence. See Union Ins. Co. v. RCA Corp., 724 P.2d 80, 82-83 (Colo.Ct.App.1986). In this case, the staking peg was completely missing when Dr. Evans removed Oja's PCA hip. Under such conditions, di......
-
Four Corners Helicopters, Inc. v. Turbomeca, S.A.
...(1991). Turbomeca raises three arguments asserting that this erroneous jury instruction was prejudicial. Citing Union Ins. Co. v. RCA Corp., 724 P.2d 80 (Colo.Ct.App.1986), Turbomeca initially contends that the instruction impermissibly aided the plaintiff by influencing the jury's determin......
-
Chapter 3 - § 3.3 • ELEMENT ONE: DEFECTIVE CONDITION
...1986).[27] CJI-Civ. 14:7 (CLE ed. 2019). [28] Weir v. Fed. Ins. Co., 811 F.2d 1387, 1392 (10th Cir. 1987); Union Ins. Co. v. RCA Corp., 724 P.2d 80, 83 (Colo. App. 1986), overruled on other grounds by Mile Hi Concrete, Inc. v. Matz, 842 P.2d 198, 207 n. 17 (Colo.1992), superseded by statute......
-
Subrogation: Principles and Practice Pointers
...County, 266 N.W.2d 326 (1978). 3. Hartford Ins. Co. v. CCMC Builders, Inc., 752 P.2d 590 (Colo.App. 1988); Union Ins. Co. v. RCA Corp., 724 P.2d 80 (Colo.App.1986). 4. Union Ins. Co., supra, note 3. 5. See, e.g., Eklund v. Safeco Ins. Co., 579 P.2d 1185 (Colo.App., 1978). 6. Aetna Cas. & Su......
-
The Product Liability Case
...on by the Reporters in support of this Rule in Restatement (Third) § 17 at 669. 96. CJI-Civ.3d 14:27. 97. Union Ins. Co. v. RCA Corp., 724 P.2d 80 1986); Weir v. Federal Ins. Co., 811 F.2d 1387 (10th Cir. 1987). 98. § 3. 99. CRS § 13-21-403(2); CJI-Civ.3d 14:25. 100. § 7(a). 101. § 2(d) at ......
-
Rule 301: Overcoming Presumptions
...13. See Schenck v. Minolta Office Systems, Inc., 8802 P.2d 1131, 1133 (Colo.App. 1990); see also Union Insurance Company v. RCA Corp., 724 P.2d 80, 83 (Colo.App. ("determinations as to what amount of evidence is necessary to overcome a rebuttable presumption are to be handled on an ad hoc b......