Carlson & Messer, LLP has extensive experience in prosecuting tort claims for property damages, in which we usually represent both the policy holder and its property insurer(s). Damages usually exceed $1 million, however, we can also efficiently and effectively handle smaller subrogation matters. We have handled such cases in Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada.

We are well-familiar with general law and with California law that is unique to subrogation litigation, including:

• assignments for purposes of collection;
  
  
• express and implied waivers of subrogation;
  
  
• when an insurer can (or cannot) sue its own insured;
  
  
• the use and misuse of the economic loss doctrine;
  
  
• the different measures of damages between insurance policies and tort law; and
  
  
• how to use damages measurements to create favorable legal presumptions.
  

Our attorneys are also experienced with insurance coverage issues that are relevant to subrogation recoveries under CGL, E&O and Inland Marine policies.

Carlson & Messer, LLP has considerable experience in fire litigation. A sampling of our cases include the following:

• Recovery of $1.9 million for a manufacturer and its insurers against a warehouseman for damages caused by a forklift fire, which we tried on theories of negligent maintenance of the forklift and negligent response (lack of an emergency plan) to the fire, and received a unanimous favorable verdict.
  
  
• Representation of a manufacturer and its insurer against an asbestos abatement contractor and project manager for damages caused by a fire during the project, in which defendants paid their policy limits of nearly $2 million to settle this litigation.
  
  
• Negotiation of a settlement of over $2 million for a high-rise building manager and its insurer for damages caused by a fire during an asbestos abatement project.
  
  
• Representation of a manufacturer and its insurer for damages caused by a fire during disassembly of a modular building, which we settled for the defendant contractor's $1 million policy limit, without litigation.
  
  
• Representation of a sugar cane field owner and its insurer in a case against an electric utility company for negligence that ignited a fire and burned the owner's field, which we settled for over $500,000.
  
  
• Current representation of several insurers in subrogation litigation arising out of a chemical fire in Phoenix, Arizona, with pending property damages claims exceeding $68 million.
  

Additionally, our firm has handled subrogation cases involving water damage, including:

• When a commercial office building was flooded by its fire sprinkler system after a pipe coupling suddenly broke in the middle of the night, we recovered over $2 million from the coupling's distributor and the sprinkler contractor who installed it.
  
  
• Representation of a supply company and its insurer against a building's owner and its contractors from damages sustained when a roof collapsed during torrential rains, in which we obtained a favorable settlement for our clients.
  
  
• Subrogation claims of a publisher and insurer against a roofing contractor, whose negligence caused rain damage to books.
  
  
• Representation of an aircraft parts distributor and its insurer against the contractors of sprinkler system following corrosion of an underground pipe and subsequent flooding a warehouse.
  

Moreover, our attorneys have handled equipment failure cases, which are often difficult because of contractual waivers or limitations between insureds and the companies that supply or maintain the equipment that fails, and also due to the economic loss doctrine. We have successfully represented:

• An electrical utility against a company that re-furbished power turbines, where a turbine failure damaged electrical generating equipment.
  
  
• An air freight company against a trucking company whose poorly maintained equipment, and whose own negligence damaged a jet engine. (There were no Bills of Lading or tariffs that limited recovery, but there were unusually complex insurance coverage issues for the trucking company.)