An automobile insurance policy may have a provision for "other insurance." When more than one insurance policy provides coverage for a loss, the "other insurance" clause can limit an insurance company's liability by defining the priority in which the policy should pay an insured's claim. There are three types of "other insurance" clauses: (1) pro rata; (2) excess; and (3) escape.
A plaintiff in a products liability action against the manufacturer or seller of a motor vehicle is generally required to prove that the vehicle as sold contained a defect that created an unreasonable risk of death, personal injury, or property damage when the vehicle was put to its intended use and that the defect caused the loss for which the plaintiff is seeking to recover damages. The types of alleged vehicle defects that may be made the subject of an automotive products liability action include shortcomings in the design of the vehicle, mistakes made in the manufacture of its parts or in their assembly into a completed car or truck, and failure to warn the purchaser or operator of the vehicle about dangers inherent in its use and operation. Because products liability actions involve complex technical issues of science and engineering, expert witnesses are normally made use of by both sides in trying to either prove a case of liability or establish a defense.
When one person pays to another person an amount due to the second person by a third person, the first person has a right to recover from the third person the amount paid to the second person. This right of payment is called a subrogation. Subrogation is a doctrine of equity. It is the substitution of the first person in the place of the second person, who had a claim upon the third person. When an insurance company pays its insured for a loss under an insurance policy that was caused by a third party, the insurance company acquires the right of subrogation against the third party.
A plaintiff in an automotive products liability action is generally required to prove that a motor vehicle as sold contained a defect in its design, in the way in which it was manufactured or assembled, or in the failure to warn of a risk inherent in its operation that created an unreasonable risk of death, personal injury, or property damage when the vehicle was used for its intended purpose and that the defect caused an accident or similar incident, such as a vehicle fire, that resulted in the loss or damage for which the plaintiff seeks to recover damages. Because proof of the existence of such conditions does not involve passing judgment on the conduct of the manufacturer, but merely on the status of the vehicle as sold, the plaintiff in such a case can ordinarily recover only his or her actual damages, which can include economic losses and damages for non-economic losses based on the jury's determination of the dollar value of the pain and suffering resulting from the accident. Sometimes, though, the manufacturer's conduct in dealing with the alleged vehicle defect becomes an issue in the case, and the plaintiff may then attempt to recover punitive damages in addition to the actual damages suffered.
The essential elements of proof that a plaintiff has to establish in a products liability action against a manufacturer or seller of a motor vehicle are that the vehicle as sold contained a defect that created an unreasonable risk of death, personal injury, or property damage when used for its intended purpose and that the defect caused an accident or similar occurrence, such as a vehicle fire, that resulted in the loss for which the plaintiff seeks to recover damages. Claims of vehicle defect can include allegations of inadequacies in the design of a motor vehicle, errors in the manner in which its parts were manufactured and assembled into a complete car or truck, or failure to warn the purchaser or user of the vehicle of some risk inherent in its use.
