Awl --
Clearly the days of pure caveat emptor (buyer beware) are gone. But are they coming back, to some extent? Proper warnings/labeling/instruction does count ito being held harmless (to some extent), but it's hard to tell just how much it helps -- or doesn't help -- bec, well, it's almost impossible to talk to the legal dept of product liability insurance companies. You talk to the broker, pay the rate plus whatever for the product class, and dats dat.
You'd think they'd want to review your product, literature, instructional material, etc, but they don't seem to be innerested.
Here's a cupla inneresting Q's.
One product that always fascinated me was the suction-cup chinup bar: How does a product that is virtually *guarownteed* to fail procure liability insurance?? And even if an offshore company mfr'g the product is impervious to litigation, Modell's and Sports Authority are not. Ito ambulance-chasing lawyers, they'd proly try to sue the UPS guy that delivered the product!!
So how is such a product even sold? And they ARE sold!
Next, suppose you buy some one-off at a flea market -- no-name gym product, home-grown swing apparatus, tool, etc. -- and sell it on ebay. Are you liable?? Think, even, used car. Are you liable for selling a beat up car?? Other than not disclosing brake lines patched together with duct tape, etc....
Can a company sell its prototypes, with a disclaimer, that this is an untested prototype, thereby "invoking" full caveat emptor?? Is it possible under ANY circumstance to invoke full caveat emptor? .
I'm wondering if an ambulance-chasing litigator could/would shed some light on these Q's, moreso than a staff lawyer in an insurance co?
Thoughts? Any links to articles, decent underwriters, etc?