Key Lessons From Peloton’s Tread+ Recall
Time 2 Minute Read
Categories: Recall

Hunton insurance attorney, Latosha Ellis, along with Hunton product liability and mass tort attorneys Elizabeth Reese and Alexandra Brisky Cunningham, recently published an article in Risk Management discussing key lessons from Peloton’s Tread+ Recall.

On April 17, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) issued a rare unilateral “urgent warning” about Tread+ machines, urging consumers to stop using the treadmills because they posed “serious risk to children for abrasions, fractures and death.” Initially, Peloton refused to recall the equipment and called the CPSC’s warning “inaccurate and misleading.” But less than two weeks later, Peloton acknowledged its “mistake” and formally issued a recall. The company disclosed that it had received 72 reports of adults, children, pets or objects being pulled under Tread+ machines, 29 of which involved injuries to children. Peloton is currently the subject of investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission, US Department of Justice, and Department of Homeland Security over its public disclosures about reported consumer injuries.

The recall and events leading up to it offer valuable lessons in risk management for all consumer product companies. The article discusses how companies can leverage recall insurance, commercial general liability, and directors and officers liability policies to execute a recall swiftly, minimize losses and maintain customer relationships in the wake of a recall.

  • Partner

    Mike is a Legal 500 and Chambers USA-ranked lawyer with more than 25 years of experience litigating insurance disputes and advising clients on insurance coverage matters.

    Mike Levine is a partner in the firm’s Washington, DC ...

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 4 Minute Read

Notwithstanding the FDA’s finding that “[c]urrent scientific evidence does not demonstrate that levels of microplastics or nanoplastics detected in foods pose a risk to human health,” the plaintiffs’ bar steadfastly continues to file class action lawsuits claiming otherwise.

Time 4 Minute Read

A Delaware court recently held in Mattel, Inc. and Fisher Price, Inc. v. XL Insurance America, Inc., et al., that a series of product liability claims dating back to 2013 constituted a single “occurrence” under the toy manufacturer’s and distributor’s commercial general liability (CGL) policies.

Time 6 Minute Read

Risk professionals and insurers alike continue to monitor the rapid evolution and deployment of  artificial intelligence (AI). With increased understanding comes increased efforts to manage and limit exposure. Exclusions to coverage offer insurers potentially broad protection against evolving AI risk. Most recently, one insurer, Berkley, has introduced the first so-called “Absolute” AI exclusion in several specialty lines of liability coverage, signaling an even broader effort to compartmentalize AI risk.

Time 4 Minute Read

A Delaware court recently held in Mattel, Inc. and Fisher Price, Inc. v. XL Insurance America, Inc., et al., that a series of product liability claims dating back to 2013 constituted a single “occurrence” under the toy manufacturer’s and distributor’s commercial general liability (CGL) policies.

The case stemmed from Mattel’s request for defense and indemnity coverage in response to claims that certain toys caused bodily injuries to infants. The CGL coverage tower, which included policies issued by multiple primary, excess, and umbrella insurers, spanned from 2011 to 2020.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page