...apply to Acorn's installers given that field work shows that an estimated 70% of Acorn stairlifts

...apply to Acorn's installers given that field work shows that an estimated 70% of Acorn stairlifts

Please provide analyses of Intact Insurance v. 2289372 Ontario Inc., 2022 ONSC 456 (Ontario, Canada) and Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Superior Court, 210 Cal. App. 4th 38 (2012) would apply to Acorn's installers given that Rob's Worldwide Stairlift Repairs field work shows that an estimated 70% of Acorn stairlifts would fail one to four tests for Code and regulation compliance.

### ⚠️ Strategic Implications for Acorn

1. **Subrogation Wave Likely**: Insurers will use Rob’s findings (or commission their own audits) to **identify high-risk files** and file subrogation suits.
2. **Class Action Risk**: If non-compliance is systemic, **consumer class actions** for “defective installation” could follow.
3. **Regulatory Exposure**: Electrical safety authorities (e.g., ESA in Ontario, CSLB in California) may investigate Acorn’s installer network.
4. **Insurance Premiums**: Acorn’s own liability insurance costs will rise—or coverage may be denied.

---

### ✅ Conclusion

- **_Intact v. 2289372_** (Canada) and **_Farmers v. Superior Court_** (U.S.) **both empower insurers to pursue Acorn and its installers** after paying claims—**especially when code violations are documented**.
- **Rob’s 70% non-compliance finding** transforms isolated incidents into **evidence of systemic negligence**, making defenses far harder.
- **Acorn cannot hide behind “independent contractors”** if it controls training, parts, or certification—courts look at **economic reality**, not labels.

This isn’t theoretical. With documented field failures, **the legal foundation for subrogation—and broader liability—is already laid**.