In Zurbriggen v. Twin Hill Acquisition, Inc., No. 25-1963 (7th Cir. June 16, 2026), American Airlines contracted with Twin Hill Acquisition, Inc. in 2015 to manufacture new uniforms for its employees. After American released the new apparel, hundreds of employees complained of health problems ranging from itchy eyes to severe allergic reactions. Some claimed they suffered reactions just from being near the Twin Hill uniforms. One month later, American reversed its rollout of the Twin Hill uniforms and, by March 2017, American offered another uniform option from a different company. Yet, some employees still claimed they were experiencing “proximity reactions” to the Twin Hill uniforms—that is, they had severe allergic reactions simply from being near people wearing them. The American employees filed a lawsuit against both the airline and the manufacturer of work uniforms alleging that the clothing caused them health issues under the Class Action Fairness Act under both products liability and intentional tort theories of liability.
Defendants moved for summary judgment as to the first flight of bellwether plaintiffs. The defendants also moved to exclude the testimony of two expert witnesses offered by the plaintiffs. No professional testing had revealed chemicals in the uniforms capable of causing the range of harmful reactions plaintiffs alleged. Plaintiffs instead invoked the tort doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and claimed that their experts did not need to provide a specific theory of defect or causation. Instead, circumstantial evidence supported their experts’ opinions on the likelihood of these injuries occurring in the absence of a defect.
The district court excluded plaintiffs’ expert witnesses and granted summary judgment for the defendants and plaintiffs appealed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, explaining that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor did not help plaintiffs satisfy their evidentiary burden on their product liabilities theories.