Monthly Releases

In two cases last month, In re: Motors Liquidation Co., Case Nos 18-1939 & 18-1940 (2nd Cir. Nov. 2019), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided that the ?current? General Motors is not liable for punitive damages stemming from its pre-bankruptcy predecessor's conduct, ending claims by customers who say they were harmed by faulty ignition switches in incidents that occurred after GM's reorganization. The appeal arose from two suits against GM over faulty ignition switches, which were the subject of a recall in 2014, five years after the predecessor company, "Old GM," filed...

In Markel Ins. Co. v. Rau, No. 19-2433 (7th Cir. April 9, 2020) N.D. Ind., Hammond Div. Affirmed, the Seventh Circuit determined that the trial court did not err in granting plaintiff-insurance company's motion for summary judgment in action seeking declaration that it had no obligation to indemnify or defend insured in underlying personal injuries action, under circumstances where insured's ambulance that was involved with collision with defendant's vehicle was not listed on policy at time of accident. While defendant argued that ambulance was covered by policy because insured's agent sent...

In In re DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Case No. 1:12-dp-20699 (6th Cir. March 27, 2019), the Sixth Circuit vacated the district court?s orders in 12 consolidated cases conditionally dismissing them on forum non conveniens grounds, and remanded them for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. These 12 cases were part of the MDL litigation pending in Ohio involving some 8,500 plaintiffs with over 12,000 claims that certain DePuy hip implants were defective. They were filed in 2012 by Spanish residents and either Spanish or British citizens with short form complaints pursuant to the trial...

In Lowery v. Tilden, No. 19-1365, consolidated with McCray v. Wilkie, No. 18-1637 (7th Cir. February 3, 2020), the Seventh Circuit took counsel to task for not providing a proper jurisdictional statement when each consolidated case involved an appeal from a Magistrate?s ruling. Chief Judge Wood said it best: This court takes jurisdictional issues seriously?indeed, it is proud to have a reputation as a jurisdictional hawk. As part of our routine procedure, we screen all briefs filed before oral argument or submission on the briefs to ensure that our jurisdiction is secure and to catch any...

In Lexington Ins. Co. v. Chicago Flameproof & Wood Specialties Corp., No. 19-1062 (7th Cir. February 27, 2020) (N.D. Ill., E. Div. Affirmed), the Seventh Circuit affirmed the trial court which determined that an American International Group Inc. unit has no duty to defend a lumber company in a case in which it had sold fire-retardant lumber that was not properly certified. The District Court did not err in granting plaintiff-insurance company's motion for summary judgment in action seeking declaration that it had no duty to defend defendant-insured in three underlying actions alleging that...

In Kaiser v. Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon, Inc., No. 18-2944 (7th Cir. Jan. 14, 2020) Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Ethicon Inc. did not persuade the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse a multi-million-dollar verdict for a northern Indiana woman who was injured by a transvaginal mesh implant produced by the company. Plaintiff Kaiser sued Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon, and a jury found that she had established both her claims of negligent design defect and negligent failure to warn. It awarded her $10 million in compensatory damages and $25 million in punitive damages. Indiana Northern...

In Curry v. Revolution Laboratories, LLC, No. 17-2900 (7th Cir. Feb. 10, 2020) the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court on a personal jurisdiction issue involving internet presence. There plaintiff brought his action under the Lanham Act, Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, and Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act claims, arising out of defendant's 2016 marketing of its "Diesel Test Red Series" sports nutritional supplement that plaintiff asserted infringed on its "Diesel Test" dietary nutritional supplement that plaintiff had first manufactured in 2005....

In Murphy-Sims v. Owners Insurance Company, No. 18-1392 (10th Cir. Jan. 7, 2020) Plaintiff-Appellant Luzetta Murphy-Sims appealed after a jury ruled in favor of Defendant-Appellee Owners Insurance Company (Owners) on her complaint against Owners' insured stemming from a car accident. The insured was at fault; Murphy-Sims maintained that she suffered extensive injuries, and consequently incurred significant medical costs, as a result of the accident. In February 2014, she sent Owners a letter demanding settlement claiming $41,000 in medical expenses. Owners timely replied with a request for...

In Linda Waldon and Steve Waldon v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. 19-1529 (7th Cir. Nov. 26, 2019), Linda Waldon alleged she slipped and fell after stepping on fallen plastic hangers while browsing in a Crawfordsville Walmart, injuring her back, neck and head. Waldon sued Wal-Mart Stores Inc., alleging the company failed to provide a safe environment for its shoppers and was therefore liable. On the issue of notice, the District Court determined Walmart had presented evidence that it had no actual knowledge of the purportedly dangerous conditions, but the Waldons claimed the employees...

In Vazquez v. Raymond Corp., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5355 (2019), United States District Judge Richard W. Story excluded a human factors expert from giving design opinions. There, the plaintiff sought to hold defendants, Raymond Corporation and Carolina Handling, responsible for injuries he sustained in a forklift accident. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was using the forklift to pick up a full pallet of tires and was traveling tractor first (or ?forks trailing?) when he turned to speak with another employee while the forklift was still moving. When he did so, he lost control of...

In Tuong Vi Le v. Colonial Freight Systems, Inc., Case Number 1D18-39 (Fla. 1st DCA December 4, 2019), Florida?s First District Court of Appeals held that a semi-trailer owner is not responsible under a theory of non-delegable duty for negligent maintenance of the trailer. Rather, the Court held that the mechanic performing maintenance is responsible in negligence. The plaintiff was injured in an accident with a semi-truck operated by Colonial Freight. The jury awarded total damages of $521,984.39 and found Colonial Freight responsible for only 23%. The other 77% of fault was attributed to...

In Determan, et al v. The Boeing Company, et al., Case No. 18-15515 (9th Cir. November 1, 2019), the plaintiffs appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment on their state law claims for product liability, negligence, and wanton design in favor of The Boeing Company, Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., and Eaton Aerospace LLC. The suit arose from the crash of an Osprey aircraft, which killed Matthew Determan and another non-party soldier. The district court granted summary judgment to the Contractors based on the three-part government contractor affirmative defense. See Boyle v. United...

In Merfeld et al. v. Dometic Corp., Nos. 18-1308 & 18-1364 (8th Cir. October 17, 2019) the plaintiffs filed suit against Dometic, alleging a fire that extensively damaged a storage building and personal property owned by plaintiffs was caused by a defective Dometic refrigerator installed in their RV. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Dometic, holding that Dometic was immune from liability under Iowa Code 613.18 because it sold, but did not manufacture, design, or assemble the refrigerator. The trial court determined that Dometic had only sold the...

In Dumont v. Reily Foods Co. et al., Case No. 18-2055 (1st Cir. August 8, 2019) plaintiff Kathy Dumont says she bought New England Coffee Company?s ?Hazelnut CrŠme? coffee because she believed it contained real hazelnuts. But, there was just one problem - the coffee contained no hazelnut at all. Outraged, Dumont brought a putative class action against the company, alleging they had violated Massachusetts consumer protection laws. Dumont claimed in May 2018 that New England Coffee Co. and New Orleans-based Reily Foods Co., which bought New England Coffee in 2009, are violating the federal...

In Lexington Ins. Co. v. Hotai Ins. Co., Ltd., No. 18-1141 (September 12, 2019), the Seventh Circuit held that the Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing, for lack of personal jurisdiction, plaintiff's primary insurance company's action against two defendant Taiwan insurance companies, where plaintiff sought indemnification for products-liability settlement that plaintiff paid on insured's behalf for accident that occurred in Texas. Each defendant provided Lexington?s insured with "worldwide" products-liability coverage in agreements with insured. Dist. Ct. could properly find that neither...

In Vanzant. v. Hill?s Pet Nutrition, et al., Case No. 17-3633 (7th Cir., Aug. 20, 2019), the Seventh Circuit reinstated pet owners? class action fraud suit against Hill?s Pet Food, ruling last month that the FDA did not authorize the company?s ?prescription? label on high-priced pet food found to be no different than regular pet food. The trial court dismissed the lawsuit, finding that the claims were barred by the safe harbor provision for conduct authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The FDA has issued guidance recognizing that most pet foods on the market intended to treat...

In Jeffrey Klingenberg et al. v. Vulcan Ladder USA LLC et al., Case No. 18- 1742 (8th Cir., Aug. 29, 2019), the Eighth Circuit affirmed an Iowa couple's $2.4 million personal injury jury trial win against Vulcan Ladder and its Chinese manufacturer, ruling that an expert witness' testimony saying a safer design for the ladder at issue was feasible is enough to back up the award. In 2018, an Iowa federal jury had found that the ladder used by the Klingenbergs was not inherently defective, but rather that it failed to live up to the makers' promises that it could handle a load of 300 pounds and...

In Geffner v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 18-3548 (2nd Cir., 2019), the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of an action alleging that Coca?Cola violated several provisions of New York State law through misleading naming and marketing of its soft drink "Diet Coke." ?[C]onsistent with the rulings of every court that has addressed this issue," the panel affirmed the dismissal of Evan Geffner and Ivan Babsin's suit against The Coca-Cola Co., finding that the word "diet" when applied to soft drinks only refers to caloric content and not to any promise it will help with weight loss or...