Mass Tort Defense : Mass Tort Defense Lawyer & Attorney : Sean P. Wajert : Dechert Law Firm : Products Liability, Class Actions, Pharmaceutical Litigation

A federal court last week dismissed the claims in a case accusing Green Mountain Coffee Roasters of misrepresenting the performance quality of its single-cup brewing systems. See Green v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters Inc., et al., 2011 WL 6372617 (12/20/12 D.N.J.).

Your humble blogger is in the minority, not being a coffee drinker. Nearly 60% of adults drink coffee daily. The average American drinks 3.1 cups of coffee each day. This contributes to an $18 billion U.S. coffee market. One of the tremendous innovations (speaking from experience, having given these as holiday gifts) in the market is the single cup brewing machine for the home, allowing coffee lovers to make less than a full pot, and to choose from among hundreds of flavors and brands of coffee-related beverages.

Defendants are in the specialty coffee and coffee maker businesses. They manufacture single-cup brewers, accessories and coffee, tea, cocoa and other beverages in "K–Cup portion packs.” Plaintiff Green maintained that his machine failed to brew the programmed amounts of K–Cup coffee within a few weeks of use. Plaintiff asserted that the machines had defective components, including defective pumps. As a result, the machines allegedly failed and brewed less than the specified amount. Furthemore, this defect allegedly caused consumers to use additional K–Cups to brew a single beverage. 

Plaintiff maintained that defendants' actions were in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (“CFA”), N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:8–1, et seq., and constituted a breach of implied warranty. 

Defendants moved to dismiss.  The court noted that threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), and Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).  If the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint should be dismissed for failing to show that the pleader is entitled to relief. A plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. 

The motion challenged plaintiffs' standing. To have standing, the plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of—the injury has to be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court. Third, it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.  The injury-in-fact element is often determinative.

The injury must affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way.  Here, Green alleged that he purchased and used the Keurig Platinum Brewing System (model series B70).  Nevertheless, he sought to represent all individuals in New Jersey who “purchased or received”  a variety of Keurig Brewing Systems. Plaintiff did not have standing to pursue a claim that products he neither purchased nor used did not work as advertised.

Regarding that model series B70, plaintiff contended in his complaint that, because of defective components, the coffee machines at issue brew a lesser amount of coffee than the companies represented, compromising the quality of the beverage. Consumers are then forced to use additional K-Cups, which are a portion pack for the systems, according to the complaint. Defendants maintained that even if their alleged conduct was unlawful, plaintiff had not sufficiently pled ascertainable loss.  In a misrepresentation case, a plaintiff generally may show ascertainable loss by either out-of-pocket loss or a demonstration of loss in value.  In this case, Green did not allege that he made a claim for warranty repair or replacement of his machine.  The warranty provided as part of the contract of sale is part of the benefit of the bargain between the parties. Any defects that arise and are addressed by warranty, at no cost to the consumer, do not provide the predicate loss that the CFA expressly requires for a private claim.  Because plaintiff had not availed himself of defendants' warranty, he could not allege that the warranty does not address the defect in his machine.

Furthermore, the court found unpersuasive plaintiff's argument that the warranty did not address the defects in the brewers because other consumers allegedly reported that their replaced or repaired brewers were equally defective.  Allegations regarding the experience of absent members of the putative class, in general, cannot fulfill the requirement of pleading injury with adequate specificity.

Similarly, plaintiff did not sufficiently plead loss in value.   Plaintiff broadly asserted that he suffered a loss because each brewer failed to perform its advertised purpose and caused purchasers to suffer a loss of value of the product. But Green failed to allege how much he paid for his brewer and how much other comparable brewers manufactured by competitors cost at the time of purchase. Furthermore, Green had not suffered a diminution in value because the defective brewer could have been repaired or replaced with a new brewer which would have had its own one-year warranty.

Regarding the implied warranty claim, the general purpose of the brewers is to brew beverages. Even if defendants may have advertised that the machines would brew a specific amount of beverage, that alone did not transform the “general” purpose.  Green did not allege that his machine would not brew coffee or that it was inoperable.  The complaint was also devoid of any allegation that plaintiff can no longer use his brewer. Therefore, Green had not sufficiently alleged that his brewer was unfit for its ordinary purpose of brewing beverages at the time of purchase.

Defendants also contended that the class allegations should be dismissed. Plaintiff argued that the Court should deny the motion because it was premature. Nevertheless, a court may strike class action allegations in those cases where the complaint itself demonstrates that the requirements for maintaining a class action cannot be met.  Here, the court concluded that the plaintiff could not  meet the predominance requirement set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b).

The complaint did not allege that all individuals in New Jersey who purchased the Keurig Brewing Systems had experienced the defect. Plaintiff acknowledged that there were members in the putative class who had not yet suffered the alleged pump failure. Consequently, the putative class included individuals who do not presently have a claim against defendants. Proving that defendants breached the implied warranty of merchantability would also require an individualized inquiry. Not every member of the putative class experienced a defect with the model series B70. Even if the purported defect had manifested in all of the brewers purchased within the class period, the court would have to make individual inquiries as to the cause and extent of the defect.  Motion granted. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The MDL court overseeing the claims arising from the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill has ruled that plaintiffs can seek punitive damages against allegedly responsible parties in economic loss and property damage suits. In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010, No. 2:10-md-02179 (E.D. La., 8/26/11).

Readers may recall that this MDL consists of hundreds of consolidated cases, with thousands of claimants, arising from the April 20, 2010 explosion, fire, and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon  mobile offshore drilling unit, which resulted in the release of millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico before it was finally capped approximately three months later. In order to efficiently  manage this complex MDL, the court consolidated and organized the various types of claims (e.g., personal injury, environmental, property, and economic damages) into several “pleading bundles.”  One such pleading bundle includes all claims for private or non-governmental economic loss and property damages.  There are in excess of 100,000 individual claims encompassed within this bundle.

The court recently ruled on several pending motions to dismiss the claims by this sub-group of plaintiffs, but let's focus on the punitive damages claims. The court's analysis began with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990: the OPA is silent as to the availability of punitive damages. So the issue became whether plaintiffs who could assert general maritime claims pre-OPA enactment could still plausibly allege punitive damages under general maritime.  The court concluded they could.

First, punitive damages have long been available at common law, and the common-law tradition of punitive damages extends to maritime claims. The court reasoned that Congress had not occupied the entire field of oil spill liability in light of the OPA provision preserving admiralty and maritime law, “except as otherwise provided.” OPA does not mention punitive damages; thus, while punitive damages are not available under OPA, the court did not read OPA’s silence as meaning that punitive damages are precluded under general maritime law. The MDL court observed that Congress knows how to proscribe punitive damages when it intends to, as it did in the commercial aviation exception under the Death on the High Seas Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30307(b) (“punitive damages are not recoverable”).
 

Second, the court saw nothing to indicate that allowing a claim for punitive damages in this context would frustrate the OPA liability scheme. All claims against the allegedly Responsible Party must comply with OPA’s procedure, regardless of whether there is also cause of action against the Responsible Party under general maritime law. However, the behavior that would give rise to punitive damages under general maritime law–gross negligence–would also break OPA’s limit of liability. See 33 U.S.C. § 2704(a). Thus, the imposition of punitive damages under general maritime law would not, according to the court, circumvent OPA’s limitation of liability.

Finally on this issue, the court noted that some courts had held that the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act (“TAPAA”), which provided “the liability regime governing certain types of Alaskan oil spills, imposing strict liability but also capping recovery,” did not restrict the availability of punitive damages.  OPA, like TAPAA, creates a liability regime governing oil spills, imposes strict liability on the Responsible Parties, includes liability limits, and is silent on the issue of punitive damages.

Thus, the court concluded, the OPA does not displace general maritime law claims for those plaintiffs who would have been able to bring such claims prior to OPA’s enactment. 


 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I spoke last week at a CLE seminar on "Chemical Products Liability and Environmental Litigation."  One of the panels included an array of federal and state court judges who offered their thoughts on a number of interesting topics, including Daubert/Frye issues.

No surprise for the savvy readers of MassTortDefense, but one clear takeaway is that judges have differing views and approaches on a variety of expert-related issues, including when they hold a hearing vs. deciding on the paper, and when they want the experts to appear live vs. argument.

There were a few areas of consensus. 

• The panel agreed you need to know your judge, learn his or her preferences, and know how busy their docket is. 
• In Daubert or Frye hearings, don't waste time on Rule 56 or Rule 702 black letter law.
• In filings, always cite to the record so the judge or clerk can find the basis of factual assertions. This was called a "lost art."
• A stipulated joint glossary of key terms is appreciated when possible.

The judges agreed that they are not overly impressed with arguments noting the expert was excluded by other courts on other cases.  If the facts are nearly identical, and they respect the other judge, and there is an opinion or order with some reasoning, they may give it some weight.  But if the expert opinion was also admitted in some other cases, this may cancel out the influence of prior exclusions.

Finally, while many lawyers talk about filing an iffy or uncertain motion to "educate" the court as to important science issues, the panel suggested this often doesn't help. There may be a time lag between the motion and trial; and the loss of momentum from losing a motion may have carry-over effects in the litigation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

We have posted before about how foreign plaintiffs desire to take advantage of U.S. product liability law and remedies.  The Third Circuit last week affirmed the granting of a forum non conveniens motion against the claims of hundreds of Australian plaintiffs seeking to sue Alcoa Inc. in the U.S. over injuries allegedly caused by emissions at three refineries in Western Australia. See Cameron Auxer et al. v. Alcoa Inc., No. 10-2131(3d Cir. 1/20/11).

These five consolidated cases involved 244 plaintiffs who claim to have suffered personal injuries caused by their alleged exposure to emissions from three alumina refineries in Western Australia.  The plaintiffs filed suit in June, 2009, alleging that Alcoa was liable for exposing them to a variety of  toxic chemicals from the Wagerup, Kwinana and Pinjarra refineries, and allegedly intentionally concealing the dangers of the pollution.  Alcoa produces alumina or aluminum oxide at its Western Australia facilities. 

FYI, the state of Western Australia is Australia’s face on the Indian Ocean. Its capital, Perth, is closer to Singapore and Jakarta than it is to Canberra. The majority of people live in and around Perth. Western Australia is the largest Australian State. With an area of more than 2,500,000 sq km, a 12,500 km coastline, and spanning 2,400 km from north to south, it occupies a third of the continent.

Defendant moved to dismiss, and the lower court dismissed the five consolidated suits on forum non conveniens grounds. Plaintiffs appealed.

While plaintiffs acknowledged that their exposure, injuries, diagnoses, and medical treatment all occurred exclusively in Western Australia, and that none of the operative facts material to causation, injuries, diagnoses and treatments occurred in Pennsylvania, they insisted that the witnesses and documentary evidence necessary for the plaintiffs to prove liability are located at defendant’s corporate headquarters in Pittsburgh.  Thus, the cases should proceed in Pennsylvania.

The key issues to be considered in reaching a decision on the appropriate forum are: (1) what degree of deference is to be given the plaintiffs’ choice of forum, (2) whether there is an adequate alternative forum, (3) whether a balancing of the private factors weighs in favor of dismissal, and (4) whether a balancing of public factors weighs in favor of dismissal. See, e.g., Lacey v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 862 F.2d 38, 43 (3d Cir. 1988).

The court of appeals addressed the lower court's treatment of factors 2-4.  On the second, Alcoa was registered to do business and subject to service of process in Western Australia; the courts of Western Australia had jurisdiction over cases of this kind and recognize theories of liability for negligence, reckless conduct, and “damage caused by hazardous activities,” and, the applicable foreign court rules provide for discovery of documents, interrogatories, and the compelling of the attendance of witnesses and production of documents at trial by court-ordered subpoenas. For these reasons, numerous federal courts have found Australia to be an adequate alternative forum and dismissed on grounds of forum non conveniens. Some have specifically held that the mere absence of pretrial depositions does not render an alternative forum inadequate.

On factor three, the court observed that Pennsylvania evidence from a party would be much more accessible to plaintiffs for trial in a Western Australian forum than Western Australian evidence from non-parties would be for Alcoa for trial in a Pennsylvania forum. Because of this distinction between access to party and non-party witnesses and documents and the primary importance of a party’s being able to present its case at trial, the District Court correctly had concluded that this factor weighed heavily in favor of dismissal.

On the final factor, the lower court was fully aware that plaintiffs alleged culpable conduct in Pennsylvania and expressly recognized at the outset of its public interest factor discussion that it must consider the locus of the alleged culpable conduct and the connection of that conduct to plaintiff’s chosen forum.  But, said the Third Circuit, even if the District Court had failed to take this interest of Pennsylvania into account, it would not alter the outcome of these appeals. The applicable precedent does not suggest that, where culpable conduct takes place in a mass tort case in both jurisdictions and injury in only one, the interests of the two are in any way “comparable.”  This issue is "not a close call."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In the BPA MDL, Judge Ortrie D. Smith granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motions to dismiss various claims. In re: Bispehnol-A Polycarbonate Plastic Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1967 (W.D. Mo.).

Readers of MassTortDefense will recall that last year the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized fourteen cases; since then, the Panel has continued to transfer cases from around the country, so now about thirty-eight cases have been transferred. In addition, approximately ten cases have been filed in the MDL District and have become part of the consolidation. Defendants roughly fall into two categories: the Bottle Defendants and the Formula Defendants. Generally, the Bottle Defendants make baby bottles, sippy cups and similar products for infants and toddlers, and/or sport bottles. The Formula Defendants sell infant formula packaged in metal cans.

Most of the complaints assert, on behalf of consumers, various causes of action including: (1) violation of state consumer protection laws, (2) breach of express warranty, (3) breach of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, (4) intentional misrepresentation, (5) negligent misrepresentation, and (6) unjust enrichment.

In one Order the court began by addressing the motions to dismiss claims for fraud, misrepresentation and breach of express warranties. The MDL court had previously, mindful of Rule 9, required plaintiffs to identify defendants’ alleged statements that form the basis for their claims of fraud, misrepresentation, and breach of express warranties. Plaintiffs’ continued failure to do so was, said the court, now fatal to these claims. Likely because they were unable to comply, and perhaps because they recognized what compliance would do to their already slim chances for class certification (because of the individual issues that a response would highlight), plaintiffs responded to the aforementioned requirement by saying that they had not identified any advertisements or other media because the allegations are not based on any particular representations. A misrepresentation claim not based on any misrepresentation. Rather, plaintiffs’ allegations are based on defendants’ supposed “overall course of conduct” in marketing and selling the products at issue. Taken as a whole, defendants’ alleged “overall course of conduct” somehow deceptively conveyed the impression or message that the products at issue are safe and healthy for use by infants and children.

By disclaiming reference to any particular fraudulent act, plaintiffs had disclaimed one of the essential elements of a fraud or misrepresentation claim. All states require proof of reliance and causation. For a statement to be relied upon and thus cause a purchaser’s injury, the statement must have been heard by the purchaser. Plaintiffs’ theory – that the placement of a product in a stream of commerce alone somehow conveys a sufficient representation about the product’s safety that can serve as grounds for fraud liability – is a rule that has not been demonstrated to exist in any of the fifty states.

Allowing the mere sale of products to convey an affirmative representation regarding safety would eviscerate the law of warranty and be contrary to the rationale supporting the limited circumstances in which actions constitute representations, noted the court.  Plaintiffs’ failure to identify any expressions made by defendants to them about their products precludes any claim that an express warranty was made, let alone violated. Given the absence of any “affirmation of fact or promise,” (see UCC Article 2-313), plaintiffs cannot allege an express warranty was made. The Supreme Court’s decision in Iqbal requires a plaintiff to identify the basis for, if not the content of, the alleged warranty. And, in a related issue, plaintiffs’ were thus unable to allege how the supposed, non-existent, warranties became “part of the basis of the bargain.”  A representation cannot be part of the “bargain” if the other party to the bargain did not know the representation was made! Merely alleging a representation became part of the bargain does not satisfy Iqbal. If one party (here, the buyer) is not aware of the statement, that party cannot claim the statement became a part of the parties’ bargain.

The court declined to dismiss the claims for fraudulent omissions, based on what it called a “common-sense” view of Rule 9 under which it was unnecessary to require plaintiffs to specifically identify who failed to disclose information and each occasion upon which they failed to disclose it. Rule 9 is satisfied, said the court, with respect to a claim of fraudulent omissions if the omitted information is identified and “how or when” the concealment occurred.

The claim for breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose was dismissed because while the ordinary purpose for baby bottles can be described as to allow babies and toddlers to drink liquids, a plaintiff cannot rely on this ordinary purpose to support a claim that there was a warranty of fitness for a particular purpose; they must point to some other purpose that is not “ordinary” in order to support their claim.

The court put off ruling on the claims for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability because defendants’ arguments (including lack of privity, untimeliness, and failure to provide notice), seemed premised on the unique characteristics of various states’ laws. Thus, they seemed more amenable to analysis at the time of any class certification decision, which will inevitably raise choice of law issues. A similar deferral was applied to dismissal of all unjust enrichment claims. Many of defendants’ arguments seemed to depend on unique aspects of various states’ laws, found the court.

Defendants also made a strong argument that the claims, at bottom, were improper “no injury” claims. The court agreed as to the category of plaintiffs who disposed of or used up the products before learning about BPA. They received all the benefits they desired and were unaffected by defendants’ alleged concealment. Importantly, the court recognized that while they may contend they would not have purchased the goods had they known more about BPA, these plaintiffs received 100% use (and benefit) from the products and have no quantifiable damages. In this instance, plaintiffs’ position “leads to absurd results.”  These buyers obtained the full anticipated benefit of the bargain. While they may not have paid the asking price, had they allegedly known, offset against this is the fact that they received the full benefits paid for – leaving them with no damages. Plaintiffs here may allege they would not have purchased those products had they supposedly known the true facts, but, again, they obtained full use of those products before learning the truth: the formula was consumed or the children grew to an age where they did not use bottles and sippy cups, so they were discarded. These consumers thus obtained full value from their purchase and have not suffered any damage. These plaintiffs are relegated to the unjust enrichment claim.

The court distinguished, however, those plaintiffs who learned about BPA’s presence and potential effects and either still have the goods or subsequently replaced or disposed of them. Defendants’ argument does not apply to this category, found the court.

That left before the court only plaintiffs’ claims that defendants made fraudulent omissions, violated various state consumer protection statutes, breached the implied warranty of merchantability, and that defendants were unjustly enriched. With these remaining claims pending, the court, in a second order, granted in part defendants’ motion to dismiss on the basis of preemption and denied their motion to dismiss on the ground of primary jurisdiction.

Defendants’ preemption and primary jurisdiction arguments were generally alike in that they both contend their use of BPA should only be subject to regulation by the FDA. Indeed, FDA has issued regulations prescribing the conditions for “safe” use of resinous and polymeric coatings, allowing the coatings to be formulated from “optional substances” that may include “[e]poxy resins” containing BPA. Thus, BPA’s presence in some resinous and polymeric coatings and in polycarbonate resins is subject to regulation by the FDA. It is also a fair reading of FDA’s regulations authorizing BPA’s use that the FDA thinks that food additives containing BPA could be used safely without labeling requirements.

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies when enforcement of a claim that is originally cognizable in the courts requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special competence of an administrative body. The FDA clearly has specialized expertise and experience to determine whether BPA is “safe.” However, said the court, the ultimate issues in these cases, as alleged by plaintiffs, are whether defendants failed to disclose material facts to plaintiffs and thus, for example, whether defendants breached the implied warranty of merchantability through the sale of products containing BPA. FDA’s decision that BPA is “safe” is not determinative of any of those issues, said the court. This conclusion seemed to give insufficient attention, in our view, to the argument that plaintiffs have predicated their claims on proof that BPA is allegedly unsafe: the undisclosed facts are not material unless BPA is not safe. The products are not unmerchantable unless BPA is unsafe, Since plaintiffs base their claims on such evidence, the claims seemed to fall within the primary jurisdiction of the FDA.  The MDL court did not agree.

Turning to the preemption issue, the court first rejected the claim of implied preemption. While noting that FDA has approved BPA use in food additives and noting the agency’s decision not to require labeling, the court concluded that the FDA’s approval of BPA as safe without labeling requirements establishes only a regulatory minimum; nothing in these regulations either required or prohibited defendants from providing the disclosures sought. The court cited Wyeth v. Levine for the proposition that that there is no preemption when federal law did not prevent the drug manufacturer from strengthening its drug label as necessary to comply with the standard to be imposed by state law.

However, the Formula Defendants also raised express preemption; they asserted that the FDA regulations exempt Formula Defendants from having to disclose the presence of BPA in their products. Express preemption exists when a federal law explicitly prohibits state regulation in a particular field. With respect to food labeling, federal law generally prohibits states from establishing any differing requirements for the labeling of food. Thus, plaintiffs’ claims are expressly preempted because they would impose disclosure requirements concerning BPA, the exact opposite of the exemption. Now, here is the interesting twist: plaintiffs asserted that Congress also provided an exception to express preemption under the law for “any requirement respecting a statement in the labeling of food that provides for a warning concerning the safety of the food or component of the food.”  But, the court noted, plaintiffs cannot have it both ways.  If their claims are based on warnings about the safety of food, then their claims would have been subject to dismissal under the primary jurisdiction doctrine because the determination whether BPA is “safe” is solely the province of the FDA, and the FDA has concluded that the use of BPA in epoxy liners is “safe” so long as the manufacturer abides by the FDA’s prescribed conditions. See 21 C.F.R. § 175.300 (2009).  If the claims against the Formula Defendants are not subject to primary jurisdiction, as plaintiffs argued, then they are subject to express preemption analysis.

It may seem clear to readers of MassTortDefense that even with respect to those claims the court concluded should not be dismissed on the pleadings, the court's analysis highlights several issues that may make it difficult for the plaintiffs to proceed as a viable class action. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The judge overseeing the federal MDL involving genetically modified rice has granted partial summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing several claims, including a public nuisance allegation. In re: Genetically Modified Rice Litigation, No.4-md-1811 (E.D. Mo. 10/9/2009). 

This multi-district litigation relates to the claims of U.S. long-grain rice producers, and others in the rice business, who allege that certain defendants contaminated the U.S. rice supply with non-approved genetically modified strains of rice. The first of a series of bellwether trials will begin in November; this first trial involves Missouri farmer plaintiffs, and the court's Order rules on only the portions of the motions directed to the claims of the Missouri plaintiffs.

The Missouri plaintiffs are seeking damages under a variety of theories, including negligence,  public and private nuisance, negligence per se, and the North Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act. The plaintiffs are suing to recover allegedly lost income they claim resulted from the drop in market price for rice; following the announcement of the contamination in 2006, some rice companies around the world banned the importation of U.S. rice, which allegedly caused a dramatic drop in the U.S. market price for rice.

Judge Catherine Perry of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri issued an opinion on a host of summary judgment  issues, most notably granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claims under the North Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act and on plaintiffs’ claims for public nuisance and negligence per se.

Defendants asserted first that the economic loss doctrine bars all the common-law claims.  The economic loss doctrine bars recovery of purely pecuniary losses in certain tort cases if there is no personal injury or physical damage to property other than the property at issue in the case – usually an allegedly defective product in a products liability case. A plaintiff suing over damage to a product he contracted for is limited to his contract remedies. Many states have adopted the economic loss doctrine for products liability cases, and some states have applied the doctrine to other torts
as well. Here, however, the court found that the alleged damages were not to any property that was the subject of a contract, and the plaintiffs were not claiming damage to any property that is alleged to be defective. Rather, they claim market losses and damage to other property, including equipment, land, and rice. Because they alleged damage to other property, the doctrine does not
apply, concluded the MDL court.

Defendants fared better with plaintiffs' attempt to rely on the more pro-plaintiff North Carolina statute.  The court noted that plaintiffs are not suing based on contracts with Bayer, and although some of Bayer’s decision-making occurred in North Carolina, the claims of plaintiffs cannot be said to arise mainly from those North Carolina activities.  Although there was some conflicting authority, the court concluded that the better reasoned cases require an in-state injury to a plaintiff’s in-state business operations. In other words, the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act is intended to protect the North Carolina consumer.  Plaintiffs had not shown that their claims here had a sufficient effect on North Carolina business for them to benefit from this act intended to protect North Carolina commerce.

Third, in Missouri, a public nuisance is an offense against the public order and economy of the state that violates the public’s right to life, health, and the use of property, while, at the same time annoys, injures, endangers, renders insecure, interferes with, or obstructs the rights or property of the whole community, or neighborhood, or of any considerable number of persons. Bayer was able to show that, as matter of law, plaintiffs cannot recover for public nuisance. There is no evidence in the record showing the sort of public harm or negative effect on the entire community that public nuisance law was developed to remedy.

A private nuisance, on the other hand, is the unreasonable, unusual, or unnatural use of one’s property so that it substantially impairs the right of another to peacefully enjoy his property.  Plaintiffs’ private nuisance claim survived summary judgment because factual disputes remain regarding whether contamination of plaintiffs’ crops may interfere with their enjoyment of their land. The focus of a private nuisance claim, said the MDL court,  is on defendant’s unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of plaintiff’s land.  A genuine issue of fact remains regarding whether plaintiffs can prove a private nuisance.

Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs’ negligence per se claim, to the extent it relied on a violation of federal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service regulations. This is because they are more in the nature of performance standards that do not provide a standard of
care.  So, for example, if a building code says a stair riser must be six inches tall, that is a precise directive that a builder can follow, and if someone is injured because the riser is taller or shorter, negligence per se might apply.  A building code that says the stair riser should be of a sufficient height not to be dangerous or so that a person will not fall could not provide a basis for a negligence per se claim because the question of what is reasonable was not answered by the building code regulations.

We will keep an eye on the first bellwether case for our readers.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks