Litigation Update: Verdict in PFA Case

The juries in two separate cases pending against DuPont in the U.S. District Court in Columbus, OH came to different conclusions last week. Both cases were brought by plaintiffs who alleged that their cancers were caused by drinking water contaminated with per- and polyfluoroalkyl chemicals that leaked from DuPont’s Washington Works plant in Parkersburg, WV; these chemicals are also known as “forever chemicals” or “PFAs” because of the length of time they exist in nature without breaking down.

In the first case brought by Travis and Julie Abbott, the jury awarded $50 million in compensatory damages, the largest such award to date against DuPont in these types of cases. Mr. Abbott claimed that his testicular cancer was caused by his exposure to C8 or PFOA, a chemical used to make Teflon that was manufactured in DuPont’s Washington Works plant in West Virginia. Although the jury awarded the plaintiffs’ compensatory damages they did not find the company acted with malice and elected to award no punitive damages. DuPont has stated that the jury decision not to award punitive damages supported the company’s position that at no time did it act with conscious disregard for the people living near the Parkersburg plant.

There has been extensive litigation involving this plant and this same chemical dating back to 1998 when a local family sued DuPont for the loss of cattle who had been grazing near a PFOA-contaminated landfill. This lawsuit revealed information that led to DuPont reaching a 2005 $16.5 million settlement with the E.P.A. for the largest civil administrative penalty under any federal environmental statute at that time; DuPont also settled a 2001 class action filed on behalf of 80,000 residents living in areas surrounding the Washington Works plant where DuPont’s “forever chemicals” had leaked into local water supplies. This action was resolved in 2005 with DuPont agreeing to pay $70 million (up to $235 million if necessary) to be used toward medical monitoring for 70,000 people who lived in six water districts around the Parkersburg plant.  There was also an MDL filed on behalf of 3550 plaintiffs with personal injury claims related to PFOA exposure that was settled in 2017 for $670 million.

The jury in the second case brought by Angie and Teddy Swartz was deadlocked and unable to reach a verdict; the Swartzes were seeking $11.5 million in damages, alleging that Ms. Swartz’ kidney cancer was caused by her exposure to DuPont’s PFAs. The case is currently awaiting a new trial.

DuPont has announced it plans to appeal the verdict in the Abbott case.

Click on this link for information on Verus’ Mass Tort Services. To contact us, fill out this form or email us at info@verusllc.com and we will reply immediately.

|CONTACT US| |REQUEST PROPOSAL|

Manager of Research Services

609-466-0427

As the Manager of Research Services at Verus, Kim uses both historical documents and current analysis to conduct ongoing research into the products and exposure sites for each of the Trusts administered by Verus. MORE

https://www.forlawfirmsonly.com/litigation-update-verdict-in-pfa-case/

CBD Manufacturers and Retailers Face Action from the FDA and Consumer Litigants

 

Cannabidiol (CBD) is a naturally occurring compound derived from the hemp plant, a member of the cannabis family. Because CBD is also found in the marijuana plant (a cousin of hemp), its use fell into a legal gray area until recently.

In December 2018, however, Congress passed the Farm Bill and legalized hemp and hemp-derived products. CBD products since have skyrocketed in popularity, with analysts projecting that CBD will grow to a $16 billion industry in five years. CBD product manufacturers and retailers across America are working to meet the high demand for their goods.

The new popularity of CBD has brought attention from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and consumer plaintiffs. CBD product manufacturers and distributors are now facing claims that resemble the types of lawsuits that other product manufacturers and retailers face. CBD product manufacturers should stay up-to-date as to how the FDA is regulating CBD and how consumers are using tried-and-true product liability theories to sue CBD product manufacturers and distributors.

The FDA’s Initial Actions

While the FDA has not yet released formal regulations with respect to CBD, it has published consumer updates and an FAQ concerning CBD products. In its consumer update, the FDA cautioned manufacturers that it is currently illegal to market CBD products as a dietary supplement. The FDA also stated that it does not recognize that CBD is safe for use in human or animal food.

Even with these strict guidelines, the FDA has not taken significant disciplinary action against CBD product manufacturers or retailers. Rather, it has issued only warning letters to online CBD product retailers. Specifically, the FDA warned that introduction of CBD products into interstate commerce violates the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The FDA further advised retailers to stop marketing CBD products as ways to treat diseases or for therapeutic uses for humans and animals. It also reprimanded at least one online retailer to stop marketing CBD products with unsubstantiated health claims or for use as dietary supplements.

New Product, Same Types of Lawsuits

The latest lawsuits against CBD product manufacturers allege that products have been mislabeled. These claims resemble those made against many manufacturers of popular products. The maker of Muscle Milk, for example, was sued in a class action where the plaintiffs argue that the amount of protein in its protein powder was significantly less than the label suggested. And the Hershey Company recently won a suit where the plaintiff alleged that the company engaged in false and misleading labeling because malic acid was present in chocolate products labeled as having “no artificial flavors.”

In the past six months, consumers have brought at least four suits against CBD product manufacturers, none of which has been certified yet as a class. In the Southern District of Florida, a plaintiff claimed that the defendants sold products containing significantly less CBD than the label stated. In the Northern District of Illinois, another plaintiff brought a class action after traces of THC were found in his system. After eating gummy candies labeled “NO THC,” the named plaintiff failed an employment drug test and was subsequently fired from his job. He sued the manufacturer, arguing that the company violated state consumer fraud laws by representing that there was no THC in its products.

Follow Future Litigation Results

CBD product retailers and manufacturers should keep an eye out for changes in the regulatory landscape and the results of pending litigation. Last year, the FDA held a public hearing to obtain data about the safety, manufacturing, product quality, and labeling of products containing CBD. Until the FDA releases further guidelines, titans like Ben & Jerry’s have pressed pause on releasing CBD products.

Retailers and manufacturers should also stay updated on current litigation. While the FDA’s delay in creating a formal regulatory framework has frustrated many manufacturers, at least one manufacturer has tried to use the lack of federal regulations as a temporary shield against liability. In the Southern District of Florida, the CBD product manufacturer argued that the court should stay court proceedings until the FDA has promulgated regulations, allowing the FDA to have the first word on the regulatory scheme. Only time will tell whether this argument will prove effective when applied to suits that involve CBD products.

---

Class Action Complaint, Clay et al., v Cytosport, Inc., No. 15-cv-00165-L-AGS (S.D. Cal.  Jan. 23, 2015), ECF No. 1.

Judgment, Clark v. Hershey Co., 18-cv-06113 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2019), ECF No. 132.

Class Action Complaint at 13, Potter v. Potnetwork Holdings, Inc. et al., 19-cv-24017 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 27, 2019), ECF No. 1.

Class Action Complaint at 8–9, Darrow v. Just Brands USA, Inc. et al., 19-cv-07079 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 28, 2019), ECF 1.

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to Stay, Potter, No. 19-cv-24017, ECF No. 26.

https://www.forlawfirmsonly.com/cbd-manufacturers-and-retailers-face-action-from-the-fda-and-consumer-litigants/

Google parent company’s top lawyer leaving amid claims of misconduct

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Google parent company’s top lawyer leaving…

Corporate Law

By Amanda Robert

January 13, 2020, 9:39 am CST

Image from Shutterstock.com.

The chief legal officer of Google’s parent company, Alphabet, who recently came under fire for his relationships with women who worked at the company, announced Friday that he will retire at the end of the month.

David Drummond connected his exit to the December departure of Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, writing in an email sent to employees that “the company is entering an exciting new phase, and I believe that it’s also the right time for me to make way for the next generation of leaders.”

The New York Times, Bloomberg, Washington Post and CNN have coverage.

Drummond joined Google in 2002 and became its first general counsel. He moved to Alphabet in 2015, after Google created the holding company and became one of its subsidiaries. He played a key role in landmark decisions, including Google’s exit from China, and oversaw its acquisitions of Android and YouTube.

In August, former Google attorney Jennifer Blakely wrote in an essay on Medium that she had a longtime affair with Drummond. Shortly after they had a child together, she said she was moved from the legal department and abandoned by Drummond.

Blakely also accused Drummond of having extramarital affairs with other women at the company, a claim that has been further investigated by a law firm that Alphabet’s board hired to examine its handling of allegations of sexual misconduct by company executives, according to documents obtained by the New York Times.

Drummond said then he never started a relationship with “anyone else who was working at Google or Alphabet,” the New York Times said, but he recently married another woman from Google’s legal department.

Thousands of Google employees worldwide protested in November 2018 after former executive and Android creator Andy Rubin reportedly received a $90 million pay package, despite allegations of sexual harassment. Some shareholders have sued over payments to Rubin and other executives accused of having inappropriate relationships with employees.

Alphabet spokesperson Jenn Kaiser told the Washington Post that Drummond will not receive a pay package. He was paid $47.3 million in total compensation in 2018 and sold more than $200 million worth of Alphabet stock in the past year, the Washington Post also reports.

See also:

ABA Journal: “Google ends mandatory arbitration of workplace disputes and ban on employee class actions”

https://www.forlawfirmsonly.com/google-parent-companys-top-lawyer-leaving-amid-claims-of-misconduct-2/

Sandy Hook Families Lawsuit Against Remington Allowed to Proceed

In a landmark decision the Connecticut Supreme Court this week reinstated a lawsuit filed by Sandy Hook school-shooting victims against Remington, one of the nation’s largest gun manufacturers.

Families of nine victims and one survivor of the Newton, Connecticut school shooting sued Remington Outdoor Co. Inc. and other defendants, including a gun wholesaler and a local retailer, alleging wrongful marketing and unethical advertising under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA). In the narrow 4-3 ruling, justices dismissed a case against the defendants based on negligent entrustment.

Some are hailing the decision as a landmark victory against gun violence. Since passage of the The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)  (15 U.S.C. §§ 7901 through 7903,) gunmakers have enjoyed near complete immunity for liability over gun violence. With certain specific exceptions, the PLCAA immunizes firearms manufacturers, distributors, and dealers from civil liability for crimes committed by third parties using their weapons.

Our Massachusetts product liability attorneys note this claim illustrates the many ways in which a product liability lawsuit can hold manufacturers accountable. However, this particular lawsuit has a narrow, treacherous pathway to success as Remington will almost certainly appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which must decide whether to allow state consumer law to trump federal protections in place to protect gunmakers.

State Consumer Protections vs. Federal Immunity from Liability

The New York Times reports Connecticut Supreme Court justices heard the case in November 2017, where they peppered Remington representatives with questions about advertisements that touted the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle as being able to “single-handedly” overcome “forces of opposition.” Examples of advertising for the high-capacity firearm included slogans like “Consider your man card reissued.”

Plaintiff attorneys contended it was dangerous marketing of an assault rifle sure to appeal to troubled young men. On December 14, 2012, Adam Lanza, 20, killed his mother in their Newton home, before shooting his way into the elementary school, where he went on a killing spree with a Bushmaster AR-15 before taking his own life.

“Congress did not intend to immunize firearms suppliers who engage in truly unethical and irresponsible marketing practices,” the court’s majority opinion noted. Connecticut law “does not permit advertisements that promote or encourage violent, criminal behavior.”

Congress has passed laws aimed at shielding a number of American industries from liability over injury or death caused by their products, including the airplane manufacturing and rental car industries.

The General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 limited liability for manufacturers of general aviation aircraft. Production of private aircraft by companies like Cessna and Mooney had declined from 18,000 in 1978 to fewer than 1,000 in the late 1980s. A number of companies struggled to remain financially solvent and blamed the cost of product liability litigation for drastically curbing construction. It’s the reason that to this day private aviation enthusiasts know there are very few small planes on the secondary market that were manufactured in the late 1980s or early 1990s. The vast majority of today’s used airplanes were manufactured in the heydays of the 1970s. Curbing manufacturer liability did not stem the tide, as Mooney and countless others have ceased production or gone out of business.

More recently, the Graves Amendment (49 U.S.C. § 30106) passed in 2005 and aims to shield rental car companies from the vicarious liability associated with traffic collisions involving rental vehicles. Vicarious liability alleges the owner of a vehicle acted inappropriately (via negligent entrustment or some other means) in allowing their vehicle to be used by an at-fault party. You will note similar argument was just rejected by the Connecticut Supreme Court in the case against gun manufacturers.

There have been many challenges to these immunity laws. However, in few cases have state laws been permitted to trump such federal immunities.

Seeking Damages from Gunmakers

The Connecticut  justices ruled the lower court was correct in dismissing the lawsuit based on PLCAA, but the judge was incorrect not to let the case proceed on the CUTPA allegations. The case was originally filed in 2014 in state court, before being moved to federal court. A federal judge then returned it to state court. State Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis had initially allowed the case to proceed to trial before ultimately dismissing it based on the broad immunity offered gunmakers under federal law.

Industry watchers expect Remington to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Connecticut consumer law could be applied under the PLCAA and it will now be up to the nation’s highest court to decide whether to allow such a loophole in federal protections granted to gunmakers.

U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal called the decision “a ‘wow’ moment in American legal history, and compared it to the initial lawsuits filed decades ago against big tobacco, which ultimately resulted in a $246 billion settlement.

“It breaks open the seemingly impenetrable shield — unjust and unfair — enjoyed uniquely by the arms manufacturers,” Blumenthal told the Hartford Courant. 

The case has been vigorously contested by Remington and gun-rights organizations, including the National Rifle Association. As our Massachusetts product liability lawyers have written previously, being forced into litigation typically forces these companies and organizations to release a treasure trove of documents that are often more damning than reaching a large settlement.

Remington had argued the alleged violation of Connecticut Trade Practices Act were legally insufficient and that the state’s consumer law did not recognize damages for personal injury or wrongful death.  In 2014, it built a new plant in Huntsville, Alabama, to manufacturer the AR-15 style sei-automtic rifle. The case had been delayed after Remington filed for bankruptcy protection last year. It emerged from bankruptcy in May 2018 after just three months as part of a reproved restructuring involving nearly $1 billion in debts. Established in 1816, it is America’s oldest gunmaker.

The case is DONNA L. SOTO, ADMINISTRATRIX (ESTATE OF VICTORIA L. SOTO), ET AL. v. BUSHMASTER FIREARMS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, ET AL.

If you are the victim of Massachusetts product liability, call the Law Offices of Jeffrey S. Glassman for a free and confidential appointment — 1-888-367-2900.

FDA Recalls, Market Withdraws, and Safety Alerts

More Blog Entries

Transvaginal Mesh Update: Boston Scientific Settles with 350 Plaintiffs, Feb. 11, 2018, Boston Product Liability Attorney Blog

https://www.forlawfirmsonly.com/sandy-hook-families-lawsuit-against-remington-allowed-to-proceed/

Dangerous Products: Insurers, Defendants, Victims Battle Over Liability

The increasing number of dangerous, defective and deadly products being marketed to the American consumer continues to have a significant impact on our health and welfare.

Property casualty insurance advisors continue to add exclusions even as they push corporations to increase coverage for product liability, noting adequate product liability insurance is not just for manufacturers. Under the law, any entity involved in the supply chain of a defective product, including suppliers, retailers and distributors, can be held liable for injury.

All makers and sellers of products sold to U.S. consumers, whether they be artificial hips or baby cribs, have an obligation under the law to ensure their products are safe when used as intended and are recalled in a timely fashion if they prove dangerous or defective. Common assertions in a Massachusetts product liability claim include dangerous design or poor manufacturing, lack of proper warnings, and breach of expressed or implied warranty.

Commercial Liability Coverage, Exclusions & Defenses

The increasing number of product liability claims have prompted commercial general liability insurers to place a growing list of exemptions and exclusions on CGL coverage for products-complete operations hazard coverage, which covers bodily injured and property damage that occurs after a business has relinquished control of a product. Litigation over liability under products-complete operations coverage is a complex area of law with a major impact on many product liability claims.

Massachusetts product lability law firms focus on identifying all parties responsible for personal injury or wrongful death stemming from use of a dangerous or defective product. Often, interpretation of the products-complete operations coverage of a defendant’s general liability policy will determine coverage limits. Because of the liability exposure, the nation’s largest commercial liability insurers have long focused insurance underwriting strategies and legal defense on reducing their own financial risks.

Most commonly, limitations of products-complete operations coverage require an injury to occur away from a business premises and be the result of an insured’s product or work. Likewise, defense counsel continues to attack breach of warranty claims under commercial general liability exclusions for coverage of breach of contract claims. Breach of warranty is a legal theory often deployed in product liability cases. However, it is based in part on contract legal theory, not tort theory upon which many liability lawsuits are based.

Top Dangerous Products in Massachusetts for 2018

Dangerous drugs/Defective medical products: By far the biggest risk of harm to the American consumer comes from the U.S. healthcare industry. As our Boston product liability lawyers have reported, dangerous drugs and defective medical products continue to harm tens of thousands of patients each year in an industry that has become increasingly lawless amid an environment of huge profits fueled by few regulations and little oversight. From the opioid crisis to the dangers of defective surgical mesh, artificial knees and implanted hips, these products continue to be the most expensive, and the most dangerous.

Takata airbags: Ccontinued to be subject to the largest active recall in the United States in 2018. More than 50 million airbags in 37 million vehicles are under recall and need to be replaced, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Risks include bags exploding in driver’s faces for no reason, often spewing metal and shrapnel throughout the cabin.

Defective vehicles: Defective airbags are far from the only risk when it comes to motor vehicles. Historically, cars have been among the most frequently recalled consumer products. In many cases, the defects carry life-threatening risks.  Last year’s recalls included more than 1.5 million Ford F-150 pickups (crash fire risks), 1.3 million Ford Fusions and Lincoln MKZ (steering) and 800,000 Toyota Prius hybrids (stall risk).

Home heating and fire risks: Were also among last year’s top recalls. More than 600,000 water heaters and 135,000 WiFi thermostats were recalled because of fire risks. Tankless water heaters, boilers and gas fireplaces were also recalled due to risk of fire, burns or carbon monoxide poisoning, according to the Consumer Product Safety Commission. You can view the CPSC database of recalls here.

Child products: Continued to be among the most commonly recalled consumer products. Fall and choking hazards are among the most common. Last year’s top recalls included 40,000 convertible high chairs, 22,000 infant carriers and nearly 15,000 infant snowsuits.

Off-road vehicles: All-terrain vehicles, scooters, bicycles, dirt bikes, and off-road utility vehicles continue be be subject to high-profile recalls. While it’s true such products result in a large number of injuries and emergency room visits involving children each year, just because use of such products carry inherent risks does not mean manufacturers and sellers are not responsible when serious injury or death is caused by a dangerous or defective product.

Food Poisoning: The consolidation of America’s farming and meat-processing industries over the last several decades mean America’s are primarily fed by a dwindling number of large corporations. In addition to the high-profile food-borne illness cases at restaurants like Chipotle, grocery store chains dealt with a large number of recalls in 2018, including nearly 150,000 pounds of contaminated turkey and more than 100,000 pounds of bad ground beef, according the the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The risks having facilities such as schools and office buildings (where food service is not the primary function) adding Products-Completed Operations Insurance (discussed above). Such policies should include Hazard Redefined (CG 24 07), which removes the requirement that bodily injury occur away from an insured’s premises in order for coverage to apply.

Your chosen product liability law firm must have significant experience litigating your type of claim, and must have the knowledge and resources  to prevail against the legal defense strategies deployed by the nation’s largest commercial liability insurer. More than in many other types of personal injury and wrongful death claims, a defendant’s legal liability and responsibility is often a vigorously contested issue. It is not enough to prove you suffered injury using a product. Your chosen legal team must prevail in holding responsible all identified defendants and their insurance companies.

If you are have been injured by a product in Massachusetts, call the Law Offices of Jeffrey S. Glassman for a free and confidential appointment — 1-888-367-2900.

Additional Resources

FDA Recalls, Market Withdraws, and Safety Alerts

More Blog Entries

Transvaginal Mesh Update: Boston Scientific Settles with 350 Plaintiffs, Feb. 11, 2018, Boston Product Liability Attorney Blog

https://www.forlawfirmsonly.com/dangerous-products-insurers-defendants-victims-battle-over-liability/

Dangerous Products: Insurers, Defendants, Victims Battle Over Liability

The increasing number of dangerous, defective and deadly products being marketed to the American consumer continues to have a significant impact on our health and welfare.

Property casualty insurance advisors continue to add exclusions even as they push corporations to increase coverage for product liability, noting adequate product liability insurance is not just for manufacturers. Under the law, any entity involved in the supply chain of a defective product, including suppliers, retailers and distributors, can be held liable for injury.

All makers and sellers of products sold to U.S. consumers, whether they be artificial hips or baby cribs, have an obligation under the law to ensure their products are safe when used as intended and are recalled in a timely fashion if they prove dangerous or defective. Common assertions in a Massachusetts product liability claim include dangerous design or poor manufacturing, lack of proper warnings, and breach of expressed or implied warranty.

Commercial Liability Coverage, Exclusions & Defenses

The increasing number of product liability claims have prompted commercial general liability insurers to place a growing list of exemptions and exclusions on CGL coverage for products-complete operations hazard coverage, which covers bodily injured and property damage that occurs after a business has relinquished control of a product. Litigation over liability under products-complete operations coverage is a complex area of law with a major impact on many product liability claims.

Massachusetts product lability law firms focus on identifying all parties responsible for personal injury or wrongful death stemming from use of a dangerous or defective product. Often, interpretation of the products-complete operations coverage of a defendant’s general liability policy will determine coverage limits. Because of the liability exposure, the nation’s largest commercial liability insurers have long focused insurance underwriting strategies and legal defense on reducing their own financial risks.

Most commonly, limitations of products-complete operations coverage require an injury to occur away from a business premises and be the result of an insured’s product or work. Likewise, defense counsel continues to attack breach of warranty claims under commercial general liability exclusions for coverage of breach of contract claims. Breach of warranty is a legal theory often deployed in product liability cases. However, it is based in part on contract legal theory, not tort theory upon which many liability lawsuits are based.

Top Dangerous Products in Massachusetts for 2018

Dangerous drugs/Defective medical products: By far the biggest risk of harm to the American consumer comes from the U.S. healthcare industry. As our Boston product liability lawyers have reported, dangerous drugs and defective medical products continue to harm tens of thousands of patients each year in an industry that has become increasingly lawless amid an environment of huge profits fueled by few regulations and little oversight. From the opioid crisis to the dangers of defective surgical mesh, artificial knees and implanted hips, these products continue to be the most expensive, and the most dangerous.

Takata airbags: Ccontinued to be subject to the largest active recall in the United States in 2018. More than 50 million airbags in 37 million vehicles are under recall and need to be replaced, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Risks include bags exploding in driver’s faces for no reason, often spewing metal and shrapnel throughout the cabin.

Defective vehicles: Defective airbags are far from the only risk when it comes to motor vehicles. Historically, cars have been among the most frequently recalled consumer products. In many cases, the defects carry life-threatening risks.  Last year’s recalls included more than 1.5 million Ford F-150 pickups (crash fire risks), 1.3 million Ford Fusions and Lincoln MKZ (steering) and 800,000 Toyota Prius hybrids (stall risk).

Home heating and fire risks: Were also among last year’s top recalls. More than 600,000 water heaters and 135,000 WiFi thermostats were recalled because of fire risks. Tankless water heaters, boilers and gas fireplaces were also recalled due to risk of fire, burns or carbon monoxide poisoning, according to the Consumer Product Safety Commission. You can view the CPSC database of recalls here.

Child products: Continued to be among the most commonly recalled consumer products. Fall and choking hazards are among the most common. Last year’s top recalls included 40,000 convertible high chairs, 22,000 infant carriers and nearly 15,000 infant snowsuits.

Off-road vehicles: All-terrain vehicles, scooters, bicycles, dirt bikes, and off-road utility vehicles continue be be subject to high-profile recalls. While it’s true such products result in a large number of injuries and emergency room visits involving children each year, just because use of such products carry inherent risks does not mean manufacturers and sellers are not responsible when serious injury or death is caused by a dangerous or defective product.

Food Poisoning: The consolidation of America’s farming and meat-processing industries over the last several decades mean America’s are primarily fed by a dwindling number of large corporations. In addition to the high-profile food-borne illness cases at restaurants like Chipotle, grocery store chains dealt with a large number of recalls in 2018, including nearly 150,000 pounds of contaminated turkey and more than 100,000 pounds of bad ground beef, according the the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The risks having facilities such as schools and office buildings (where food service is not the primary function) adding Products-Completed Operations Insurance (discussed above). Such policies should include Hazard Redefined (CG 24 07), which removes the requirement that bodily injury occur away from an insured’s premises in order for coverage to apply.

Your chosen product liability law firm must have significant experience litigating your type of claim, and must have the knowledge and resources  to prevail against the legal defense strategies deployed by the nation’s largest commercial liability insurer. More than in many other types of personal injury and wrongful death claims, a defendant’s legal liability and responsibility is often a vigorously contested issue. It is not enough to prove you suffered injury using a product. Your chosen legal team must prevail in holding responsible all identified defendants and their insurance companies.

If you are have been injured by a product in Massachusetts, call the Law Offices of Jeffrey S. Glassman for a free and confidential appointment — 1-888-367-2900.

Additional Resources

FDA Recalls, Market Withdraws, and Safety Alerts

More Blog Entries

Transvaginal Mesh Update: Boston Scientific Settles with 350 Plaintiffs, Feb. 11, 2018, Boston Product Liability Attorney Blog

https://www.forlawfirmsonly.com/dangerous-products-insurers-defendants-victims-battle-over-liability/