• EMAIL
  • PRINT
  • PDF
  • Bookmark and Share

Products Liability, Mass Torts and Consumer Class Actions

Representative Matters

We obtained summary judgment in the first case filed in Delaware as well as a sweeping statute of limitations decision, pivotal victories that paved the way to more than 28,000 settlements in similar cases.
We serve as designated trial counsel in New Jersey, New York and Connecticut state court claims related to its artificial hip products. McCarter claimed victory in New Jersey’s first bellwether jury trial on statute of limitations grounds.
Our cases primarily involve venous access and oncology products, in multiple jurisdictions, in both state and federal courts. In New Jersey, we represent the parent and its subsidiaries in various medical device product liability cases, including NJ cases that are part of multidistrict litigation. We have also handled cases in New York, Pennsylvania and Delaware.
We are defending an Idaho resident’s claims that use of its medicines for peptic disorders caused acute kidney injury and hospitalization. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages of $10 million for physical pain, lifelong medical treatment and other health consequences.
We served as national discovery counsel with respect to product liability litigation in California federal court, which alleged that the drug causes or accelerates the growth of pancreatic cancer. We handled collection, review and production of documents, including electronically stored information. Our lawyers produced voluminous discovery under compressed deadlines in order to secure a strategically advantageous position for our client in this matter and related litigation.
Our team prevailed on a motion for summary judgment in a case that questioned whether safety-engineered scalpels should replace conventional scalpels.
Our client has a deep pipeline of early-stage technologies in central nervous system diseases and metabolic diseases that complement its late-stage clinical trial activity in cancer and prevention of chemo-toxicity.
We have negotiated Master Service Agreements, Clinical Trial Agreements with private and public institutions, and Patient Informed Consent Forms for this client focused on the discovery and development of targeted therapies for the prevention and treatment of severe organ failure, with a principle focus on kidney disease. The company has completed preclinical toxicology testing as well as two successful Phase 1 clinical trials that demonstrated excellent safety and pharmacokinetic profiles. The Phase 2 clinical program is ongoing. 
Our lawyers played a key role in hormone replacement therapy litigation in New Jersey and Pennsylvania; for example, we obtained summary judgment in New Jersey bellwether cases that was upheld on appeal.
We were primary counsel in all phases of its breast implant litigation, which involved the defense of more than 20,000 cases nationwide. Our lawyers also defended class claims and played a major role in reaching a global settlement of a sizeable portion of the litigation.
Plaintiffs alleged various violations of New Jersey and other consumer protection statutes and sought medical monitoring following procedures involving allegedly tainted biologics. Using a novel defense strategy, our clients and other human tissue defendants convinced the MDL court to focus first on deficiencies in the science relied upon by the plaintiffs in support of their general causation claims. The court ordered submission of expert reports and Daubert hearings challenging plaintiffs’ theories of general causation. After deciding those “science first” motions in favor of the defendants, the litigation resolved through dismissals and nominal settlements.
We filed a brief challenging certification of a nationwide class action alleging consumer fraud in connection with the marketing and sale of a prescription medicine.
We serve this client as national counsel and are currently defending a case involving its spray foam insulation. Plaintiff is a homeowner who claims, in part, that the product is emitting harmful gases. This is the first case in the country in which our client has been sued for its spray foam.
We are defending multiple cases brought in federal court by current and former New Jersey- and Massachusetts-based firefighters, claiming that sirens manufactured by our client have caused permanent hearing loss. Plaintiffs contend that the siren in question is defective due to inadequate testing and that our client negligently misrepresented it as safe.
We served as trial counsel and handle investigation and discovery, and were responsible for the defense of these cases, irrespective of location.
Plaintiffs claimed that our client’s in-floor radiant heating system was defectively manufactured. The case involved the interplay under New Jersey law between product liability claims and warranty claims. We defeated the class action on a motion to dismiss.
The case alleged that our client’s dryers were defectively designed and that it did not provide adequate instructions and warnings, leading to a fire in the home of a New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company (NJMIC) policyholder. The jury found that NJMIC failed to prove that our client’s dryer had any fault in the fire.
We favorably settled a case brought in Illinois state court alleging improper workmanship and improper site conditions arising out of the application of fire-resistive material during the construction of a hospital. The matter involved one of the client’s flagship products, multimillion-dollar exposure, and the threat of repeated litigation nationwide if it were determined that the product were defective.
Plaintiff allegedly was injured when he fell off a bucket truck that his employer purchased from our client. We settled this New Jersey state court case for less than defense costs.
We defended a product liability action alleging serious injury from an industrial flatiron press. By demonstrating the plaintiff’s inability to prove any defect in the subject product, we obtained summary judgment dismissing with prejudice all claims and cross-claims.
These New Jersey state court cases alleged defects in the pouring of driveways. Each was dismissed, subject to the arbitration provisions in the Agreements of Sale.
McCarter serves on the national counsel team and acts as regional counsel in several New England/Mid-Atlantic states, including managing its asbestos dockets and handling all aspects of litigation.
In an appellate victory that will have a significant impact on asbestos mesothelioma litigation in New Jersey, we defeated a plaintiff’s appeal from an order granting summary judgment dismissing claims against our client, who alleged that her mesothelioma was caused by “take-home” exposure to asbestos. In a published opinion that rules out liability for low-dose and low-exposure cases in New Jersey, the Appellate Division affirmed.
We manage the client’s Pennsylvania and New Jersey asbestos dockets, and are responsible for discovery, court appearances, litigation management, trial, etc.
We prevailed in New Jersey Superior Court (Middlesex County) in asbestos litigation in which the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that fertilizer produced by our client was responsible for her husband’s mesothelioma and subsequent death.
Our lawyers have served as national counsel for the past decade. We are also defending the company and its facilities in product and premises litigation involving its facilities in Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania as well as in a multiple chemical sensitivity case in Ohio.
Our lawyers have defended cases nationwide for this global manufacturer’s subsidiary since 2002.
In more than 100 cases, we handled all phases of discovery, trial and appeal, challenging both medical and liability aspects of plaintiffs’ allegations and trying a number of cases to verdict or substantial conclusion.
The plaintiffs’ bar is preying on retailers and other companies with threats of lawsuits under New Jersey’s Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA). McCarter represents more than 20 clients with TCCWNA-related issues. Our work includes defending class action lawsuits alleging TCCWNA violations, advising clients who have received letters threatening such class action claims, and assisting clients with a review of their website Terms of Use and Terms and Conditions of Sale in order to minimize the potential for TCCWNA litigation.
The Delaware Supreme Court dismissed with prejudice a class action brought by New York-based third party payor health insurers who alleged that one of our client’s top-selling medicines was falsely advertised as superior to a less-expensive predecessor product, which caused the insurers to overpay. The ruling affirmed a Delaware Superior Court decision.
McCarter is defending claims that our client violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making unsolicited automated marketing calls to cellular phones owned by the plaintiff and other members of the purported nationwide class.    
We are defending a putative class action in Atlantic County Superior Court stemming from alleged patient exposure to HIV and hepatitis, potentially in violation of the Pure Food and Drug Act, caused by a former hospital pharmacist who was suspected of tampering with more than 200 patients’ intravenous medications over a 16-month period.
Plaintiff sought class certification and sales tax refunds, treble damages and attorneys fees under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA), for incorrectly charging sales tax on certain coupon purchases. We moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and won at all levels. The Tax Court and later the Appellate Division held in a published opinion that plaintiffs had no cause of action against our client and instead their exclusive remedy was to seek individual refunds of alleged sales tax overcharges from the NJ State Division of Taxation.
Our lawyers are defending a proposed class action accusing the company of falsely advertising that its line of bedtime bath products helps babies sleep better. Plaintiffs allege that our client made misrepresentations and omissions concerning the effectiveness of its baby bath products through television and print advertisements.
We defended the company in two District of New Jersey class actions alleging that certain front-load washing machines accumulate mold and cannot adequately clean themselves. The plaintiffs, New Jersey residents who alleged that our client violated the NJCFA, sought treble damages and attorney fees, among other alleged damages. The cases favorably settled prior to trial.
We represented the company in Essex County Superior Court against a putative class of New Jersey consumers who purchased allegedly defective contact lens solution. After conducting very limited discovery, all claims against our client were dismissed on a motion for summary judgment.
A disgruntled consumer claimed that the company violated the NJCFA by allegedly posting misrepresentations on its website concerning the quantity and price of certain consumer goods offered for sale. Plaintiff also asserted express and implied warranty and unjust enrichment claims. We filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, including all class claims, and the case settled for less than nuisance value shortly thereafter.
This case involved product liability and NJCFA claims brought in connection with allegedly defective refrigerator door hinges. We won on a motion to dismiss, arguing that if a claim stems from an allegedly defective product it is governed by New Jersey’s Product Liability Act and is not for class treatment.
We secured very favorable global settlements of consumer fraud claims related to the marketing and sales of automotive maintenance and repair services.
The New Jersey Supreme Court recently granted our motions for leave to appear as amicus in two putative class actions against restaurant chains.