LexisNexis® Legal Newsroom
3rd Circuit: Defect, Warranty Claims For Vagus Nerve Stimulator Preempted

PHILADELPHIA - (Mealey's) The Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on July 30 affirmed that manufacturing defect and breach of warranty claims involving the Vagus Nerve Stimulation (VNS) Therapy System made by Cyberonics Inc. are expressly preempted ( Diane M. Williams, et al. v. Cyberonics, Inc....

William A. Ruskin: Breach Of Warranty & Product Liability Claims Dismissed Against Auto Service Provider

By William A. Ruskin In 2008, the parents of Sean Reeps, brought suit against BMW , Martin Motor Sales and Hassel Motors ("Hassel"), alleging that Sean's mother, Debra, was exposed to gasoline fumes in the family's BMW during her pregancy, which resulted in Sean being born with birth...

New Jersey High Court: Some Warning, Warranty Claims About Stent Aren't Preempted

TRENTON, N.J. - (Mealey's) The New Jersey Supreme Court on Aug. 9 ruled that some failure-to-warn claims and some breach of warranty claims involving the Cordis Cypher drug-coated coronary stent may survive federal preemption, a ruling that applies to 47 state court cases in which plaintiffs claim...

William A. Ruskin: The Economic Loss Rule: An Under-Utilized But Not-So-Secret Weapon

By William A. Ruskin In a decision issued on March 7, 2013, the Supreme Court of Florida reaffirmed Florida's commitment to adherence to the economic loss rule in product liability litigation. In Tiara Condominium Association, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. etc., et al. , No. SC10...

Supreme Court Rejects Suit Alleging Burn Injuries From Defective Lighter

WASHINGTON, D.C. — (Mealey's) The U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 13 denied a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by a man who claims that a child suffered burn injuries due to an allegedly defective cigarette lighter ( David R. Cummins v. Bic USA Inc., et al. , No. 13-574, U.S. Sup.). David...

How Much Are You Drinking at Starbucks?

Recently, two federal district courts have dismissed lawsuits alleging that that Starbucks Corporation deceives its customers by misrepresenting the volume of its cold drinks. The first case was decided by a California federal district court in August 2016. The second case was decided on October 14,...