Defense of Purdue Pharma, LP in multiple state court cases involving product liability claims based on the marketing of the prescription pain relief medication Oxycontin. In the course of that defense, we successfully obtained one of the first judgments in favor of the company based upon the defense of misuse of the product. We also obtained the dismissal of a significant number of individual claims, and negotiated a resolution of one of the first actions instituted by a state attorney general against the company.
In re: Diet Drugs (Phentermine/Fenfluramine/Dexfenfluramine) Product Liability Litigation
Represented a generic drug manufacturer in thousands of product liability cases where plaintiffs alleged pulmonary and cardiac injury from ingestion of diet drugs. The cases were pending in federal multidistrict litigation proceedings in E. D. of Pennsylvania, and in various state courts in Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Pennsylvania and California.
MDL 1407: In re: Phenylpropanolamine Product Liability Litigation
Served as national coordinating counsel for Procter & Gamble Distributing Company and Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in personal injury cases where plaintiffs alleged injury from the ingestion of over the counter and prescription cough/cold medications. The cases were filed in federal multidistrict litigation proceedings in the W. D. of Washington, and in various state courts.
Asbestos Premises Litigation
Asbestos Product Liability Litigation
Automobile Class Action Litigation
Chemical Exposure Class Action Litigation
Consumer / Commercial Litigation
Health Insurance Subrogation Litigation
Insurance Defense Litigation
Insurance Premium Tax Class Action Litigation
The plaintiffs argued that the insurance premium tax should have been paid by the insurance companies, and not the policyholders. They also alleged that the tax had been miscalculated by the insurance company in some jurisdictions. The plaintiffs sought both declaratory and injunctive relief that the insurance companies be prohibited from collecting the tax from the policyholders. Alternatively, if it was determined that the companies were permitted to collect the tax from policyholders, the plaintiffs sought an accounting to determine if the tax had been properly calculated for each policyholder, with the cost of the accounting to be paid by the insurance companies.
We removed the case to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act. The plaintiffs’ motion to remand was denied. We also filed a motion to dismiss asserting that under the applicable state statutes the insurance premium tax was properly charged to the policyholders. We also argued that the plaintiffs had failed to exhaust administrative remedies before the appropriate state agency prior to filing suit, as required by state statute. The motion to dismiss was granted.