Law 360 is reporting (subscription required) that a jury has awarded $4.6 million in punitive damages, in addition to $17.57 in compensatory damages, in a lawsuit alleging that asbestos-contaminated talc caused a man to develop mesothelioma.  The defendants are Imerys Talc America  and Vanderbilt Minerals.  Vanderbilt has already settled, according to the story.

The Dallas Morning News reports that a jury yesterday awarded Johnson & Johnson to pay $247 million, including $168 million in punitive damages, for allegedly failing to warn about defects in artificial hips.

As the article notes, this is the third time a Dallas jury has whacked the company for punitive damages in hip implant litigation. Mark Lanier is the plaintiffs’ lawyer in all three cases.  The company says it plans to appeal.  Presumably, Lanier will again enlist Ken Starr to defend the punitive damages on appeal.

The Los Angeles Times reports that Judge Maren Nelson of the Los Angeles County Superior Court has granted Johnson & Johnson’s motion for a new trial in the case that generated a $417 million verdict, including $347 million in punitive damages.

According to the article, Judge Nelson found that errors occurred at trial and that the jury committed misconduct.  She also ruled that the plaintiffs failed to present clear and convincing evidence of malice.  Plaintiffs’ counsel, Mark Robinson of Robinson Calcagnie, says his clients will appeal.

Related posts:

Missouri appellate court reverses $62 million punitive damages award in talc case, finding no jurisdiction (Fox v. Johnson & Johnson)

L.A. jury awards $347 million in punitive damages against Johnson & Johnson in talc case

Johnson & Johnson gets hit again for punitive damages in Missouri talc litigation

Johnson & Johnson hit for $65 million in punitive damages in third big talc verdict

Johnson & Johnson hit with another big punitive damages award in Missouri over talc-based powder products

Johnson & Johnson vows to appeal $1 billion punitive damages award in hip implant case

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that the Missouri Court of Appeals has reversed a judgment awarding $62 million in punitive damages and $10 million in compensatory damages against Johnson & Johnson, in a case in which the plaintiffs claimed that the company’s talc products cause ovarian cancer.

The opinion is a mere six pages.  The court notes that Missouri courts previously had a practice of allowing out-of-state plaintiffs to pursue claims in Missouri, including products liability cases involving products purchased outside Missouri.  The U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Bristol-Myers Squibb disapproved that practice (reversing the California Supreme Court) so . . . case dismissed.  Presumably, the other three Missouri talc verdicts against Johnson & Johnson will see a similar fate.

Related posts:

L.A. jury awards $347 million in punitive damages against Johnson & Johnson in talc case

Johnson & Johnson gets hit again for punitive damages in Missouri talc litigation

Johnson & Johnson hit for $65 million in punitive damages in third big talc verdict

Johnson & Johnson hit with another big punitive damages award in Missouri over talc-based powder products

Johnson & Johnson vows to appeal $1 billion punitive damages award in hip implant case

The Dallas Business Journal reports that a jury has awarded $4.6 million in compensatory damages and $4 billion in punitive damages against JPMorgan Chase in a probate case.  According to the story, the plaintiffs claimed that JPMorgan fraudulently and maliciously mishandled the estate of American Airlines executive Max Hopper.

This wildly excessive award cannot possibly survive post-trial and appellate review.  An 870-to-one ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages raises obvious constitutional excessiveness problems.  Aside from that, a Texas statute caps punitive damages at the greater of (1) $200,000 or (2) two times the amount of economic damages; plus an amount equal to any noneconomic damages found by the jury, not to exceed $750,000.

The Wall Street Journal ran this opinion piece last Friday, attacking the talc litigation that generated the huge punitive damages verdict in LA last week.

Reuters reports that a jury in Los Angeles today awarded $417 million in damages, including $347 million in punitive damages, against Johnson & Johnson.

This verdict follows on the heels of four other large verdicts against Johnson & Johnson in Missouri, all based on claims that the company’s talc products cause ovarian cancer.  A fifth case ended in a defense verdict.

This verdict is the third-largest verdict of the year nationwide, according to Bloomberg.

Related posts:

Johnson & Johnson gets hit again for punitive damages in Missouri talc litigation

Johnson & Johnson hit for $65 million in punitive damages in third big talc verdict

Johnson & Johnson hit with another big punitive damages award in Missouri over talc-based powder products

Johnson & Johnson vows to appeal $1 billion punitive damages award in hip implant case 

Law 360 reports that Kimberly-Clark Corporation has sued former subsidiary Halyard Health, Inc. over a $450 million punitive damages award handed out by a Los Angeles jury earlier this month.  

The litigation arises out of a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.  The class members include those who bought surgical gowns made by Halyard, which  Kimberly-Clark spun off in 2014.  Attorneys for the class argued that the defendants committed fraud by marketing the gowns as impermeable when in fact they failed to protect against pathogens like Ebola.  Apparently, the plaintiffs presented no evidence of any incident in which a gown failure resulted in an injury or infection.  But that did not stop the jury from awarding $4 million in compensatory damages and $450 million in punitive damages ($350 million against Kimberly-Clark and $100 million against Halyard). 

Given the enormous size of the award and the disproportionate ratio between the punitive damages and the compensatory damages, it is not surprising that both sides have already brought in appellate lawyers for the post-trial proceedings.

Meanwhile, Kimberly-Clerk is suing Halyard in the Delaware Chancery Court, seeking indemnity for the entire award, based on an agreement the companies entered into at the time of the spin-off.  And Halyard has filed its own action in California state court, seeking a declaration that Kimberly-Clark has no right to seek reimbursement. 

We will keep an eye on this one.  With three pending lawsuits and nearly a half a billion dollars at stake, this litigation is likely to be in the news for a while.

Bloomberg news reports that a jury in St. Louis has awarded $5 million in compensatory damages and $105 million in punitive damages against Johnson & Johnson, in a lawsuit alleging that the company’s talcum powder products (Shower to Shower and Baby Powder) caused the plaintiff’s ovarian cancer.

This is the fourth time a jury in Missouri has awarded punitive damages against J&J based on claims that talc can cause ovarian cancer. A fifth trial resulted in a defense verdict.  The company says it plans to appeal, and that the verdict is contrary to governmental and scientific consensus that talc is safe.  The plaintiff’s counsel accuses the company of “spending millions in efforts to manipulate scientific and regulatory scrutiny.”

Johnson & Johnson is also fighting against an award of $1 billion in punitive damages in a lawsuit over allegedly defective hip implants  (Update: they also got hit for $17.5 million in punitive damages in a pelvic mesh lawsuit in Philadelphia last week.)

Related posts:

Johnson & Johnson hit for $65 million in punitive damages in third big talc verdict
 
Johnson & Johnson hit with another big punitive damages award in Missouri over talc-based powder products

Johnson & Johnson vows to appeal $1 billion punitive damages award in hip implant case   

The Star Tribune reports that yesterday a Los Angeles jury awarded $2.7 million in compensatory damages and $22 million in punitive damages in an wrongful termination suit against Minnesota-based Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., a medical device manufacturer.

The plaintiff, who worked as a regional sales manager for the defendant, claimed the company fired him for informing management of an illegal kickback scheme in which sales reps were bribing doctors to use the company’s products.  The article says the company plans to appeal