In Case You Missed It: Faegre Drinker on Products — Fall 2025

Catch up on the latest developments of interest for product manufacturers. Here’s a quarterly compilation of the most popular blog posts on Faegre Drinker on Products.

Register to Do Business, Register to Be Sued? Illinois’ New Jurisdictional Trap for Toxic Tort Litigants

By Elizabeth C. Christen, Jenna Seiler, Natalie Abdou & Bryan D. Pasciak

For companies operating nationwide, rules governing where they can be sued are consequential — especially in high-exposure toxic tort litigation. Illinois’ enactment of SB 328 raises the stakes in these cases even more, conferring general jurisdiction over companies who register or merely transact business in Illinois.

Close, But Not Quite: Eastern District of North Carolina Excludes Experts Whose General Expertise Does Not Enable Specific Opinions Offered

By Eric M. Friedman

Even “[a] supremely qualified expert cannot waltz into the courtroom and render opinions” without passing muster under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Clark v. Takata Corp. (7th Cir. 1999). A recent case from the Eastern District of North Carolina shows this principle is at play not only when critiquing an expert’s methodology, but also the expert’s expertise.

No Defect, No Negligence: Lessons from Rudzinskas v. Retractable Technologies, Inc.

By Alena Markley

A summary judgment from the Southern District of Georgia shows the critical role of defect evidence (or lack thereof) in negligence claims involving medical devices. In Rudzinskas, allegations that a medical device malfunctioned were not sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment on negligent manufacturing and failure-to-warn claims.

A Win for the Gig Economy: First Appellate Ruling on Florida’s TNC Statute Affirms Independent Contractor Protections

In 2017, the Florida Legislature sought to regulate “Transportation Network Companies,” (TNCs), like Uber and Lyft, by passing section 627.748, Florida Statutes (2017) (TNC Statute). As discussed in more detail below, the TNC Statute generally shelters TNCs from vicarious liability for drivers’ actions if certain conditions are met. Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal recently issued the first state appellate ruling, confirming the protections afforded to TNCs under this Statute. See Abner v. Lyft Fla., Inc., No. 3D24-0479, 2025 WL 2969993 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Oct. 22, 2025). The Abner court agreed with the reasoning of the trial court and affirmed summary judgment for Lyft on a claim of vicarious liability under the TNC Statute, as well as a claim of negligent hiring and retention of the driver.

The case stemmed from a July 5, 2017, accident where a car driven by Rolando Cepero collided with a motorcycle driven by Dexter Franklin. At the time of the accident, Cepero was a ride-share contractor for Lyft providing a ride requested by a passenger through the Lyft platform. Plaintiff Natasha Abner, individually and as Franklin’s Guardian, sued Lyft claiming it was vicariously liable as Cepero’s “employer.” With her other claim, Abner also alleged Lyft negligently hired and retained Cepero. Lyft moved for summary judgment based on the TNC Statute, which went into effect just before the accident took place. The trial court granted summary judgment and Abner appealed.

Continue reading “A Win for the Gig Economy: First Appellate Ruling on Florida’s TNC Statute Affirms Independent Contractor Protections”

Significant Drug & Device Developments of 2025

As we welcome the new year, it is time to reflect on some of the most significant legal developments in the drug and device space in 2025.

1. Navigating a New Skepticism in Science

Not long ago, the average American likely could not name the U.S. secretary of health and human services. Yet, following this year’s change in administration and major shakeup in the regulatory landscape, skepticism in science has become the elephant in the room for anyone working in the drug and device sphere. Practitioners should start thinking about how to present scientific evidence to juries in 2026 as the old norms may no longer apply.

Read the full article on the Faegre Drinker website.

NY Federal Court Ruling Strengthens FDA Preemption for Class III Device Manufacturers

A recent preemption decision out of the Southern District of New York offers encouraging news for medical device manufacturers. In Wieder v. Advanced Bionics LLC, 2025 WL 3237257 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2025), the magistrate judge has recommended that most of the state law claims asserted against a cochlear implant manufacturer be dismissed as preempted by federal law under the Medical Device Amendments (MDA) to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (FDCA). While this is not a final decision yet, should the report and recommendation be adopted, it will be a welcome decision for device manufacturers because it reaffirms that state law claims challenging the safety or effectiveness of a pre-market approved (PMA) medical device are broadly preempted.

Weider involved allegations against the manufacturer of a Class III PMA cochlear implant. The plaintiffs alleged the device, which was implanted in their young child, was defectively manufactured and designed, citing issues with a silicone seal and alleging the manufacturer knew of a design flaw that was revealed by a company-backed clinical study. The manufacturer moved to dismiss the case in its entirety, arguing that federal preemption barred the claims or, alternatively, that the claims were inadequately pleaded.

Continue reading “NY Federal Court Ruling Strengthens FDA Preemption for Class III Device Manufacturers”

Register to Do Business, Register to Be Sued? Illinois’ New Jurisdictional Trap for Toxic Tort Litigants

For companies operating nationwide, rules governing where they can be sued are consequential — especially in high-exposure toxic tort litigation. Toxic tort cases often involve claims over exposure to substances like asbestos, lead paint, pesticides, pharmaceuticals or industrial pollution and frequently target out-of-state corporations whose products or activities reach far beyond their corporate home base. Illinois’ enactment of SB 328, which amends the Illinois long-arm statute and Business Corporation Act of 1983, raises the stakes in these cases even more, conferring general jurisdiction over companies who register or merely transact business in Illinois.

Consent by registration statutes have been one of the most hotly debated legal questions in the general jurisdiction arena. General jurisdiction is a court’s authority to hear all claims against a defendant, regardless of where the alleged conduct took place. General jurisdiction is reserved for the forums where a defendant is “at home.”1 For corporations, this is usually the corporation’s place of incorporation or principal place of business.2 Yet some argue that simply registering to do business in a state should also open the door to being sued there, even if the dispute has little to no tie to that forum.

Continue reading “Register to Do Business, Register to Be Sued? Illinois’ New Jurisdictional Trap for Toxic Tort Litigants”

In Case You Missed It: Faegre Drinker on Products — Summer 2025

Catch up on the latest developments of interest for product manufacturers. Here’s a quarterly compilation of the most popular blog posts on Faegre Drinker on Products.

Tort Reform Is Top of Mind in 2025: Legislative Updates in Georgia, South Carolina, Louisiana and Arkansas

By Elizabeth A. Wurm, Jenna Seiler & Elizabeth C. Christen

Some states that are home to “Judicial Hellhole” venues, often known for producing nuclear verdicts, have rallied for successful tort reform. In the most recent state legislative sessions, Georgia, South Carolina, Louisiana and Arkansas implemented tort reform bills which may serve to neutralize the nuclear verdicts coming out of their courts.

 

Message Received — Delaware Follows Federal Rule of Evidence 702

By Eric M. Friedman & Emma DeLaney Strenski

The Delaware Superior Court took the mass tort world by surprise with its refusal to exclude the plaintiffs’ experts’ causation opinions in the Zantac litigation. But the Delaware Supreme Court granted the defendants’ request for interlocutory appeal and has reversed the Superior Court’s decision and remanded for further proceedings.

 

ChatGPT As Your New Testifying Expert Under Proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 707? Maybe Not.

By Nikolas G. Spilson & Eric M. Friedman

Tools that can reduce the time and cost of litigation have long been in high demand by both clients and counsel. But the tool must be fit for its purpose, and tools that generate evidence or other outputs that will be submitted to the court must pass judicial scrutiny. One of the newer fights concerns the admissibility of machine-generated “expert” opinions.