Pennsylvania Archives - Faegre Drinker on Products

Subject: Pennsylvania

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”

Defining the Limits of Lay Testimony in Complicated Products Cases

“So when is a question too complicated for the jury?” That is the question the Third Circuit sought to answer recently in Slatowski v. Sig Sauer, Inc., ___ F. 4th ___, 2025 WL 2178533 (3d Cir. 2025), reversing a district court’s grant of summary judgment despite affirming its exclusion of the plaintiff’s causation experts. Ironically, the Third Circuit’s analysis of when an expert opinion is required is itself so nuanced that it may require expert interpretation. Upon close inspection, the Slatowski panel’s holding is not nearly as broad as the headings might suggest.

Continue reading “Defining the Limits of Lay Testimony in Complicated Products Cases”

How to Succeed in Business (in Philadelphia) Without Really Trying (Your Case There, Because Venue Isn’t Proper)

Venue rulings in Pennsylvania affect many defendants in products cases. Those incorporated here, and those sued on allegations that their products caused harm here, of course. And, for now at least, it includes corporate defendants registered to do business in Pennsylvania. They are subject to general jurisdiction, including for claims unrelated to the Commonwealth, under Pennsylvania’s unique “consent to jurisdiction” statute. That statute was upheld as consistent with due process in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 600 U.S. 122 (2023).

And with many serious personal injury cases being filed in Philadelphia – a venue described in a Mallory concurring opinion as “reputed to be especially favorable to tort plaintiffs” – the stakes involved in venue disputes are higher than ever. That is even more evident after several recently reported verdicts in product cases, one approaching $1 billion and one exceeding $2 billion.

Continue reading “How to Succeed in Business (in Philadelphia) Without Really Trying (Your Case There, Because Venue Isn’t Proper)”

Pennsylvania Stays in a Minority of Two States in Prohibiting Evidence of Compliance With Government and Industry Standards in Products Liability Design Defect Cases

Just before Christmas, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court delivered a lump of coal to products liability defendants: Sullivan v. Werner Co., 2023 WL 8859656 (Pa. Dec. 22, 2023), affirming a lower court ruling that barred evidence of a product manufacturer’s compliance with government and industry standards in a strict liability design defect case. The lower courts held that such evidence goes to due care and is relevant only to negligence, not strict liability. The affirmance appears to support the exclusion of such evidence in design defect cases based on a risk-utility theory, but leaves uncertainty for the future because only three justices joined the principal opinion; a fourth justice concurred with the result but concluded the record was inadequate to resolve the legal issue, while two others dissented.

Plaintiff sued the maker of a mobile scaffold which collapsed. Defendant served an expert report that relied in part on government (OSHA) and industry (ANSI) standards. Plaintiff filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of compliance with those standards, relying mainly on Lewis v. Coffing Hoist Div., 528 A.2d 590 (Pa. 1987), which excluded such evidence in strict liability cases. But Defendant argued the Supreme Court’s later ruling in Tincher v. Omega Flex, 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014), undermined Lewis by overruling Azzarello v. Black Brothers Co., 391 A.2d 1020 (Pa. 1978), a decision that had taken an extremely narrow view of the relevant facts in strict liability claims under section 402A of the Second Restatement of Torts. Tincher held that section 402A remained Pennsylvania law but “overruled Azzarello’s narrow construction . . . that prevented the jury from considering negligence-related rhetoric and concepts . . . .” Nevertheless, the trial court in Sullivan granted the motion in limine and an appellate court affirmed. Sullivan v. Werner Co., 253 A.3d 730 (Pa. Super. 2021).

Continue reading “Pennsylvania Stays in a Minority of Two States in Prohibiting Evidence of Compliance With Government and Industry Standards in Products Liability Design Defect Cases”

Supreme Court Reinstates Statutory “Consent” to General Personal Jurisdiction

On June 27, 2023, the United States Supreme Court decided Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 2023 WL 4187749, 600 U.S. ___ (June 27, 2023), a decision that likely will reinvigorate forum-shopping efforts by plaintiffs in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and possibly elsewhere. The decision—supported by a plurality of Justices and the concurrence of Justice Alito—upholds a Pennsylvania law that requires out-of-state corporations registering to do business in Pennsylvania to consent to general personal jurisdiction within the Commonwealth. Overlooking decades of personal jurisdiction jurisprudence, Mallory reinstates a form of personal jurisdiction previously cast by many courts as a dead letter: general jurisdiction by statutory “consent.”

Continue reading “Supreme Court Reinstates Statutory “Consent” to General Personal Jurisdiction”

5 Major Drug and Device Developments of 2022

As we ring in the new year, it is time once again to reflect on some of the most significant legal developments for drug and device companies this year. The list below is by no means exhaustive (who could forget the Rule 702 updates that took place this year, which will carry over into 2023?), but provides a brief recap and assessment of five of the most interesting and consequential developments affecting drug and device law in 2022.

Continue reading “5 Major Drug and Device Developments of 2022”