The Core Allegations

The ultra-processed foods (UPF) lawsuit names several multinational corporations, including Kraft Heinz, Mondelez, Post Holdings, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, General Mills, Nestle, Kellanova, WK Kellogg Co., Mars, and ConAgra Brands, as defendants. These companies are accused of:

• Creating Addictive Substances: The complaint argues that ultra-processed foods (UPF) are designed to be addictive, using techniques borrowed from the tobacco industry to manipulate consumer behavior and brain chemistry. This includes the use of specific additives and processing methods that enhance palatability and drive consumption far beyond what is healthy or necessary.
• Targeting Vulnerable Populations: There’s a strong focus on how these companies aggressively market their products to children, particularly those from minority communities, using tactics like cartoon characters, vibrant packaging, and integrated promotions with popular media. The ultra processed foods (UPF) lawsuit claims that this marketing is not only deceptive but also contributes to an environment where young consumers are disproportionately affected by diet-related diseases.
• Health Consequences: The complaint explains how the introduction of ultra processed foods (UPF) has coincided with dramatic increases in childhood obesity, Type 2 Diabetes, and Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease. These conditions, once rare among children, are now alarmingly common, suggesting a direct link to the consumption of these foods.

Historical Context and Industry Knowledge

The ultra processed foods (UPF) lawsuit paints a picture of an industry fully aware of the health detriments of its products:

• Historical Warnings Ignored: For decades, warnings from scientists, health professionals, and regulatory bodies about the dangers of ultra-processed foods have been documented. Despite this, the defendants have allegedly continued their practices, prioritizing profit over public health.
• The Minneapolis Meeting: A pivotal moment described in the lawsuit is a secretive 1999 meeting in Minneapolis where food industry CEOs were warned about the health impact of their products. Despite this knowledge, no meaningful changes were implemented, leading to what the suit describes as a “banquet of consequences” for public health.

Legal Theories and Claims

Martinez’s lawsuit relies on several legal grounds:

• Negligence and Gross Negligence: For failing in their duty to produce, market, and warn about their products responsibly.
• Failure to Warn: The companies are accused of not adequately informing consumers of the risks associated with ultra processed food (UPF) consumption, especially in children.
• Breach of Warranty: Both express and implied warranties are claimed to have been breached, as the products were not fit for their intended use without causing harm.
• Fraudulent Misrepresentation and Concealment: Allegations that these companies misrepresented the safety, healthiness, and nature of their products while concealing known risks.
• Unfair Trade Practices: Under Pennsylvania’s consumer protection laws, the companies are accused of deceptive marketing aimed at vulnerable populations.
• Conspiracy and Concerted Action: Specifically targeting Kraft Heinz, Mondelez, Post Holdings, General Mills, Coca-Cola, and Mars for allegedly working together to manipulate the food market and consumer behavior.

Why This Case Matters

This lawsuit could be a turning point in how food corporations are held accountable for public health outcomes:

• Public Health Impact: If successful, this case could lead to significant changes in how food is processed, marketed, and regulated, potentially reducing the prevalence of diet-related diseases.
• Consumer Awareness: It highlights the need for consumers to be fully informed about the food they consume, especially when it comes to products aimed at children.
• Legal Precedent: A victory here might set a precedent for similar lawsuits against food companies, encouraging stricter regulations or even product reformulations.

What You Can Do

If you or someone you know has suffered health issues potentially linked to ultra-processed foods, particularly if you’ve been diagnosed with conditions like Type 2 Diabetes or Fatty Liver Disease at a young age, you might have a claim. The implications of this lawsuit extend far beyond Martinez; many could benefit from a legal review of their case:

• Seek Legal Advice: Contact a law firm to discuss your case. We are actively investigating ultra processed food (UPF) cases. With our experience in the product liability and mass tort arena, our lawyers can help assess whether you or a loved one may have grounds to pursue legal action against food corporations for health damages caused by their products. 
• Join the Movement: One of the primary purposes of tort law is to deter the harmful, avoidable conduct of others in the community. If you or a loved one has a claim, by participating in a legal action, you not only seek justice for your own health issues but contribute to a broader movement for food industry accountability and reform.

For a free consultation about whether you or a loved one may have a legal claim relating to the consumption of ultra-processed foods, please reach out to us at 844-268-7775. We look forward to challenging these practices that have long gone unchecked, thus advocating for a healthier future for all.

Understanding Depo-Provera and Its Use

Depo-Provera, generically known as medroxyprogesterone acetate, is an injectable form of birth control that has been on the market for decades. It works by preventing ovulation, thus reducing the likelihood of pregnancy. Administered every three months, it’s favored for its convenience and effectiveness, especially among women who have difficulty with daily pill regimens or wish to avoid estrogen-based contraceptives.

The Allegations Against Depo-Provera

The core of these lawsuits revolves around recent studies and medical reports suggesting a link between long-term use of Depo-Provera and the development of meningiomas, a type of brain tumor that arises from the membranes surrounding the brain and spinal cord. Here are the key allegations:

• Increased Risk: Plaintiffs argue that Depo-Provera increases the risk of meningiomas. This claim is supported by research indicating that users of medroxyprogesterone acetate for contraception might have a higher incidence of these tumors compared to non-users.
• Failure to Warn: The lawsuits claim that Pfizer did not sufficiently warn patients and healthcare providers about the potential risks of brain tumors associated with long-term use of Depo-Provera. This includes not updating product labels or providing adequate safety information.
• Negligence in Research: It’s alleged that Pfizer should have conducted more thorough research or acted on existing data to understand and communicate the risks, particularly given the drug’s long-term use.

Key Points from the Lawsuits

Several aspects stand out in these legal actions:

• Personal Stories: Plaintiffs often recount personal health struggles, detailing how their lives were affected after diagnosis with meningiomas, including surgeries, long recovery periods, and changes in quality of life.
• Scientific Backing: The lawsuits cite scientific studies, including a significant one from France published in 2024, which found a dose-dependent association between medroxyprogesterone acetate use and meningioma risk.
• Legal Grounds: Claims include negligence, failure to warn, design defect, and breach of warranty, with demands for compensatory and punitive damages to cover medical expenses, pain and suffering, lost wages, and more.

What Does This Mean for Current and Former Users?

If you are a current or former user of Depo-Provera, here’s what you should know:

• Assessment of Use: If you’ve used Depo-Provera for an extended period, particularly over years, it might be prudent to consult your healthcare provider about the potential risks and consider alternative contraception methods.
• Health Monitoring: Watch for symptoms that might indicate a meningioma, such as persistent headaches, vision problems, or seizures, and seek medical attention if these occur.
• Legal Rights: If you’ve been diagnosed with a meningioma after using Depo-Provera, you may have legal recourse.

Why You Should Consider Legal Action

• Justice and Compensation: These lawsuits aim not only to seek financial compensation for those harmed but also to hold pharmaceutical companies accountable for their products’ safety.
• Preventing Future Harm: By bringing these issues to light, current litigation could lead to better-informed consent for users and potentially stricter regulations on pharmaceutical marketing and safety testing.
• Community and Support: Joining or following these lawsuits connects you with others who’ve had similar experiences, providing a support network and possibly contributing to broader awareness and research into drug safety.

Steps to Take if You Believe You Have a Claim

If you or a loved one have used Depo-Provera and subsequently developed a meningioma, consider these steps:

1.    Medical Documentation: Gather all medical records related to your Depo-Provera use and your diagnosis of a brain tumor. 

2.    Consult a Lawyer: All legal cases are time sensitive and the longer the case is delayed, the more likely it is to face a statute limitations defense that could lead to dismissal of the claim regardless of merit. In Indiana, the statute of limitations for a personal injury or product liability claim arising out of a pharmaceutical injury is two years barring rare exceptions. Therefore, it is important to speak with an attorney as soon as possible. At Barsumian Armiger Injury Lawyers, we offer:

• Free Case Evaluation: Contact us for a no-obligation review of your situation.
• Personalized Legal Strategy: We tailor our approach to your specific circumstances, seeking to ensure your case is handled efficiently and effectively.
• Contingency Fee Basis: We operate on a contingency fee, meaning you pay nothing unless your case results in a monetary recovery.

3.    Stay Informed: Keep up-to-date with the latest developments in Depo-Provera litigation, as new studies or legal precedents could impact your case.

Conclusion

The Depo-Provera brain tumor lawsuits are not just about individual compensation; they are about setting a precedent for how pharmaceutical companies should manage and communicate the risks associated with their products. Unfortunately, the failure by pharmaceutical companies to warn consumers of side effects of drugs has become an all-too-common occurrence. If you believe you or someone close to you might have been affected, don’t hesitate to reach out for legal guidance. Together, we can work towards ensuring that those responsible are held accountable, and that future users of such medications are better protected.

For further information or to discuss your potential claim, call Barsumian Armiger Injury Lawyers today at 844-268-7775. Let us help you navigate this complex legal landscape toward the justice and support you deserve. 

Indiana follows a liberal notice-pleading standard when it comes to legal complaints. All that is required is to put the defendant on notice of potential liability and the potential harms and losses arising out of the liability.

The women alleged manufacturing defects in the Essure device such as “the central axis was not fully adhered to the spring which can cause the [device] to fracture/break apart.” This, Bayer argued, was not good enough. The women alleged a variety of symptoms following the implantation of the Essure device including menorrhagia, extreme fatigue, abdominal pain, back pain, joint pain, and various skin rashes.” Again, Bayer claimed the women had failed to tie these injuries to any alleged defect.

The court noted that formal discovery is often necessary before a plaintiff can provide a detailed statement of the specific basis for a product defect claim, especially in a medical device case where much of the device-specific manufacturing information is kept confidential by federal law. Consequently, the court quickly disposed of the facial challenge to the complaint.

The more interesting issue was Bayer’s claim that the women’s product liability claims were preempted by federal law. First, the court considered whether the claims were expressly preempted. Federal statutes provide that enforcement proceedings under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”), including the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (the “MDA”), as it relates to a manufacturer’s non-compliance with the regime of receiving pre-market approval (“PMA”) “shall be by and in the name of the United States.” So, an injured person would have to look to whether or not state law provides a remedy since the FDCA does not. And, where state law would conflict with federal law, state law is preempted. Consequently, a complaint by an individual would have to be founded on the federal standards of compliance.

Ultimately, the court found that because the women alleged that Bayer violated federal manufacturing requirements, the claim was not expressly preempted. Had the women alleged violations outside of federal manufacturing requirements, they would have been out of luck according to the court.

Next, the court considered whether or not the women’s claims were impliedly preempted. The court quickly dispensed with the notion that the federal government intended to preempt all state claims (known as “field preemption”), by noting that federal law only prohibits “different or additional state-law requirements.”

Finally, the court considered whether there was such a conflict between state and federal law, that state law claims could not exist separately. The court concluded there was no conflict so long as the claims were premised upon violation of federal requirements and do not exist solely under the FDCA, i.e. Indiana would have provided a remedy under its traditional tort law principles.

To make this final determination of a state remedy, the court turned to the Indiana Product Liability Act (“IPLA”). First, the court concluded the IPLA was enacted to govern all product-based claims against manufacturers. Second, the court determined a medical device, such as the Essure device, fits within the definition of a product under the IPLA. Third, a manufacturer like Bayer qualifies as a manufacturer of a product under the IPLA. Fourth, the court found the women qualified as users or consumers of products under the IPLA and that they were claiming injuries.

The IPLA imposes liability upon manufacturers who put defective and unreasonably dangerous products into the stream of commerce and those products hurt users and consumers. The court concluded that a state-law claim existed and was not preempted. Thus, the complaint should not be dismissed at this early stage.

Bayer also complained that the women had identified other legal theories that fell outside of federal law and asked the court to explicitly dismiss those theories. However, the court noted that because a complaint “need not identify theories, a court need not strike specific theories upon a motion for judgment on the pleadings.” In sum, the fact that Bayer did not like extra verbiage in the complaint was of no importance to the verbiage that mattered and stated a valid claim.

You can read the opinion here.

The IPLA subjects a manufacturer of “a product or a component part of a product,” I.C. § 34-6-2-77, to liability for physical harm caused by a manufacturer placing “into the stream of commerce any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to any user or consumer,” I.C. § 34-20-2-1. A product is defective under the IPLA if it is defectively designed, if it has a manufacturing flaw, or if it lacks adequate warnings about dangers associated with its use.

Rickey Brewer was a construction foreman killed when a semi driver backed up a semi with an integrated PACCAR glider kit, did not see Rickey, and pinned him against a trailer, killing him. His widow and his estate asserted an IPLA claim against PACCAR. The claim asserted PACCAR’s glider kit was defectively designed because it lacked certain safety features to reduce the danger inherent in its forty-foot blind spot. (If you drive a vehicle with a rear camera and sensors, you can probably attest to the peace of mind and safety such devices add to our everyday life). Here, because a design-defect claim is based in negligence, Brewer would need to be able to prove at trial that (1) PACCAR owed a duty to Rickey; (2) PACCAR breached that duty; and (3) the breach proximately caused an injury to Rickey. The only element at issue in the case was duty—whether PACCAR lacked a duty, as a matter of law, to install certain safety features.

The Court noted the IPLA does not differentiate between a final manufacturer and a component-part manufacturer. Both are “manufacturers” for purposes of the IPLA, so both have a duty “to design … products which are reasonably fit and safe for the purpose for which they are intended,”

Prior Indiana product liability case law established that a component-part manufacturer has no duty under the IPLA to include safety features when three conditions are met: (1) the end product has multiple anticipated configurations, (2) the end manufacturer determines which configuration the product takes, and (3) the different anticipated configurations prevent the component-part manufacturer from reasonably knowing whether and how safety features should be included with the part.

The Court in Brewer found the designated evidence indisputably demonstrated that PACCAR’s sleeper-cab glider kit has one reasonably foreseeable use—to be combined with an engine, transmission, and exhaust system into an over-the-road semi. There was also no reasonable dispute that an over-the-road semi with a sleeper cab was, at some point, going to be used in reverse, and that the glider kit—both as supplied and as integrated—had a forty-foot blind spot. So, unlike the prior cases finding no duty, in Brewer the multiple, anticipated end configurations did not leave the component-part manufacturer without a duty, as a matter of law, to include safety features necessary to adequately abate inherent dangers.

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings, holding that whether PACCAR owed the decedent a duty to include the features was a question for the trier of fact. Brewer demonstrates the potentially complex factual and legal issues that may arise out of a workplace injury or death. Such workplace or construction site injuries and deaths may give rise to a viable product liability claim. Pursuing such claims may help deter unsafe practices, prevent future tragedies, and provide justice for those injured or killed. Read the opinion here.

What is mesothelioma? Mesothelioma is a rare type of cancer that often develops years after exposure to asbestos, which is a naturally occurring mineral used in a variety of products manufactured for various industries and still found in many old buildings where it has not been removed through abatement. Mesothelioma can take different forms in tissues lining certain of the body’s organs or cavities including pleural mesothelioma (mesothelioma occurring in the pleura aka lining of the lung), peritoneal mesothelioma (mesothelioma occurring in the peritoneum aka lining of the abdominal cavity), and pericardial (mesothelioma occurring in the pericardium aka lining of the heart).

Turning to the decision in Myers, the Court examined Indiana’s Product Liability Act as applied to cases of the mesothelioma-inflicted plaintiffs. Chapter 3 of the Indiana Product Liability Act sets forth the statute of limitations for product liability actions in Indiana. Section 1 of Chapter 3 applies to product liability actions generally and includes a two-year statute of limitations and a ten-year statute of repose. Section 2 of Chapter 3 applies to asbestos-related actions and also includes a two-year statute of limitations. However, Section 2, unlike Section 1, does not include a ten-year statute of repose.

The issue in Myers concerned the constitutionality of the general ten-year statute of repose as applied to asbestos-related actions that did not fall within the ambit of Section 2 because they did not involve claims against defendants who both mined and sold commercial asbestos. In AlliedSignal v. Ott, 785 N.E.2d 1068 (2003), the Indiana Supreme Court held that Section 2 only applied to asbestos claims against defendants who both mined and sold raw asbestos and did not apply to defendants who only sold asbestos-containing products. The consolidated appeals in Myers concerned claims against defendants who did not both mine and sell asbestos.

The Indiana Supreme Court in Myers refused to alter its previous holding in Ott but instead held that Section 2 of Chapter 3 of the Indiana Product Liability Act was unconstitutional under the Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause, Article 1, Section 23 of Indiana’s Constitution. The Court held Section 2 was unconstitutional because (1) it prescribed disparate treatment between asbestos victims injured by defendants who both mined and sold raw asbestos and asbestos victims injured by other defendants who, for instance, only sold asbestos-containing products and because (2) such treatment was neither reasonably related to the inherent characteristics of the disparately treated classes nor uniformly applicable and equally available to all persons similarly situated. Furthermore, because the legislature included a non-severability clause in Section 2, the Court invalidated all of Section 2 of the Indiana Product Liability Act.

The Indiana Supreme Court in Myers recognized that asbestos-related diseases such as mesothelioma often have long latency periods of more than ten (10) years, which would be barred if the ten-year statute of repose were to be applied. Since the Court invalidated Section 2 of the Indiana Product Liability Act, the issues in this case were then to be analyzed under Section 1. While Section 1 governing the statute of limitations in product liability cases includes a ten-year statute of repose, the Court in Myers applied its previous holding in Covalt v. Carey Canada, Inc., 543 N.E.2d 382 (Ind. 1989) and held that the statute of repose is inapplicable in cases involving protracted exposure to an inherently dangerous foreign substance, such as asbestos in these cases, which caused mesothelioma-related injuries and illnesses.

In summary, the Indiana Supreme Court upheld its prior interpretation of Section 2 of the Indiana Product Liability Act as set forth in Ott, invalidated and voided Section 2 of the Indiana Product Liability Act as unconstitutional, and held that the general ten-year statute of repose did not apply to claims arising out of protracted exposure to asbestos-containing products.

Even though mesothelioma claims are still legally viable claims in Indiana, there are still many obstacles to bringing a successful claim including identification of the asbestos-containing product exposure(s) and how long the mesothelioma patient or their estate may have waited since learning of the mesothelioma diagnosis, which delay can still create statute of limitations concerns. While getting the necessary medical treatment is paramount for any mesothelioma patient, finding an asbestos or mesothelioma attorney who can advise on the availability of a legal remedy for this devastating disease should also be given due consideration as, unfortunately, the medical costs associated with treatment can be financially devastating and the survival rates for persons diagnosed with mesothelioma are very disheartening.

The Myers decision can be found here.

The Plaintiff was seriously injured in this case when he used a grinder designed by the Defendant in an attempt to cut around a truck’s headlight opening to substitute larger headlights. The Defendant’s warnings and instructions directed users to wear safety glasses, to avoid attaching a cut-off disc without a safety guard in place, and to avoid using a cut-off disc with an RPM rating below the minimum of 25,000 RPM. The evidence established that the Plaintiff did not follow these warnings and instructions and the Indiana Supreme Court found that, despite any product defect, had the Plaintiff used a guard and safety glasses, he would not have been injured.

An injury claim arising out of the use of a product falls under the Indiana Products Liability Act (IPLA). Under the IPLA, a product-liability plaintiff must show that a product was in an unreasonably dangerous defective condition and that the product caused the plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiffs can establish that a product was defective because of a manufacturing flaw, a defective design, or a failure to warn of dangers while using the product. Strict liability claims under the IPLA are limited to manufacturing defect claims, while claims based upon design defects or inadequate warnings or instructions are determined under negligence principles. While comparative fault principles still apply under the IPLA, the IPLA provides three non-exclusive defenses—incurred risk, product alteration, and product misuse— which based upon this opinion, all now operate as complete defenses, if proven, despite any product defects.

The parties argued about whether the Defendant’s warnings and instructions established that it could have reasonably foreseen the grinder being used in an unforeseeable manner, that is, without safety glasses, with a cut-off disc without a guard in place, and with a cut-off disc that does not meet the minimum RPM rating, which would have allowed the Plaintiff’s claim to survive. However, the Court found that the Defendant could not have reasonably expected a user to disregard the warnings and instructions in all three of these ways. The Court stated, “[the Plaintiff’s] multiple failures to follow the [g]rinder’s instructions were the cause of his injuries and taken together, could not [have been] reasonably expected by a seller.” Thus, after conflicting findings by the trial court and the Court of Appeals, the Indiana Supreme Court found in favor of the Defendant and affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for the Defendant.

The biggest concern for Valsartan users appears to be an elevated risk of cancer, although other concerns are possible organ damage or tumors. Nonetheless, and importantly, at this time, the FDA is warning those taking Valsartan do not stop taking the medication unless and until you have consulted with your prescribing physician. It is also important to note that not all Valsartan medication was contaminated with NDMA. The FDA has published a list of the recalled and non-recalled medications, which can be found here. Valsartan lawsuit lawyers will continue to monitor the information being developed by the FDA and companies participating in Valsartan recalls.

According to the FDA, taking the highest Valsartan does (320 mg) from the recalled batches daily for the full four years may increase the risk of cancer to the point one additional case of cancer occurs in the lifetimes of a hypothetical group of 8000 such Valsartan takers. This may seem like a relatively insignificant risk compared to the risks of developing cancer published by the American Cancer Society. However, this is additional risk and one additional case of this terrible disease is one too many and may very well warrant a Valsartan law firm to file a product liability or failure to warn lawsuit supported by admissible scientific and epidemiological evidence.

The FDA announced the original Valsartan recall on July 13, 2018. Since then, the FDA has been vigilant in posting updates to its website, as well as important information for those who have taken Valsartan. It is not currently known how soon certain NDMA-contaminated Valsartan manufacturers may have become aware of their product being contaminated. According to the FDA’s recalled-product list, those pharmaceutical companies recalling certain Valsartan products include Teva, Prinston, Solco, AvKARE (Teva / Actavis), Brant Ranch Prepack, H J Harkins, Northwind (Teva / Actavis) RemedyRepack (Prinston / Solco), A-5 Medication (Teva / Actavis & Prinston / Solco), Hetero Labs (Camber), NuCare (Prinston / Solco), Preferred (Hetero / Camber), and Torrent. But, as the investigation continues, if lawsuits are filed and information and documents are obtained from suppliers and manufacturers, the FDA and Valsartan lawyers will have much more information to review.

It can be a difficult decision for a company to decide when a product has reached the point of being potentially-defective and dangerous. However, given that NDMA has been found to increase the occurrence of cancer in animal studies, not recalling contaminated product would be unconscionable until more information can be obtained and reviewed by the government, medical and legal community. If you or a loved one has concerns about your Valsartan prescription, first consult with your physician. If after your consultation you are unable to alleviate your concerns or confirm you were taking a recalled Valsartan product, then it is important to consult with a lawyer or law firm handling Valsartan cases, especially if you have developed organ damage or cancer since beginning your Valsartan prescription, as legal claims can be time sensitive. If you would like to speak with one of our attorneys investigating Valsartan, call one of our offices today.

In Gaskin, the plaintiffs claimed that a 19-inch Sharp television caught fire in Ms. Gaskin’s elderly mother’s room, causing her death. They alleged that Sharp was strictly liable for placing an unreasonably dangerous and defective product–the television–into the stream of commerce. Sharp filed a motion for summary judgment claiming the plaintiffs were unable to show a defect in the television after their engineering expert was excluded by the court as unreliable.

The plaintiffs responded to the manufacturer’s motion with evidence from a fire investigator who noted that based on his burn pattern analysis and other evidence examined, the fire originated to the north of the television stand. And, circuit wiring in the room was examined and eliminated as the cause of the fire. Although a definitive cause could not be determined, the investigator opined that the fire had burned upward and outward from the television stand. He conceded he didn’t know the first thing about televisions, but the television was the only ignition source among many he examined that could not be eliminated.

Although ordinarily, a product defect will be proven through an expert with knowledge of the product and direct evidence of a defect, alternatively, a defect can be proven by an expert and circumstantial evidence of a specific defect, direct evidence from an eyewitness of the malfunction, supported by expert testimony explaining possible causes, or, as a last resort, “inferential evidence by negating other possible causes.” Left with no engineering expert, the plaintiffs had to use this method of last resort.

After an exhaustive analysis, the court concluded that although the evidence presented of a product defect was “scant,” it was indeed sufficient to create a triable issue of fact for a jury. The evidence consisted of the investigator’s testimony that he observed the scene, concluded the fire had not started on the bed, did not start in either of the two receptacle electrical outlets, did not start in the wall switch, did not originate in the overhead light, had not originated in the closet, and had not started in the electrical wiring in the wall. Thus, the plaintiffs survived the motion through an expert (who was no expert in the product itself) going through a process of elimination analysis.

Although using a process of elimination approach to prove an appliance defect caused a catastrophic fire may not be the preferred method, it may be the only viable method under certain circumstances. This method has again succeeded in overcoming a motion for summary judgment more recently in the federal court case of Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Lennox in the context of a fire alleged to have originated in an air conditioning unit. After losing its attempt to have the case dismissed, Lennox asked the federal court to certify a question of law to the Indiana Supreme Court. The federal court refused the request to have the question of law reviewed by Indiana’s highest court, noting the court had again reviewed Indiana law and had concluded that “Lennox has not demonstrated that there are substantial grounds for differences of opinion as to any relevant question of law.”

A few years ago, Todd investigated a home fire that appeared to originate in an appliance in the home. Realizing that the product was largely destroyed, leaving him with only an investigator’s observations and burn-pattern evidence, he was ultimately able to persuade a manufacturer that other causes could be eliminated and, therefore, it would be a good idea to resolve the case based upon the favorable precedent of Gaskin v. Sharp. Months before Todd resolved his clients’ claims, however, the insurer of the home abandoned its six-figure plus damages claim against the appliance manufacturer, ignoring Todd’s insistence that Gaskin would help their cause and refusing his offer to share information and costs towards achieving a common goal of recovery. In the end, persistence and awareness of the law allowed Todd to achieve a settlement for his clients.

Viptera was genetically altered to contain a protein (MIR162) that kills corn-eating bugs. It was approved by the USDA in 2010 and Syngenta began selling it to U.S. farmers in 2011. China refuses to buy genetically modified crops it hasn’t tested and had not approved Viptera when Syngenta began selling it. In April 2012, Syngenta’s CEO released a statement suggesting import approval from China was imminent. The import approval, however, was not granted until approximately 20 months later in December 2014. In the interim, in November 2013, China began rejecting U.S. corn shipments on account of genetic modifications in varieties found in the shipments that had yet to be approved by China.

The lawsuits say that China rejected more than 131 million bushels of corn during the time the corn was not approved for import. As a result, corn prices decreased. Losses to the corn industry are estimated at between $1 billion and $3 billion. A federal lawsuit filed in Iowa alleges that “Knowing that contamination of Viptera corn with the rest of the U.S. Corn supply was inevitable, Syngenta nevertheless gambled U.S. farmers’ livelihood on approval of Viptera by the major corn-importing countries.”

Beyond individual farmers, lessors of farmland and incorporated farms, agribusiness conglomerates such as Cargill and ADM, which export grain, have also sued Syngenta, claiming losses of more than $90 million. Cargill claims in its lawsuit that Syngenta’s selling of Viptera with the MIR162 corn trait before obtaining import approval from major markets was “inconsistent with industry standards and the conduct of other biotechnology companies.”

Syngenta has annual revenues of about $15 billion. Syngenta’s agricultural seed division is based in Minnetonka, Minnesota. Although Syngenta’s import approval in China was granted in December 2014, by April 2014 China was no longer the only country rejecting U.S. corn due to the unapproved GMO trait. Globally U.S. corn rejection reached 3.3 million metric tons and the U.S. corn expert problem had racked up billions of dollars in financial loss for U.S. farmers.

Syngenta was previously sued by the City of Evansville, Indiana and 1085 other plaintiffs for reimbursement of the costs associated with removing the Syngenta weedkiller, Atrazine, from the City’s tapwater. Evansville recovered $374,095 in the class action. Now the farming industry in Evansville and southwestern Indiana counties such as Dubois, Gibson, Posey, Warrick and Vanderburgh may have been damaged as a result of Syngenta’s acts and omissions with regard to the Agrisure Viptera MIR162 corn trait.

Legal claims such as those being brought against Syngenta are time-sensitive. The failure to take action to protect legal rights can result in the forfeiture of that right. If you or persons you know may have been suffered damages as a result of falling corn prices since China rejected Syngenta’s Agrisure Viptera with MIR162 corn trait, attorney Todd Barsumian can help you understand your options. Call today at 812-490-0820 for a free consultation.