SCOTUS Finally Ends Litigation Tourism In Product Liability Suits

by Shipman & Goodwin LLP

The United States Supreme Court fundamentally changed the practice of product liability litigation in the United States by finally doing away with the “litigation tourism” industry – the common practice of out-of-state residents seeking a perceived advantage by suing pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers in states where the plaintiff and the manufacturer had little or no connection.  In an 8-1 decision in Bristol-Meyers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, et al. (“BMS”), the Court held that state courts do not have jurisdiction to hear cases brought by non-resident plaintiffs against manufacturers whose only tie to the chosen forum is the sale of their product in that state.  The Court’s decision will affect thousands of pending cases and has had an immediate and striking effect.  Hours after the BMS opinion was released, a Missouri judge declared a mistrial in an action against Johnson & Johnson involving product liability claims brought by out-of-state plaintiffs related to their alleged use of talcum powder. 

The BMS case overturned a controversial California Supreme Court decision that permitted nearly 600 non-residents of California to sue Bristol-Myers Squibb in California state court for injuries allegedly caused by the company’s blood thinner Plavix, even though the company’s only contact with the forum state related to that product was that the product was sold in California.  As the U.S. Supreme Court recognized, BMS is incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in New York, and did not develop, manufacture, label, package or work on regulatory approval for Plavix in California. The non-resident plaintiffs did not purchase Plavix in California, nor did they claim they were injured or that they sought treatment in California.  As a result, the Court held that California did not have jurisdiction to hear the claims of these out-of-state residents. 

The Court also made it clear that the fact that a company does business in a given state in ways unrelated to the product at issue is insufficient to create jurisdiction there.  The Court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that BMS had “wide ranging” contacts with the state of California generally, even if not specific to Plavix or their alleged injuries, based on facts including that (1) BMS contracted with California-based distributor McKesson to distribute Plavix nationally; (2) BMS maintains five R&D facilities in California; (3) BMS employs about 250 sales representatives in California and maintains a small state-government advocacy office in California; and (4) BMS sells Plavix in CA and generated over $900 million in revenue from those sales between 2006 and 2012. The California court reasoned that: “BMS’s extensive contacts with California” permitted the exercise of specific jurisdiction “based on a less direct connection between BMS’s forum activities and plaintiffs’ claims than might otherwise be required.” Slip Op. at 3 (quoting 1 Cal. 5th 783, 803–806 (2016)).  The U.S. Supreme Court rejected this “sliding scale” approach for establishing jurisdiction.

Several key points can be deduced from the Supreme Court’s reasoning in this case:

  • “Close enough” is not enough. “In order for a court to exercise specific jurisdiction over a claim, there must be an ‘affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy, principally, [an] activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State.’ When there is no such connection, specific jurisdiction is lacking regardless of the extent of a defendant’s unconnected activities in the State.” Slip Op. at 7 (internal citation omitted).
  • There is no general/specific jurisdiction hybrid. The Court distinguished between conduct arising from connections to the forum, and conduct which affects a defendant who has connections to the forum. “What is needed—and what is missing here—is a connection between the forum and the specific claims at issue.” Slip Op. at 8 (emphasis added). “In this case, it is not alleged that BMS engaged in relevant acts together with McKesson in California. Nor is it alleged that BMS is derivatively liable for McKesson’s conduct in California. And the nonresidents “have adduced no evidence to show how or by whom the Plavix they took was distributed to the pharmacies that dispensed it to them…. The bare fact that BMS contracted with a California distributor is not enough to establish personal jurisdiction in the State.” Slip Op. at 11-12 (emphasis added).
  • Courts cannot bridge the specific jurisdiction gap in product liability cases by reference to the claims of resident plaintiffs in similar lawsuits.  “The mere fact that other plaintiffs were prescribed, obtained, and ingested Plavix in California—and allegedly sustained the same injuries as did the nonresidents—does not allow the State to assert specific jurisdiction over the nonresidents’ claims.”  Slip Op. at 8.

The BMS decision profoundly changes the landscape for litigation of product liability claims in ways that should make litigation more fair and predictable for manufacturers: 

  • Out-of-state plaintiffs should no longer be able to shop for “favorable” state-court jurisdictions that have no connection to the facts of their case.  This will impact thousands of cases and prevent plaintiffs’ lawyers from loading up dockets in perceived “plaintiff-friendly” states.
  • Plaintiffs commonly file lawsuits in remote state court jurisdictions in order to take advantage of that state’s longer statute of limitations, often because their claim would be time barred in their home state.  That practice should come to an end in most cases.  The same type of shopping in state courts for favorable punitive damages law should decrease.
  • Establishing the place of injury will not merely affect choice-of-law.  It will now be a critical factor in determining whether the state court can hear the case at all.
  • It may prove difficult for plaintiffs to consolidate cases a single state court when those cases involve multiple manufacturers if one or more of the manufacturers does not have the requisite connections in that state relating to the product at issue.
  • Attempts at litigation tourism may not disappear entirely – it remains to be seen how the Court’s recent jurisdiction precedent will impact the federal courts and how they apply state law to claims involving out-of-state plaintiffs.
  • It also remains to be seen whether the Court’s jurisdiction decisions affect the ability of state courts to award punitive damages to in-state residents for conduct, such as the design, manufacture, regulatory decisions, and labeling of a product, that occurred entirely outside the state.  As the Supreme Court put it, jurisdiction requires “a connection between the forum and the specific claims at issue.”  Where the “relevant conduct” did not occur in the forum state – such as the design, manufacturing, labeling, marketing, or seeking of regulatory approval – that connection is lacking. 

Although the BMS decision changes the landscape, as the Court’s opinion notes, it hardly ends the ability of plaintiffs to file suit.  Plaintiffs still should be able to file suit in their home state, if that is where they were injured, and will likely be able to file suit in the manufacturer’s state of incorporation and where the manufacturer maintains its principal place of business, or perhaps some other state where meaningful decisions related to the product at issue were made. 

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Shipman & Goodwin LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Shipman & Goodwin LLP

Shipman & Goodwin LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.