The NAM and the Product Liability Advisory Council filed a joint amicus brief 10/1/98 in this case seeking to halt a suit by a union health and welfare benefit plan against the tobacco industry for injuries to beneficiaries of the plan.
On April 9, the Second Circuit ordered the case dismissed. It held that "the economic injuries alleged in plaintiffs' complaint are purely derivative of the physical injuries suffered by plan participants and therefore too remote as a matter of law for them to have standing to sue defendants." We were particularly heartened to see a major federal court of appeals find these kind of claims "precisely the type of large, complicated damages claims that [prior decisions] sought to avoid." It continued, "for us to rule otherwise could lead to potential explosion in the scope of tort liability, which, while perhaps well-intentioned, is a subject best left to the legislature."
This case affects all manufacturers whose products may injure employees covered by health or disability insurance (such as food, recreational products, medical devices, pharmaceuticals, automobiles and home appliances). The NAM supports fundamental subrogation remedies and limitations under the doctrine of remoteness.
This is the second such case in which the NAM filed a successful amicus brief supporting manufacturers against suits by union benefit plans. The Third Circuit ruled in favor of the tobacco companies on 3/29/98 in Steamfitters Local No. 420 Welfare Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc.