The NAM and the Product Liability Advisory Council filed a joint amicus brief on 4/12/99 in this case seeking to affirm the district court's dismissal of a complaint that seeks to create a right for union health plans and other insurers to sue manufacturers whose products allegedly necessitate an insurance payout.On 7/14/99, the court agreed, holding that the RICO and antitrust claims are too remote, since there is no direct link between the alleged actions taken by tobacco companies and their public relations firms and the alleged damage to the plaintiffs. Just because individuals who are more directly affected by the alleged wrongdoing cannot bring suit under RICO or the antitrust laws for injury to "business or property" doesn’t mean that the plaintiff health and welfare funds have standing. Instead, smokers themselves can be counted on to bring suit.
In addition, the court ruled that damages in this case would be speculative and very difficult to determine, and the courts would have to come up with very complicated rules to apportion liability at different levels of injury. It refused to do so, throwing out the case.
This case affects manufacturers sued for health claims from food or drug consumption and injuries from cars, home builders and suppliers, appliances, recreational products and others. The NAM supports fundamental subrogation remedies and limitations under the doctrine of remoteness. This is the third such case in which the NAM filed a successful amicus brief supporting manufacturers against suits by union benefit plans.