• United States Supreme Court Holds Pennsylvania Statute Expressly Providing That Foreign Corporations Registering To Do Business In State Are Subject To “General Personal Jurisdiction” Does Not Violate Due Process, As Registration Under Those Circumstances Constitutes Consent, Which Is Valid Basis For Jurisdiction

• Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Holds Wrongful Death Claims Barred Where Decedents’ Underlying Personal Injury Claims Were Barred By Statute Of Limitations At Time Of Death, As Wrongful Death Claims Under Massachusetts Law Are Derivative Of Decedent’s Claims
• First Circuit Holds State Law Claims Against Dietary Supplement Manufacturer For False And Misleading Statements Preempted By Federal Food, Drug, And Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”), As Statements Regarding Physiological Role And Benefits Of Main Ingredient Were “Structure/Function” Claims For Which Defendant Had Substantiation As Required By FDCA, Even If Defendant Lacked Substantiation At Specific Dose Included In Products
• Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Holds Long-Arm Statute And Due Process Permit Personal Jurisdiction Over Product Liability Claims Against Successor To Manufacturer That Initially Sold Vehicle To Rhode Island Dealership, Where Vehicle Was Subsequently Transferred To And Sold By Massachusetts Dealership, And Then Sold Through Private Sale To Plaintiff In New Hampshire Where Accident Occurred, As Claims “Aris[e] From” Predecessor’s Massachusetts Dealership Contracts
• Massachusetts Appeals Court (1) Reverses Verdict Against Cigarette Manufacturer For Negligent Marketing And Vacates Punitive Damages Possibly Based Thereon, As Plaintiff Had Insufficient Evidence Defendant’s Marketing That Appealed To Minors Caused Decedent To Start Smoking, But (2) Affirms Plaintiff’s Verdicts For Conspiracy And Deceptive Practices Based On Marketing Falsely Suggesting “Light” Cigarettes Were Safer, And For Design Defect As Low-Nicotine Cigarettes Would Have Been Less Addictive 

• Second Circuit Holds Failure-To-Warn Claims Against Intermediate Seller Of Exploding Compressed Air Tank Preempted By Hazardous Materials Transportation Act Of 1975 (“HMTA”), As Claims Were Based On Lack Of Adequate “Marking,” Including “Instructions Or Warnings,” On Tank’s “Container” And Would Impose Obligations Not “Substantively The Same” As Those Under HMTA
• New York Federal Court Holds Third-Party Payors Seeking National Class Action For Healthcare Costs Allegedly Attributable To Defective Joint Replacement Devices Lacked Standing To Assert Product Liability Claims Against Manufacturer, As Complaint Did Not Allege Facts Plausibly Showing Payors Suffered Actual Injury Such As Payment For Revision Surgeries And That Such Injury Was Caused By Device Defect Rather Than Failures For Other Reasons 

Excerpt:

In Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Ry., 143 S.Ct. 2028 (2023), a railroad employee sued his employer in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, alleging his cancer was caused by exposure to various carcinogens at work.  Plaintiff was a Virginia resident, defendant was a Virginia corporation headquartered in that state and plaintiff’s alleged exposure occurred in Ohio and Virginia.  Due to the suit’s lack of connection to Pennsylvania, defendant moved to dismiss, arguing the exercise of personal jurisdiction would violate due process.