BarbriSFCourseDetails
  • videocam On-Demand
  • signal_cellular_alt Intermediate
  • card_travel Class Action and Other Litigation
  • schedule 90 minutes

Preemption of Failure to Warn Claims: Existing Circuit Split and Increased Judicial Scrutiny Under Loper Bright

$297.00

This course is $0 with these passes:

BarbriPdBannerMessage

Description

Product liability attorneys, especially defense counsel, are spending more time than ever in every case trying to deal with preemption. In the simplest terms, to prevail on a failure to warn theory, the plaintiff must show that adequate warnings of a potential harm would have ultimately prevented the plaintiff's alleged injury. The ways in which warnings are allegedly inadequate are legion as are the reasons why a deficient warning may not be the cause of the injury.

When federal law permits or requires approval of warnings and labels, defendants have historically argued with some success that these state law failure to warn claims are preempted. The circuit split arising from the Roundup litigation has introduced more uncertainty into the preemption debate for all products, not just Roundup. Furthermore, the Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright may strengthen the case against preemption, especially if it is based on agency interpretations.

Listen as this experienced panel of product liability attorneys discusses state law failure to warn claims and the increasing scrutiny of the preemption defense.

Presented By

Michael P. GilBride
Partner, Co-Chair Product Liability Practice Group
Reminger

For over 20 years Mr. Gilbride has defended the interests of corporate entities and individuals in civil matters. His breadth of experience allows him to handle a wide variety of claims. He has handles cases in the areas of Product Liability, Lemon Law/Warranty Law, Professional Malpractice, Trucking and Transportation, Business Disputes, Business & Commercial Litigation, Construction Design/Manufacturing Defects and in the general area of Insurance Defense. Mr. Gilbride is a frequent presenter of continuing legal education seminars.

Brent Johnson
Partner
Holland & Hart

Mr. Johnson represents corporations in consumer class actions, product liability, and false advertising lawsuits. Whether the claims involve cosmetics, food, supplements, or other consumer products, Mr. Johnson aggressively defends clients from inception through trial. He handles lawsuits filed in the federal and state courts in California, Utah, and throughout the United States. Mr. Johnson regularly counsels clients on advertising, labeling, and ecommerce compliance under FDA, USDA, CPSC, TTB and FTC regulations as well as California’s consumer protection statutes. He is a nationally recognized speaker on food and supplement law, as well as digital advertising and ecommerce. Mr. Johnson has tried numerous cases before juries, judges, and arbitrators.

Credit Information
  • This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.


  • Live Online


    On Demand

Date + Time

  • event

    Monday, March 31, 2025

  • schedule

    1:00 p.m. ET./10:00 a.m. PT

  1. Overview of elements of failure to warn claim
  2. Adequacy of warnings
  3. Causation
  4. Preemption
  5. Circuit split
    1. Schaffner v. Monsanto Corp., 113 F.4th 364 (3d Cir. 2024)
    2. Hardeman v. Monsanto Co., 997 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2022), cert. denied June 21, 2022
    3. Other recent cases
  6. Impact of Loper Bright
  7. Practical tips

The panel will review these and other key issues:

  • What is "agency preemption" and does it still exist after Loper Bright?
  • Is preemption more likely to exist depending on the relevant statute?
  • Can state disclosure requirements preempt a failure to warn claim brought under that state's laws?