Prather v. Organon USA, Inc.
957 F. Supp. 2d 1110
E.D. Mo.2013Background
- Organon, with principal place of business in New Jersey, sells NuvaRing in Missouri.
- Prather, a Missouri resident, was prescribed NuvaRing and sustained a DVT and pulmonary emboli in Missouri beginning in late 2003.
- Prather alleges NuvaRing has an undisclosed higher risk of VTE than second- and third-generation oral contraceptives and that Organon failed to timely disclose related data.
- Organon seeks summary judgment on punitive damages and argues New Jersey law should govern; Prather argues Missouri law should apply.
- The court undertakes the Restatement (Second) most significant relationship analysis to determine choice of law for punitive damages, applying Missouri rules.
- The court resolves that Missouri has the most significant relationship and Missouri law governs punitive damages; the NuvaRing label does not foreclose punitive damages as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which state’s law governs punitive damages? | Missouri law should apply. | New Jersey law should apply. | Missouri law governs punitive damages. |
| Under Restatement §145, which contacts matter for punitive damages? | Contacts favor Missouri (injury, conduct, domicile, relationship). | Contacts favor New Jersey. | Missouri has the most significant relationship; Missouri law applies. |
| Does NuvaRing’s label foreclose punitive damages as a matter of law? | Label warning is not explicit about increased risk; punitive damages should not be foreclosed. | Warnings negate conscious disregard; NJ labeling standards would foreclose. | NuvaRing label does not foreclose punitive damages as a matter of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 (U.S. 1941) (applies forum state choice-of-law rules)
- Kennedy v. Dixon, 439 S.W.2d 173 (Mo.Banc 1969) (most significant relationship framework)
- Goede v. Aerojet General Corp., 143 S.W.3d 14 (Mo.Ct.App. 2004) (section 6/145 framework; abrogated on other ground by Sanders v. Ahmed)
- Dillard v. Shaughnessy, Fickel & Scott Architects, Inc., 943 S.W.2d 711 (Mo.Ct.App. 1997) (used to explain relative importance of contacts)
- Bradshaw v. Deming, 837 S.W.2d 592 (Mo.Ct.App. 1992) (punitive damages purpose and deterrence principle)
- Rowe v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., 189 N.J. 615, 917 A.2d 767 (N.J. 2007) (NJ interest in limiting liability; comparative state interests)
- Stojkovic v. Weller, 802 S.W.2d 152 (Mo.Banc 1991) (standard for punitive damages in negligence actions)
- Casey v. FDIC, 583 F.3d 586 (8th Cir. 2009) (federal preemption considerations in punitive contexts)