On March 11, I joined Tiger Joyce, President of the American Tort Reform Association, and Dan Mehan, President and CEO of the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry, in a Washington Legal Foundation webinar about the issues raised in a recently filed petition for certiorari seeking review of a $2.1 billion Missouri state-court judgment. You can view the webinar here.

The judgment arises out of claims that Johnson & Johnson's iconic baby powder causes ovarian cancer. A St. Louis trial court allowed 22 plaintiffs, including 17 non-residents of Missouri, to pursue their claims together. The jury found J&J and its subsidiary Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. ("JJCI") jointly and severally liable for $25 million in compensatory damages to each of the 22 plaintiffs. It also imposed punitive damages totaling $4.1 billion against J&J and JJCI.

The Missouri Court of Appeals held that there was no personal jurisdiction over the non-residents' claims against J&J and that, as to two of the non-residents, there was no personal jurisdiction over the claims against JJCI either. But it held that the claims of the remaining non-residents against JJCI had a sufficient connection to Missouri to support exercising personal jurisdiction over JJCI. It accordingly reduced the total compensatory damages to $500 million, with J&J being jointly and severally liable for $125 million of the total. It then reduced the punitive awards against J&J and JJCI in proportion to the reduction of the compensatory damages, yielding total punitive damages of more than $1.6 billion.

J&J and JJCI raise three questions in their cert. petition. First, they contend that the trial court deprived them of due process by resolving in a single trial the claims of 22 plaintiffs involving materially different facts and the laws of multiple states. Second, they contend that the punitive awards against J&J and JJCI are unconstitutionally excessive. Third, they argue that the Missouri courts lacked personal jurisdiction over the claims against JJCI brought by the remaining 15 non-resident plaintiffs.

During the webinar, my fellow panelists and I had the opportunity to discuss each of the three issues. But readers of this blog are likely to be especially interested in our discussion of the punitive damages issue. I hope that you will find it illuminating.

Originally Published by Mayer Brown, March 2021

Visit us at mayerbrown.com

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe - Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2020. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.