In re Teflon Products Liability Litigation
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2008 WL 5148712 (S.D.Iowa) (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a class to be certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, its members must be ascertainable through objective criteria without resort to speculation or individualized, memory-based inquiries. Class certification is improper when individual questions of fact, such as reliance on varied representations over decades, predominate over common issues, and when named representatives' strategic waiver of personal injury claims creates a risk of prejudice to absent class members.
Facts:
- In 1938, DuPont invented the non-stick coating Teflon®, began selling it commercially in 1946, and it became a popular component of cookware in the 1960s.
- DuPont marketed its non-stick cookware coatings (NSCC) by representing that the products were safe for their intended consumer use.
- Various studies showed that DuPont's NSCC can decompose at normal cooking temperatures, potentially releasing perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a chemical linked to a flu-like condition known as "polymer fume fever" and potential birth defects.
- DuPont had been aware of potential health hazards from the use of its NSCC since the 1950s or 1960s but did not disclose this information or the symptoms of polymer fume fever to consumers.
- The plaintiffs are individuals who acquired cookware coated with DuPont's NSCC.
- None of the proposed class representatives allege that they have been personally injured from the use of DuPont NSCC, seeking recovery solely for economic damage.
Procedural Posture:
- Numerous individual and class action lawsuits were filed against E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Company in various federal district courts across the United States.
- The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) transferred and consolidated the cases for coordinated pretrial proceedings before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
- Plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a motion for class certification, seeking to certify twenty-three separate statewide classes.
- Defendant DuPont filed a resistance to the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
- The district court held a two-day hearing on the motion, after which both parties submitted post-hearing memoranda.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a proposed class of cookware purchasers satisfy the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 when identifying class members requires individualized, memory-based inquiries and when claims depend on varied representations and individual reliance over a forty-year period?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Ronald E. Longstaff
No, the proposed class of cookware purchasers does not satisfy the requirements for class certification. A class definition that requires individualized, memory-based inquiries is insufficient, and individual issues predominate over common questions, rendering the class uncertifiable. First, the proposed class definition is inadequate because it is not ascertainable by objective criteria. Determining membership would require individualized inquiries into each person's memory regarding the specific product purchased, the date and state of purchase, and whether it even contained DuPont's coating, leading to speculation. Second, the plaintiffs fail to meet Rule 23(a)'s typicality requirement because the claims require individualized proof; DuPont's alleged misrepresentations spanned over forty years through various media, meaning each class member's exposure and reliance would be different. Third, the plaintiffs fail the adequacy of representation requirement because by forgoing personal injury and medical monitoring claims, they risk barring absent class members from bringing such claims later under the doctrine of res judicata, creating a conflict of interest. Finally, the class fails Rule 23(b) because individual questions of reliance, causation, and damages predominate over common ones, and the class is not sufficiently cohesive for injunctive relief.
Analysis:
This order illustrates the significant barriers to certifying consumer class actions for products with a long market history and varied advertising campaigns. The court's emphasis on the implicit requirement of 'ascertainability' establishes a high bar, rejecting class definitions that depend on the unreliable memories of millions of consumers. Furthermore, the decision serves as a caution against 'claim-splitting,' where plaintiffs' counsel strategically narrows claims to fit certification criteria, highlighting the court's role in protecting absent class members from the potential preclusive effects of res judicata. This case reinforces that even in economic-loss-only class actions, the need for individualized proof of reliance and causation can defeat the predominance and superiority requirements of Rule 23(b)(3).
Unlock the full brief for In re Teflon Products Liability Litigation