Opinion ID: 1922414
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Interpretation of the Fen-Phen Suits

Text: Eon contends that the Superior Court's interpretation of the fen-phen suits was flawed, because it focused on the overall cause of the [fen-phen] lawsuits against Eon instead of the specific alleged causes of the plaintiffs' bodily injuries. We agree with the Superior Court that a fair reading of the six fen-phen complaints submitted by Eon makes it clear that the plaintiffs in those cases seek to impose liability on Eon because of the involvement of its drug, phentermine. Therefore, the combination claims are not  as Eon claims  claims seeking to hold Eon liable for injuries from other companies' products. That argument distorts the essential fact that in all of the cases it is the involvement or presence of Eon's phentermine (including misrepresentations and failure to warn, etc.) that is the basis of the fen-phen suits. The Superior court properly dealt with Eon's contention that some fen-phen suits charge it with tortious conduct unrelated to any alleged defect in Eon's product. This contention is based on the argument that the law requires that there be a defect in phentermine itself for the products hazard exclusion to apply. The Court correctly answered that contention on the ground that the fen-phen suits are based on the deleterious effects of the combination of phentermine with other drugs as well as the promotion of the combination, failure to warn, etc. Thus the claims arise out of Eon's product just as they arise out of the products of others in the combination. Finally, Eon claims that the Superior Court erred as a matter of insurance contract interpretation law. Relying principally on the New York case of Frontier Insulation Contractors, Inc. v. Merchants Mut. Ins. Co ., [22] Eon claims that well settled principles of insurance law require Reliance to defend the fen-phen suits on the ground that the insurer must defend the entire action if any one claim in the fen-phen suits is covered. [23] Here again, however, the fatal flaw in this argument is the incorrect premise that the combination claims in the fen-phen suits do not arise out of Eon's product since these claims assert liability against Eon for injuries caused by another company's products. Clearly, the claims arise out of the fact that Eon's phentermine is necessarily a part of the combination claims. We agree, as did the Superior Court, with Reliance's contention that had not Eon manufactured, promoted and sold phentermine it would not have been sued. We hold that if there is some meaningful linkage between the product and the third party claim, the arising out of language unambiguously applies. [24] That is plainly true here. Those suits all involved some meaningful linkage to Eon's drug, phentermine.