Fuller v. Colgate-Palmolive Company

Background

Kellie Ann Fuller brought a product-liability action against Colgate-Palmolive Company. She alleged that she used Fabuloso Multi-Purpose Cleaners for more than ten years and that, after developing flu-like symptoms in May 2022, she was hospitalized on June 1, 2022, with a lung infection caused by pseudomonas aeruginosa. She continued to experience symptoms and require treatment through September 2022.

Fuller alleged that her injuries resulted from contaminated cleaning products and from Colgate-Palmolive’s alleged concealment of the contamination, failure to warn consumers, and failure to timely remove the products from the marketplace. Colgate-Palmolive later recalled approximately 4.9 million Fabuloso products because of bacterial contamination caused by insufficient preservative levels. The recall notice did not apply to products purchased before December 16, 2022.

Fuller asserted claims for strict liability, negligence, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, and breach of implied warranty of merchantability. Colgate-Palmolive moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to make a legally plausible claim.

Choice of Law

The parties agreed, and the court held, that Ohio law governed the action. Applying New York’s choice-of-law rules, the court concluded that Ohio had the greatest interest because Ohio was the location of Fuller’s injury.

Ruling on the Claims

Colgate-Palmolive argued that Fuller’s strict-liability and negligence claims should be dismissed because she had not plausibly alleged that its products proximately caused her injuries. Fuller conceded that the Ohio Product Liability Act abrogated her implied-warranty claims.

The court then asked the parties to address whether the Ohio Product Liability Act also abrogated strict-liability and common-law negligence claims. Both parties agreed that it did. The court held that the Act abrogated all four of Fuller’s common-law product-liability claims: strict liability, negligence, breach of implied warranty of fitness, and breach of implied warranty of merchantability. The court therefore did not reach Colgate-Palmolive’s proximate-cause argument.

The court also stated that it did not find an applicable exception for economic loss. The opinion notes that some Ohio courts recognize an exception for certain purchasers who are not in contractual contact with the manufacturer and seek only economic damages, but the court did not find that exception applicable here.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

Fuller requested permission to amend her complaint and submitted a proposed amended complaint intended to plead claims under the Ohio Product Liability Act. The court granted that request. It directed that any amended complaint address each basis for dismissal identified in Colgate-Palmolive’s motion, including proximate cause if Fuller had additional relevant facts.

Judge Ronnie Abrams granted Colgate-Palmolive’s motion to dismiss. The court gave Fuller 30 days to file an amended complaint, provided she had a good-faith basis for doing so, and directed the clerk to close the pending motion.