Photo of Nikki Multer

Nikki assists clients with complex litigation in state and federal courts throughout Missouri and Illinois. Product manufacturers, contractors and premises owners large and small in the industrial equipment, transportation, HVAC and cosmetic products sectors are among those relying on Nikki’s guidance at all phases of litigation, from pleading and discovery through depositions and settlement negotiations. As part of national coordinating counsel and trial teams in toxic tort litigation, Nikki collaborates on strategy and manages cases in some of the nation’s toughest mass tort jurisdictions.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced a new rule on September 18, 2024, which will implement the first-ever federal safety standards for infant nursing pillows.[1] This rule comes in response to 154 infant deaths and 64 serious injuries believed to be caused by these products between 2010 and 2022.[2] These deaths commonly involved infants under 3 months old who were sleeping with the nursing pillows in locations such as adult beds, cribs, playpens, or couches.[3]

Inflated jury verdicts in the first two preterm infant formula cases tried in the country have raised significant concerns for manufacturers and the broader medical community. These cases not only spotlight the legal challenges faced by manufacturers of highly specialized products, such as the formulas involved in these cases, but also underscore the potentially devastating effects on the availability and use of essential formula to provide preterm infants with adequate nutrition. In response to these bloated jury verdicts, the president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Benjamin Hoffman, M.D., issued a statement declaring that preterm infant formula “is a routine and necessary part of care of these preterm infants” and warning that “[c]ourtrooms are not the best place to determine clinical recommendations for the care of infants . . . we must take steps to protect the supply of infant formula for those who need it.”

In Ripple v. CBS Corporation, et. al., the Florida Supreme Court held a surviving spouse is entitled to recovery for wrongful death under the Florida Wrongful Death Act (the Act), codified at Fla. Stat. §§ 768.16-768.26 (2015), even if their marriage to decedent occurred after decedent’s injury. This ruling has significantly redefined the scope of wrongful death claims and supersedes a longstanding common law doctrine in Florida that historically barred such recoveries.

On September 21, 2021, in Cooper Tire & Rubber Company v. McCall, the Georgia Supreme Court reaffirmed the broad holding that any corporation registered to do business in Georgia is subject to general personal jurisdiction in Georgia courts. This expansive interpretation, especially in light of recent United States Supreme Court jurisprudence, was handed down despite growing concern about a corporate defendant’s federal rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The Iowa Court of Appeals recently affirmed summary judgment for both a premises owner and an installer of asbestos products pursuant to Iowa Code 686B.7(5) (2017), which provides that a defendant in an asbestos action “shall not be liable for exposures from a product or component part made or sold by a third party.”  Beverage v. Alcoa, Inc., No. 19-1852, slip op. (Iowa Ct. App. March 17, 2021).  The Plaintiffs brought suit on behalf of Mr. Beverage, who worked as an independent contractor at an Alcoa aluminum plant around asbestos-containing insulation installed by IITI.  Alcoa and IITI, the only two defendants, filed motions for summary judgment claiming that Section 686B.7(5) provided them with immunity from Plaintiffs’ lawsuit.  The district court granted both Alcoa and IITI’s motions for summary judgment.  On appeal, Plaintiffs argued that the district court erred in granting immunity to Alcoa and IITI by incorrectly interpreting Section 686B.7(5).

In May, the Illinois Supreme Court significantly revised its rules related to remote proceedings – including court appearances, video conferences, and civil trials. These changes aim to improve the administration of justice by increasing efficiency and decreasing costs, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. These changes became effective immediately.