Henry Noye Discusses Ohio Supreme Court’s Opioid Decision and Its Impact on Public Nuisance Claims
Henry Noye, a partner in Obermayer’s Catastrophic Loss Group, was featured in Law.com on December 11, 2024, discussing the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision overturning a $650 million opioid judgment. The article, “What Does Ohio Supreme Court’s Opioid Decision Mean for Public Nuisance Claims?”, examines how the ruling may affect similar cases, including those involving social media addiction and gun manufacturers.
The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the Ohio Product Liability Act does not permit public nuisance claims against three pharmacies accused of fueling the opioid crisis in two counties. This ruling could have implications beyond opioids, as public nuisance claims have been used in cases against lead paint manufacturers, social media platforms, and firearms makers. Notably, in Cincinnati v. Beretta USA Corp. (2002), the Ohio Supreme Court ruled against gun manufacturers, prompting amendments to the Ohio Product Liability Act.
“The Ohio Supreme Court is signaling it is not inclined, notwithstanding the severity of these issues, to create these remedies,” Henry Noye, who defends companies in product liability matters, said of the decision. “This does portend that these types of cases will receive very strict scrutiny, and, usually, when that strict scrutiny is applied, measures are frequently stricken.”
Henry also said that the decision could influence future opioid settlements, possibly deterring large payouts or encouraging companies to negotiate smaller ammounts.
“To the extent other litigation is looking at what happened in Cleveland, saying, ‘Hey, will we be able to leverage strong settlements?,'” he said. “Yeah, that could definitely have a limiting impact.”
Read the full article here.
