Risk management for manufacturers: Proactive risk mitigation
In addition to taking steps to button up insurance coverage issues, manufacturers can be proactive in other ways to mitigate the risks posed by the creative plaintiffs bar.
December 30, 2013 at 03:00 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
This is the second column in a three-part series, aimed at helping manufacturing companies avoid litigation. In Part One, we recommended that companies regularly review their existing insurance policies and programs, with an eye toward previous issues as well as toward future growth and development.
In addition to taking steps to button up insurance coverage issues, manufacturers can be proactive in other ways to mitigate the risks posed by the creative plaintiffs' bar. We offer a few suggestions for consideration, which are part and parcel of the exposure evaluation described in our previous column.
1. Evaluate and assess exposure. Just as proper insurance is a useful tool in protecting the company's bottom line when faced with products liability litigation, so too is an evaluation of exposure to that litigation in the first instance. Conducted proactively, that is, before a lawsuit is filed, such an evaluation can help identify the scope of exposure. More importantly, it can help a company identify where changes can be made to decrease exposure.
Areas of inquiry should include product design and testing (including design drawings, design changes, testing documents and interviews by counsel of key personnel involved in both); product certifications (i.e., U.L. and others) and the implications thereof; and for existing products, prior incident reports (including informally reported incidents, previous litigation regarding the same product, discussions during risk management or similar committee meetings, etc.)
It is easy to see that the results of any such evaluation and assessment would be a discovery gold mine in the event of litigation. Care should be taken in selecting who will conduct the evaluation, how they will do so, and how and to whom the results will be communicated, to preserve the attorney-client privilege.
2. Instructions and warnings. Manufacturers should consider having a risk manager as well as legal counsel review all instruction manuals, labels, warnings, warranties and the like, and revise them to ensure that they comply with the law of the relevant jurisdictions. Should anything be printed in another language? It also is important to periodically re-review warnings to take into account whether the warnings are adequate in light of subsequent developments since the product's initial release. If the product is distributed and/or used in other countries, the company needs to consider whether a warning written for the U.S. market is sufficient for those other markets (and, again, whether it should be written in another language for those markets.)
3. Actively — even aggressively — participate in claims investigations. One of the worst things a manufacturer can do from a risk management standpoint is to gain a reputation for “rolling over” and quickly settling claims. Although it takes time, manufacturers can shed themselves of that reputation, which may well make them a less frequent target of the plaintiffs' bar. Shedding that reputation can directly impact the bottom line, both in terms of reducing resources directed to defending litigation, dollars spent on retentions or deductibles under insurance policies, and in terms of policy premium dollars. If a manufacturer receives notice of an investigation of an incident — whether it is a scene investigation or a lab exam — evaluate the likely exposure and decide how actively to participate. Over time, becoming a regular presence at investigations (and later, aggressively defending rather than settling lawsuits) may go a long way to convincing the plaintiffs' bar that the manufacturer will no longer so readily settle claims, and ultimately, prompting them to turn elsewhere.
These are only a few suggestions to evaluate and mitigate exposure to a products liability claim. One of the keys to effective risk management is to recognize that products liability need not, and should not, be a reactive business. Instead, companies can work with their counsel to evaluate and minimize litigation risks posed by existing products, and as they prepare to bring new products to market.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCoinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute readBaker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
- 1Legal Tech's Predictions for Artificial Intelligence in 2025
- 2Tyson & Mendes Appoints Cayce Lynch First Female Nationwide Managing Partner
- 3Spellbook Expands Deeper Into the In-house Market
- 4Here’s Looking at You, Starwood: A Piercing the Corporate Veil Story?
- 5Obtaining an Edge in Appellate Advocacy
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250