## Facts

- Angela Montgomery, a Tennessee resident, ingested Pondimin (fenfluramine) as part of “Fen-Phen” therapy in 1997 and later developed primary pulmonary hypertension (PPH).
- Pondimin was FDA-approved in 1973; Wyeth manufactured tablets labeled with a three-year expiration date on stock bottles distributed to pharmacies and wholesalers, while consumer packaging was done by third parties.
- Because Pondimin was reportedly unavailable in Tennessee at the time, Montgomery traveled to a clinic in Georgia multiple times in 1997, was evaluated by Georgia physicians, and purchased Pondimin on several visits.
- Montgomery stopped taking Pondimin in August 1997; Wyeth withdrew the drug from the market in September 1997.
- Montgomery was diagnosed with PPH in April 2005 and sued Wyeth-related entities in October 2005, alleging Pondimin caused her injury.
- The action was removed to federal court, transferred into diet-drug MDL proceedings, and later remanded to the Eastern District of Tennessee.
- A nationwide MDL class settlement covered many claims involving Pondimin and related drugs but expressly excluded PPH claims, leaving those claims for tort litigation.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, holding Tennessee law applied and Tennessee’s product-liability statute of repose barred the suit; it also held the repose defense was not waived during MDL proceedings.

## Issues

1. Whether Tennessee or Georgia law governed the product-liability claims under Tennessee choice-of-law rules.
2. Whether Tennessee’s product-liability statute of repose barred the action based on the drug’s “anticipated life,” including where consumer bottles lacked printed expiration dates.
3. Whether defendants waived, or were estopped from asserting, the statute-of-repose defense through participation in MDL proceedings and the nationwide settlement.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendants.
- Tennessee law applied because Tennessee had the most significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties, including plaintiff’s domicile and the place where the injury manifested.
- Tennessee’s product-liability statute of repose operated as a substantive bar and extinguished the claim because suit was filed after the repose period measured from the product’s anticipated life (as reflected in the manufacturer/FDA expiration dating).
- The absence of an expiration date on pharmacy-dispensed containers did not prevent application of the statute of repose.
- Defendants did not waive the statute-of-repose defense by participating in the MDL settlement process, particularly where the settlement excluded PPH claims and did not reflect an intentional relinquishment of defenses.

## Legal Principles

- Under Tennessee choice-of-law rules applying the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, product-liability claims are governed by the state with the most significant relationship, often the plaintiff’s domicile and place of injury.
- Tennessee’s product-liability statute of repose, Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28-103(a), is substantive and can extinguish both the right and the remedy after the repose period, regardless of when an injury is discovered.
- The “anticipated life of the product” may be established by manufacturer- or FDA-determined expiration dating; end-user notice on consumer packaging is not a prerequisite to application of the repose bar.
- Participation in MDL proceedings or settlement administration, without clear evidence of intentional relinquishment, does not waive state-law defenses such as a statute of repose.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that Tennessee law governed and that Tennessee’s product-liability statute of repose barred Montgomery’s Pondimin-related claims, rejecting arguments based on Georgia contacts, missing expiration information on consumer containers, and alleged waiver arising from MDL settlement participation.


Montgomery v. Wyeth, 580 F.3d 455 (6th Cir. 2009)