Products Liability Law Reporter

A federal district court held that it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over a products liability suit alleging 3M Co. failed to provide adequate warnings on how to properly wear its Combat Arms Earplugs.

Here, four plaintiffs who wore Combat Arms Earplugs, Version 2 (CAEv2) while performing activities that exposed them to loud noises sued 3M Co. and Aearo Technologies LLC, alleging that the defendants failed to provide adequate instructions and warnings on the proper use of the earplugs. Specifically, the plaintiffs asserted that they never received instructions to fold back the third flange of the CAEv2 and were not warned that the earplugs would be ineffective absent this step. As a result, the plaintiffs charged, they suffered hearing loss and tinnitus.

The defendants removed the lawsuit to federal court on several grounds, including the government contractor defense, the combatant activities exception, and Article IV of the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs then moved to remand, citing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Granting the motion, the district court pointed out that it had previously concluded that 3M had failed to raise colorable government contractor and combatant activities defenses. Additionally, the court cited its previous ruling regarding combat areas in Iraq where 3M had failed to show that the United States had exercised exclusive sovereignty or that Congress had acted to regulate them, justifying Article IV jurisdiction. Therefore, the court held that 3M cannot assert these jurisdictional grounds here.

Turning to the issue of Article IV jurisdiction regarding combat areas in Afghanistan, the court said that for Article IV jurisdiction to attach, Congress must affirmatively exercise this power. The court found that the two documents proffered by 3M—bilateral agreements entered into by the State Department in 2003 and 2014—do not show an exercise of power under Article IV. Consequently, the court held that 3M failed to establish Article IV jurisdiction regarding Afghanistan, concluding that it therefore lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claims.

Citation: Bell v. 3M Co., 2021 WL 1864034 (D. Minn. May 10, 2021).

Plaintiff counsel: Daniel E. Gustafson, AAJ member Amanda M. Williams, AAJ member Alicia N. Sieben, AAJ member Matthew J. Barber, and AAJ member William R. Sieben, all of Minneapolis.