Contents


    Executive Summary

    Talc has been in the news as thousands of women with ovarian cancer have filed lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson (“J&J”), the world’s largest maker of health-care products, claiming that talcum powder caused their diseases. The women pointed to a number of studies dating back to 1971, when scientists in Wales discovered particles of talc embedded in ovarian and cervical tumors. Federal-court juries have ordered J&J to pay damages over claims that it knew decades ago that its talc-based products could cause cancer and failed to warn consumers.

    The talcum powder litigation against J&J set a new precedent in holding companies liable for not only what they put in their products, but for educating the public on potential health risks involved when using their product. As with all product liability suits, issues involving product identification, exposure, and causation will dominate discovery. If, through further research and studies, it is discovered that talcum powder has a causal relationship with ovarian cancer, the insurance industry will certainly see an increase in lawsuits and have to respond to the associated claims.

    Cancer Research UK and the American Cancer Society have concluded that while some studies suggest that there is a link between talcum powder use on genitals and cancer, others have not; therefore, no definitive conclusion has been reached. While the ACS has stated that talc is not a known carcinogen, it has offered a statement that talc in body powder form could cause ovarian cancer if the powder comes in direct contact with the genital area.

    Background

    Talc has been relied on for decades as a filler, coater, and as a dusting agent in plastics, ceramics, paint, paper, and many other products. In its loose form, it is known as “talcum” or “baby powder.” Recently, talcum powder has come under fire as a cause of ovarian cancer. High profile lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson have increased the attention paid to talcum powder, but with no substantial evidence, talcum powder is not yet considered a carcinogen by any major medical group or government agency.

    Production of talc is an approximately $100 million per year industry in the U.S., with baby powder being an estimated $18.8 million market. About 19% of U.S. households use J&J talcum powder. Talcum powder is made from talc, a naturally occurring mineral composed of magnesium, silicon, oxygen, and hydrogen. As a powder, it absorbs moisture well, helps cut down on friction and prevents caking, making it useful for keeping skin dry and preventing or relieving rashes. It is commonly used in baby powders, foot powders, and a variety of cosmetics. Additionally, many women use the powder on their inner thighs to prevent chafing, while others sprinkle it on their perineum, sanitary pads, or underwear for feminine hygiene reasons.

    Talc is often mined in proximity to asbestos, a known carcinogen. In natural form, some talc contains a form of amphibole asbestos known as “Tremolite.” Before the 1970s, talcum powder contained bits of this asbestos, but for decades the FDA has considered it unacceptable for cosmetic talc to be contaminated with asbestos. As such, manufacturers have taken steps to avoid contamination.

    Injuries and Damages

    The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that parents do not use talcum powder for their infants because it poses a risk of respiratory problems – when inhaled, talc can dry an infant’s mucous membranes and lead to breathing trouble and serious lung damage. The particles are so small that it is difficult to keep them out of the air while applying the powder. Zinc oxide-based ointments are a much safer alternative, according to the Academy.

    A similar problem is thought to occur by some when women apply talc powder to their genital area. Studies have shown that talc crystals can move up the genital-urinary tract into the peritoneal cavity to the ovaries, Inflammation and that the small particles can cause inflammation and lead to the growth of ovarian cancer cells. is believed to play an important role in the development of ovarian cancer.
    A recent study pooled the results of eight research papers involving thousands of women and found that genital powder use is a modifiable exposure associated with small-to-moderate increases in risk of most histologic subtypes of epithelial ovarian cancer, the most lethal cancer among women in the United States. A woman’s lifetime risk of developing invasive ovarian cancer is 1 in 75. Her lifetime risk of dying from invasive ovarian cancer is 1 in 100.

    Researchers get much of their data from lab studies in cell cultures and animals. Although lab studies alone can’t always predict if a substance will be carcinogenic for people, virtually all known human carcinogens that have been sufficiently tested also cause cancer in lab animals.

    Legislation and Regulation

    Cosmetic products and ingredients, with the exception of color additives, do not have to undergo Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act review or approval before they go on the market. Rather, the labeling must be proper and the product safe for use by consumers under labeled or customary conditions of use. Cosmetic companies are legally responsible for the safety and labeling of their products and ingredients but are not required to share their safety information with Food & Drug Administration (“FDA”). The FDA monitors cosmetic products for potential safety problems but can take no action against a cosmetic until scientific data shows that the product is harmful when used as intended.

    Liability and Insurance

    Because scientists cannot purposefully expose a group of women to talc to observe what happens, they are unable to determine a cause-and-effect relationship and must rely instead on epidemiologic studies, which look at human populations to determine which factors might be linked to cancer, observational studies, and comparison groups, as between one group exposed to talc and one not exposed. These studies provide useful information, but have limits in terms of ability to link causation. While some studies seem to have proven a link between talcum powder and ovarian cancer, others have not, meaning that the evidence is inconclusive.

    Several national and international agencies are responsible for determining the cancer-causing potential of different substances. These include the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization; the National Toxicology Program, formed from parts of several different US government agencies, including the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Food and Drug Administration; and the US Environmental Protection Agency, among others. Neither these agencies, nor the scientific community, have conducted studies that continuously prove a significant relationship and causation between talcum powder and ovarian cancer. Based on the limited evidence from human studies, IARC classifies the genital use of talc-based body powder as “possibly carcinogenic to humans”. It falls in “Category 2B”, the same IARC ranking as mobile phones and coffee.

    In the face of the conflicting studies as to a possible causal relationship between talcum powder and cancer, the insurance industry has not yet had to respond to a significant number of product liability claims involving talc.

    Litigation

    The following timeline traces early concern about talcum powder to eventual talc litigation:
    • 1971- British researchers dissect 13 ovarian tissue masses and find particles of talc embedded in 10 of them. They suggest a possible association between the use of powders containing talc and the incidence of ovarian cancer, but are unable to conclusively demonstrate such a link.
    • 1973 - FDA requires talcum powders to be asbestos-free by law.
    • 1980s - About 20 medical journal studies find that women who regularly use talc powder for feminine hygiene have higher-than-average rates of ovarian cancer, but this does not prove causation.
    • 1992- The Talc Interested Party Task Force is developed to combat previous studies, citing statistical insignificance and refuting any claims against talcum powder
    • 1993 - The National Toxicology Program reported that cosmetic talc could cause tumors in animals, despite the lack of asbestos fibers in the talc.
    • 1994- The Cancer Prevention Coalition petitioned the FDA about talcum powder and potential side effects, but was rejected. The FDA claims there was still a lack of causation.
    • 2005- The U.S. National Toxicology program makes the same ruling in 2005 as the FDA's 1994 findings, further hampering any legitimate claims against baby powder and cosmetic manufacturers.
    • 2005- Companies making talcum powder present the same response to allegations about damage caused by the powder, that a link was too weak to be proven from a biological standpoint, so they do not need to warn customers
    • 2006- The International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, classifies talcum powder as a possible human carcinogen if used in the female genital area; it falls in "Category 2B", the same IARC ranking as mobile phones and coffee.
    • 2013- Plaintiff Deane Berg launches and wins the first lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson after the company fails to warn consumers of the risk of developing ovarian cancer from its talcum powder products. No damages are awarded; it is noted that Berg's suit was the first to claim that asbestos-free talcum powder could lead to ovarian cancer.
    • February, 2016 - J&J is ordered by a jury to pay $72 million to the family of an Alabama woman who died from ovarian cancer allegedly caused by using the company's Baby Powder and other products which contained talc for feminine hygiene; the award is $10 million in actual damages and $62 million in punitive damages.
    • May, 2016 - A Missouri state court jury orders J&J to pay $5 million in damages and $50 million in punitive damages to Gloria Ristesund who alleged that baby powder caused her ovarian cancer.
    • June, 2016 - Johnson & Johnson says its trademark baby powder is safe and that research implicating talcum powder as a carcinogen is flawed, pointing to studies that appeal to absolve talc of being a cancer risk. They are expected to appeal the Ristesund verdict.

    Future Outlook

    The future is uncertain, because it is not known if talc is directly connected to cancer. It is likely, however, that the number of lawsuits in relation to talcum powder will increase. Accordingly, it is crucial that talcum powder research be continued.

    In the News

    2024

    • Johnson & Johnson adds $1.1 billion to proposed talc settlement - Mike Spector and Dietrich Knauth, Reuters (09/05/2024)
      Johnson & Johnson plans to pay an additional $1.1 billion to resolve tens of thousands of legal actions alleging its baby powder and other talc products caused cancer, two people familiar with the matter said.
    • Facing hundreds of talc-related lawsuits, Avon Products files for bankruptcy - Daphne Howland, Retail Dive (08/14/2024)
      Citing rising competition in the beauty industry, the COVID-19 pandemic, Russia’s war on Ukraine and lawsuits related to talc ingredients, Avon Products Inc. and affiliated entities on Tuesday filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, according to a company press release and court documents.
    • Vote revives J&J’s hope of getting talc bankruptcy back on track - Robert Freedman, Legal Dive (08/13/2024)
      After two rejected efforts by Johnson & Johnson to use a bankruptcy plan to settle tens of thousands of cancer claims against its talc powder, the company can hope for a better outcome a third time after more than 75% of claimants agreed to a $6.5 billion settlement plan, Bloomberg Law reported.
    • J&J's Texas two-step bankruptcy maneuver shut down again by appeals court - Zoey Becker, Fierce Pharma (07/26/2024)
      Johnson & Johnson’s latest attempt to get a handle on its talc litigation using the controversial Texas two-step bankruptcy strategy has once again fallen flat after a federal appeals court ruled to uphold a prior dismissal.
    • WHO’s cancer agency’s classification of talc as ‘probably carcinogenic’ notable development: Doc - The Statesman (07/08/2024)
      The recent classification of talc as “probably carcinogenic to humans” by the World Health Organization’s cancer agency, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), is a significant development in the ongoing debate about the safety of talcum powder, Dr Salil Patkar, Consultant-Medical Oncology, Fortis Hiranandani Hospital, Vashi (Navi Mumbai), said on Sunday.
    • J&J must pay $260 million in latest talc trial, Oregon jury says - Brendan Pierson, Reuters (06/04/2024)
      Johnson & Johnson must pay $260 million to an Oregon woman who said she got mesothelioma, a deadly cancer linked to asbestos exposure, from inhaling the company's talc powder, a jury found on Monday.
    • New NIH findings on talc use and ovarian cancer pose challenge to J&J's high-stakes defense - Kevin Dunleavy, Fierce Pharma (05/22/2024)
      The more than 53,000 women in the U.S. who have filed injury lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson have added ammunition for their claims as new research indicates there is an association between long-term use of talcum-based powders and an increased risk of developing ovarian cancer.
    • Johnson & Johnson inks $700M deal to resolve talc consumer protection claims from 42 states - Kevin Dunleavy, Fierce Pharma (01/23/2024)
      After failing to resolve a mountain of talcum-powder lawsuits through two unsuccessful bankruptcy attempts, Johnson & Johnson has agreed to a $700 million settlement that would free the company from some consumer protection claims—and a small part of the talc litigation that it faces.
    • Johnson & Johnson Will Pay $700 Million To Resolve Baby Powder Marketing Probe, Report Says - Ty Roush, Forbes (01/08/2024)
      Johnson & Johnson will pay an estimated $700 million to resolve an investigation by more than 40 states into the pharmaceutical firm’s marketing of its talcum powder, according to Bloomberg, following thousands of lawsuits alleging it failed to warn customers about cancer risks.

    2023

    2022

    2021

    2020

    2019

    2018

    • J&J loses bid to have $4.7 billion talc verdict set aside, vows to appeal - Tina Bellon, Reuters (12/19/2018)
      The healthcare company faces thousands of lawsuits over the safety of talc in its Baby Powder, a fixture of its consumer products division that has been core to J&J's reputation as a family-friendly company. . . . J&J has fought back, saying its talc is safe and has never contained asbestos or any carcinogens. . . . The trial was the first in which plaintiffs claimed that asbestos fibers in J&J’s talc caused ovarian cancer. It relied on unsealed internal company documents that the plaintiffs allege detail J&J’s knowledge of asbestos contamination since at least the 1970s. . . . St. Louis Circuit Court Judge Rex Burlison in the ruling on Wednesday denied a J&J request to toss the verdict, saying the jury’s decision and the large award of punitive damages was justified. . . . The judge said: “substantial evidence was adduced at trial of particularly reprehensible conduct on the part of defendants, including that defendants knew of the presence of asbestos in products that they knowingly targeted for sale to mothers and babies, knew of the damage their products caused, and misrepresented the safety of these products for decades.”
    • Report: Johnson & Johnson knew its talcum powder sometimes had asbestos traces - Christopher Rowland, Washington Post (12/14/2018)
      The stock price of pharmaceutical and medical-products giant Johnson & Johnson plunged 10 percent Friday after a news report said the company knew for decades that raw ingredients used in its talcum powder sometimes contained small amounts of asbestos, which can cause cancer. . . . The company strongly denied the report by Reuters, which published a lengthy investigation citing documents, many decades old, that have emerged in litigation. . . . Reuters said that from at least 1971 until the 2000s, Johnson & Johnson’s raw talc and finishing powders tested positive for asbestos, although the majority of test documents Reuters reviewed showed no asbestos.
      The report said company officials fretted over the test results while keeping the information private and failing to disclose the test results to regulators and the public. Johnson & Johnson called the Reuters article “one-sided, false and inflammatory’’ and a “conspiracy theory.”
    • Canada warns talcum powder poses a risk of ovarian cancer after $4.69 billion product defect case - Bill Bostock, Business Insider (12/06/2018)
      Environment and Climate Change Canada warned that talcum powder can cause ovarian cancer — four months after 22 women won $4.7 billion from a talc manufacturer in court. . . . A report by the government agency on Wednesday set out the concerns, including that some recent studies "have consistently reported a positive association with ovarian cancer and perineal [genital area] talc exposure." . . . It cited 29 studies on the connection between ovarian cancer and baby powder, and said 21 of those found a "possible," or "positive" relationship between the talc and the cancer. . . . The draft paper, which looked at baby, body, face and foot talc powders, also said that inhaling talcum powder can be dangerous and should be avoided as it can cause respiratory problems like fibrosis or scarring of the lungs. . . . Talcum powder is made from talc, a naturally occurring mineral crystal, and is commonly known as baby powder.
    • Johnson & Johnson scores back-to-back victories in talc mesothelioma cases - Eric Sagonowsky, FiercePharma (11/15/2018)
      After several setbacks this year in its long-running talc litigation, Johnson & Johnson has scored a second straight win in a mesothelioma case in California. . . . In the case, plaintiff Carla Allen sued J&J alleging the company’s Johnson’s Baby Powder caused her to develop mesothelioma. Her legal team asked for $40 million in compensatory damages and more in punitive damages, but the jury unanimously ruled for the drugmaker. . . . .In the trial, Allen’s legal team presented five experts, a treating physician and hours of video testimony from a J&J corporate representative. After the testimony, the jury determined that she failed to prove that the product causes cancer. . . . A J&J spokesperson said the company is “pleased” with the jury’s finding. “While we deeply sympathize with anyone suffering from any form of cancer, the science and facts show that her disease was not caused by her use of our talcum-based products,” she added.
    • Missouri judge affirms $4.69 billion talc verdict, J&J vows to appeal - Tina Bellon, BUSINESS NEWS (REUTERS) (08/22/2018)
      A Missouri trial court judge has affirmed the massive $4.69 billion verdict against Johnson & Johnson in a case involving 22 women and their families who alleged the company’s talc-based products, including its baby powder, contain asbestos and caused them to develop ovarian cancer.
    • Johnson & Johnson hit with $4.7B ruling over talcum powder - Lindsey Bever, Washington Post (07/13/2018)
      A jury in Missouri ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $4.69 billion in damages to 22 women who claim the company’s talcum powder products caused ovaria)n cancer. . . . Following an eight-hour deliberation Thursday, jurors awarded the women $550 million in compensatory damages and another $4.14 billion in punitive damages, their attorney, Mark Lanier, said in a news release. At issue were claims that the pharmaceutical giant sold powder products that were contaminated with asbestos – once a pollutant in talc that has been linked to lung cancer – though there is much debate about whether talcum powder can lead to ovarian cancer.
    • Johnson & Johnson scores third appeals win—this one for $55M—in talc powder litigation - Eric Sagonowsky, Fierce Pharma (07/03/2018)
      Johnson & Johnson has scored again in its appeals campaign against talcum powder verdicts. After the company last year secured two major reversals, a Missouri appeals court has overturned another verdict worth $55 million. . . On Friday, the Missouri Court of Appeals overturned the verdict in the case of Gloria Ristesund, finding that the court lacked jurisdiction. A South Dakota resident, Ristesund said she used J&J's talc products for more than 40 years, causing her to develop ovarian cancer. J&J denied the allegations. . . .A J&J spokesperson on Monday said the company is “extremely pleased the court recognized this trial never should have occurred and vacated the judgment and verdict.” . . . After the 2016 verdict in Ristesund's case, J&J said it would appeal. Since the jury handed down its decision, the Supreme Court ruled on a separate case involving Bristol-Myers Squibb that affected the most recent outcome. In that decision, the Supreme Court ruled that patients can’t take their pick of venues when suing drugmakers just because drug companies sell products and maintain operations around the country.
    • With its case count climbing, Johnson & Johnson faces major test in talc defense - Eric Sagonowsky, Fierce Pharma (06/06/2018)
      After experiencing mixed results in defense of its storied Johnson's Baby Powder brand, Johnson & Johnson faces its biggest legal test yet for the product. . . . Opening statements begin Wednesday in a trial consolidating the claims of 22 plaintiffs—six of claims. . . . The women say J&J has known about the alleged link to cancer for decades, and that the company has long known about potential asbestos contamination in its product. Plaintiffs also say J&J worked with lobbyists to suppress evidence of a link to cancer rather than warn consumers. The trial is expected to run through mid-July.
    • Johnson & Johnson Jury Fails to Reach Verdict in South Carolina Cancer Suit - Christie Smythe and Jef Feeley, Insurance Journal (05/30/2018)
      A South Carolina judge declared a mistrial in a case against Johnson & Johnson alleging that exposure to asbestos in its Johnson’s Baby Powder caused a woman’s fatal cancer. . . . Jurors in Darlington County state court were unable to reach a unanimous decision on Friday in the case brought by the husband of Bertila Boyd-Bostic, according to Judge Jean Toal. The judge said she didn’t know when a retrial would take place
    • Johnson & Johnson suffers another cancer-suit loss as talc case count climbs above 9,000 - Eric Sagonowsky, FiercePharma (05/24/2018)
      In the second trial loss for Johnson & Johnson's talc products in as many months, a jury in Los Angeles ordered the company and other defendants to pay $25.75 million in damages to plaintiff Joanne Anderson. . . . Anderson sued J&J and its co-defendants alleging the company's Baby Powder contains asbestos and caused her mesothelioma, a type of lung cancer linked with the substance. The jury originally handed down compensatory damages of $21.75 million after trial, and followed that up on Thursday with an award of $4 million in punitive damages, according to Androvett Legal Media. J&J is liable for two-thirds of the verdict amount.
    • Talcum Powder Lawsuit: J&J, Imerys to Pay $80M in Punitive Damages - Matt Mauney, ABESTOS.COM (04/11/2018)
      Johnson & Johnson and talc supplier Imerys SA must pay an additional $80 million in punitive damages to a man who said he developed mesothelioma after using asbestos-contaminated talcum powder, a New Jersey state court jury ruled Wednesday. . . . The court has awarded $117 million in total damages in the case. Last week, a New Brunswick, New Jersey, jury ordered J&J and Imerys to pay $37 million in compensatory damages to plaintiff Stephen Lanzo III and his wife. . . . It was the first trial loss for J&J over allegations that its talc-based products contain deadly asbestos. Last year, a Los Angeles Superior Court ruled in favor of the consumer goods and pharmaceutical giant in the first asbestos-related talcum powder case against the company. . . . Lanzo, a retired banker, claimed he used Johnson & Johnson’s Shower to Shower and Baby Powder products from 1972 to 2003. . . . Johnson & Johnson was ordered to pay $55 million in punitive damages, while Imerys is responsible for the other $25 million. In the compensatory damages verdict, J&J was found 70 percent liable ($25.9 million), with Imerys on the hook for the other 30 percent, or $11.1 million.
    • Couple suing Johnson & Johnson over talcum powder wins $37 million judgment - Carmen M. Llona, Fox News (04/07/2018)
      An investment banker from New Jersey and his wife walked out $37 million richer from a court in New Brunswick Thursday, after a jury ordered Johnson & Johnson and a talc mining company to pay for causing him to develop a deadly cancer linked to asbestos. . . . The verdict is the first time a jury has backed a consumer’s claims that the company’s baby powder causes mesothelioma, Bloomberg reported.

    2017

    • J&J notches latest win in long-running talc saga as caseload grows to 5,500 - Eric Sagonowsky, Fierce Pharma (11/17/2017)
      As the number of pending talc cases continues to tick upward, Johnson & Johnson is maintaining its defensive winning streak. On Thursday, jurors in Los Angeles sided with the company against a plaintiff who argued her mesothelioma was the result of talc use and that the product contains cancer-causing asbestos. . . . The case was brought by Tina Herford, who said talc use caused her to develop mesothelioma, according to Reuters. . . . A J&J spokesperson said the company is "pleased" with the verdict and believes "the dismissal of talc lawsuits in New Jersey and verdict reversals in Missouri and California have forced plaintiff attorneys to pivot to yet another baseless theory." . . . "Johnson’s Baby Powder has been around since 1894 and it does not contain asbestos or cause mesothelioma or ovarian cancer," the company's spokesperson said via email. "We will continue to defend the safety of Johnson’s Baby Powder in future trials.” . . . The plaintiff's attorney, in an email to Reuters, said "it's a matter of time before juries begin holding them to account."
    • Courts Reverse Johnson’s Baby Powder Judgments for Nearly $500 Million - CHRISTINA CARON, New York Times (10/23/2017)
      In back-to-back victories for Johnson & Johnson, the courts have reversed two judgments against the consumer products giant totaling nearly $500 million. The money had been awarded to women who said that they developed ovarian cancer after using the company’s talcum powder for decades. . . . On Friday, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge tossed out a $417 million award won in August to Eva Echeverria. She was found to have ovarian cancer in 2007, after using Johnson’s Baby Powder for more than 40 years. . . . In her ruling, Judge Maren E. Nelson granted the company’s motion for a new trial. The judge cited the “insufficiency of the evidence” and said that the damages awarded were excessive.
    • Risk on All Sides as 4,800 Women Sue Over Johnson’s Baby Powder and Cancer - TIFFANY HSU, New York Times (09/28/2017)

      Thousands of women across the country are suing the consumer goods giant Johnson & Johnson over its baby powder, claiming that talcum particles in the popular product caused their ovarian cancer. . . . The plaintiffs, however, are not working as a team. They are taking the company to court one at a time. . . . In many product liability complaints, class action status is difficult to win, given the various ways the product can be sold and used. Such cases often end up being individually litigated with the expectation that there will eventually be a mass payout.

    • J&J Was Alerted to Risk of Asbestos in Talc in ’70s - Society of Environmental Journalists (09/25/2017)

      Johnson & Johnson trained its employees to reassure anyone concerned about whether the company’s talcum powder contained asbestos that the cancer-causing substance 'has never been found and it never will' in its iconic baby powder, according to an undated memo unsealed in a lawsuit against the drugmaker. . . . But plaintiffs say other unsealed documents indicate that J&J has known for decades that its talc products include asbestos fibers and that the exposure to those fibers can cause ovarian cancer. The talc used by J&J to make its products “is not now, nor has it ever been, free from asbestos and asbestiform fibers,’’ according to the lawsuit filed on behalf of more than 50 women in St. Louis. . . . The unsealed documents add another dimension to the claims against J&J as it defends itself from more than 5,000 suits across the U.S. blaming its baby powder products for causing women to develop ovarian cancer. While five juries have ruled against J&J, the company has won one case and had some other claims thrown out.

    • Record $417M award in lawsuit linking baby powder to cancer - MICHAEL BALSAMO, AP (08/22/2017)

      A Los Angeles jury on Monday ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay a record $417 million to a hospitalized woman who claimed in a lawsuit that the talc in the company’s iconic baby powder causes ovarian cancer when applied regularly for feminine hygiene. . . . The verdict in the lawsuit brought by the California woman, Eva Echeverria, marks the largest sum awarded in a series of talcum powder lawsuit verdicts against Johnson & Johnson in courts around the U.S.

    • J&J Loses $110 Million Verdict Over Talc Cancer-Link Claim - Margaret Cronin Fisk & Tim Bross, Bloomberg (05/04/2017)
      Johnson & Johnson was ordered by a St. Louis jury to pay more than $110 million to a Virginia woman who blamed her ovarian cancer on the company’s talcum products. Imerys Talc America, which provided the talc to J&J, was ordered by the jury to pay about $100,000. Imerys Talc is a unit of Paris-based Imerys SA.

    2016

    • Jury awards $70 million to woman who claimed baby powder caused cancer - The Associated Press, The Register Guard (10/29/2016)
      A St. Louis jury late Thursday awarded a California woman more than $70 million in her lawsuit alleging that years of using Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder caused her cancer, the latest case raising concerns about the health ramifications of extended talcum powder use. The jury ruling ended the trial that began Sept. 26 in the case brought by Deborah Giannecchini of Modesto, Calif. She was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2012. The suit accused Johnson & Johnson of “negligent conduct” in making and marketing its baby powder… Earlier this year, two other lawsuits in St. Louis ended in jury verdicts worth a combined $127 million. But two others in New Jersey were thrown out by a judge who said there wasn’t reliable evidence that talc leads to ovarian cancer, an often fatal but relatively rare form of cancer.
    • Baby Powder lawsuits raise questions about talc’s cancer risk - Roni Caryn Rabin, New York Times through Star Tribune (05/28/2016)

      The International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2006 classified talcum powder as a possible human carcinogen if used in the female genital area. Johnson & Johnson says research implicating talcum powder is flawed and points to studies that absolve talc of any cancer risk.

    • J&J to stand behind talc’s safety at upcoming trials: lawyer - Jessica Dye, Reuters (05/18/2016)

      Johnson & Johnson will keep arguing in court that its talc-based powders are safe, an outside lawyer who has defended the company in lawsuits said, even after losing two multimillion-dollar verdicts to plaintiffs who alleged that J&J Baby Powder and Shower to Shower caused ovarian cancer.

    • Doctors still unsure if talc is directly connected to cancer - Meg Farris, wwltv.com (05/03/2016)

      For the second time a jury has ordered Johnson and Johnson to pay a multimillion dollar lawsuit settlement over claims that the talc in its baby powder caused ovarian cancer. This is just one of dozens of cases against the company, claiming it failed to tell consumers about talc dangers.

    • Johnson & Johnson hit with $55m damages in talc cancer case - bbc.com (05/03/2016)

      Johnson & Johnson (J&J) has been ordered to pay more than $55m in compensation to an American woman who says its talcum powder caused her ovarian cancer.

    Additional Items

    A New Talc Personal Jurisdiction Mess
    As consumers, and connoisseurs, of personal jurisdiction precedent, we write today to consider the latest jurisdictional mess that has arisen, this time in talc litigation. Two courts, deciding the same jurisdictional issue on the same set of facts in the same week, have reached diametrically opposed decisions.

    By far and away the most well rounded and useful Cat-focused industry conference out there. Perfect for all levels within the industry. From the conference content, the presenters and the attendees, this conference is a can’t miss for those interested in expanding their knowledge and learning more about cat related insurance and reinsurance modeling topics Nick DiMuzio, Everest

    "Fantastic, enriching conference - brilliantly planned and run, illuminating talks and excellent opportunities for networking across multiple areas of catastrophic risk.” Gary Ackerman, University at Albany

    “From a treaty underwriter's point of view, RAA presented relevant topics related to today's macro events. Scientific presentations provided insight that I can incorporate in underwriting and share with my clients.” Eric B. Silberman, Munich Re

    "Great conference with some of the biggest names in the business presenting their work. What more could you ask for?” Ron Nash, Nash Consulting

    “A perfect introduction to the world of reinsurance. Relevant topics, great speakers and the opportunity to network with industry peers makes this a must go event.”
    Tom Barrett, Everest Re

    Demystifying Reinsurance was an excellent tool to clearly understand and break down the basics. Very good class and recommend it for beginners and even as a refresher course for the intermediate student.”
    Chenessia West, TransRe

    “Re Basics is the ideal opportunity whether an industry professional or student of insurance to understand the in and outs of reinsurance while being able to network with persons spread across the whole industry.”
    Darius Zuill, Bermuda Monetary Authority

    “This has been the best reinsurance seminar that I have been to! Whether a reinsurance seasoned vet or new to the field, this is an engaging seminar that addressed specific issues of the reinsurance market.”
    Michelle Thimm, Church Mutual Insurance 

    “Re Underwriting provided a comprehensive and interesting overview of underwriting in the current market with a major (and interesting) focus on trends. Very useful for underwriting and non-underwriting alike.”
    DeVika Bourne, PartnerRe

    “Very informative experience, and a great way to keep up to date on current underwriting events and trends.”
    Steven Whalen, Aspen Re

    “Time well spent in learning the updated underwriting business and networking!”
    Christine Chen,  Everest Re 

    “The panels and presentations were thought provoking and fascinating as numerous topics were covered affecting the industry. I’m leaving the conference with a greater insight of the future market.”
    Brittany de Frias, AXIS Capital 

     

    “RAA Re Finance was the first RAA seminar I attended, and I was thoroughly impressed with the speakers and content. I learned a great deal from the presentations and intend to bring some new ideas back to my company and share with the team!”
    Taylor Robinson, ICW Group

    “Fantastic slate of instructors who thoughtfully walked us through financial reporting and other aspects of reinsurance finance. They used terminology that non finance people (lawyers) could understand. Really great program.”
    Steven Bazil, The Bazil Group

    “If you are in Reinsurance Accounting/Finance, you need to take this course to help you with your job.”
    Frank Borawski, Markel  

    “The speakers were excellent! There is something to be said about a person, and in this case a group of people, who can take time away from their busy schedules and explain to everyone something they feel passionate about in a manner that's understandable. My only complaint is that I wish we had more time with them.”
    Jessica Mieles, Sompo International

    “The RAA ReContracts is the most comprehensive reinsurance contract wording training available in the U.S. market.”
    David Kragseth, Guy Carpenter   

    “The course was very helpful in addressing different viewpoints and important things to consider in contract design and review.”
    Andy Martin, AmericanAg 

    “The RAA contract course was very informative and interesting. It covered a wide range of Reinsurance Contracts Types. In my Reinsurance Career, I have had the opportunity to work on a limited type of contracts, so I learned a lot.”
    Vivian Castro, Arch Insurance Company 

    “The RAA Contracts course provides the opportunity to engage with relevant topics, taught by industry experts, in both seminar and small group environments. The course material and industry experts provide an understanding on a wide range of subjects.” 
    Kevin English, LMRe

    “Participation in Re Claims should be mandatory for all P&C reinsurance underwriters. It’s truly an eye-opener, providing an in-depth look from a claims manager’s perspective on what happens to the business that we underwrite. There are lots of do’s and don’ts to pay attention to. Re Claims answers all the hard questions."  Michael Delacruz, China Re P&C

    “I absolutely love this program. I learned so many new things. Reinsurance from the industry’s top executives, interactive activities, interesting panels, and innovating presentations makes for an intriguing few days. Well worth the time and money.” Chenessia West, TransRe

    “As a reinsurance attorney I find Re Claims highly valuable to stay abreast of emerging issues. Also, being walked through practical case studies is extremely helpful in creating a thorough understanding of how contracts work.” Steven Bazil, The Bazil Group

    Become a Re Scholar!

    The Re Ed Institute's Re Scholar Program seeks to recognize those who achieve a high standard of reinsurance education by completing the Re Scholar curriculum. Learn More.


    Become a Re Ed Sponsor

    The RAA’s Reinsurance Education Institute programs attract professionals from the world’s leading insurance/reinsurance companies, brokers, law firms and consulting firms. Interested in sponsoring? Contact Carolyn Fahey.