Bayes et al v. Biomet, Inc. et al

Filing 293

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: The Court finds that Missouri law applies to Plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages. Signed by District Judge Stephen R. Clark on 10/2/20. (JAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
MARY BAYES and PHILIP BAYES,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.
BIOMET, INC., et al.,
Defendant(s).

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:13-cv-00800-SRC

Memorandum and Order
The Court has denied Biomet’s motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ punitive
damages claim. See Doc. 260. The Parties dispute which state’s law governs Plaintiffs’ claim
for punitive damages. See Doc. 125 at 28-30 (arguing Indiana law applies); Doc. 147 at 20
(stating Missouri law applies). The Court ordered the Parties to brief this choice-of-law issue in
their respective trial briefs. Doc. 187 at 44:15-22. Those briefs having been submitted, the
Court now considers whether Missouri or Indiana law applies.
I.

Background
The Court has thoroughly recounted the facts of this case in its Order on Biomet’s

Motion for Summary Judgment. See Doc. 225. In the same Order, the Court explains some of
the medical terminology at issue in this case and likewise does not repeat those explanations
here.
II.

Discussion
A federal court sitting in diversity applies the substantive law of the state in which the

court sits. Urban Hotel Dev. Co. v. President Dev. Co., L.C., 535 F.3d 874, 877 (8th Cir. 2008).
The obligation to apply state law extends to the forum state’s choice-of-law principles. Klaxon

1

Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 (1941). “Under Missouri’s choice-of-law rules,
courts apply the substantive law of the state with the ‘most significant relationship’ to the
occurrence and the parties.” Winter v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 739 F.3d 405, 410 (8th Cir. 2014)
(quoting Fuqua Homes, Inc. v. Beattie, 388 F.3d 618, 621 (8th Cir. 2004)). When resolving
choice-of-law questions in a tort action, Missouri courts consider the following factors: (1) the
place where the injury occurred; (2) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred; (3)
the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties;
and (4) the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered. Id. For personal
injury actions, Missouri defaults to the law of the place of injury, unless some other state has a
more significant relationship. Id. Thus, “Missouri’s formulation ‘essentially establishes a
presumption that the state with the most significant relationship is the state where the injury
occurred.’” Id. (quoting Dorman v. Emerson Elec. Co., 23 F.3d 1354, 1358 (8th Cir. 1994).
Applying this four-factor test, the Court finds that Missouri has the most significant
relationship to Plaintiffs’ punitive damages claim. First, the parties agree that the place of injury
is Missouri. See Doc. 266 at 50:10-16. Thus, the law of Missouri presumptively applies.
Winter, 388 F.3d at 621. The third factor—the domicile, residence, nationality, place of
incorporation and place of business of the parties—favors neither Missouri nor Indiana.
Plaintiffs Philip and Mary Bayes are residents of Missouri. But each of the four Biomet entities
named as defendants in this case has its principal place of business and state of incorporation in
Indiana. Doc. 266 at 64:1-10. Plaintiffs note that the parent company of various Biomet entities
is incorporated in Delaware (see Doc. 268), but even if a non-party parent company’s place of
incorporation has any bearing, the Court finds that the exclusively-Indiana principal place of

2

business and state of incorporation of the Defendants outweighs that attenuated connection to
another state.
As to the fourth factor, the Court finds that the parties’ relationship is centered in
Missouri. Plaintiffs’ relationship with Biomet—as relevant to this case—began only when
Mary’s physician, Dr. Martin, selected the Biomet M2a-Magnum implant for Mary’s hip
replacement surgeries. Dr. Martin treated Mary in Missouri. Doc. 126-2. He selected the M2aMagnum implant in Missouri. Doc. 126-1 at 21:2-12. And he performed Mary’s surgeries in
Missouri. Doc. 266 at 66:10-13. Thus, the Court finds that the parties’ relationship is centered
principally—if not exclusively—in Missouri.
Biomet contends that the second factor—the place where the conduct causing injury
occurred—favors Indiana. Biomet’s principal offices are in Warsaw, Indiana and Biomet
represents that the M2a-Magnum was designed and manufactured in Indiana. Doc. 266 at 53:1118; 66:14-19. Plaintiffs allege that Biomet defectively designed the M2a-Magnum and that this
defective design caused Mary’s injuries. Thus, Biomet’s design of the M2a-Magnum is relevant
conduct that, allegedly, caused Mary’s injuries. Plaintiffs argue that some of Biomet’s design
work on the M2a-Magnum occurred in states other than Indiana, including Florida and Alabama.
Doc. 266 at 53:5-10. No evidence in the record suggests that Biomet performed any design work
in Missouri. However, Biomet’s own theory of the case is that Dr. Martin’s conduct of
implanting the left hip implant at an improper angle caused Mary’s injuries. Biomet does not
dispute that this conduct occurred in Missouri. Doc. 52 at 9-1. In sum, the Court finds this
factor mixed.
Even if the conduct-causing-injury factor weighed clearly in favor of Indiana, the Court
would still find that Missouri has the most significant relationship to Plaintiffs’ punitive damages

3

claim. The first and fourth factors weigh in favor of Missouri law and the third factor is neutral.
Only one factor—the place where the conduct causing injury occurred—might favor Indiana.
Assuming it does, the Court nonetheless finds this factor insufficient to overcome the
presumption that Missouri—the place of injury—has the most significant relationship to the
claims at issue. The Court reaches this conclusion not simply by a numerical evaluation of the
factors for and against application of Missouri law, but by consideration of the relative strength
of the evidence supporting the various factors. As discussed above, the Court finds that the first
and fourth factors clearly and unambiguously favor Missouri law, but the second factor possibly
favors Indiana.
Finally, the Court recognizes that “Missouri has a strong interest in applying its punitive
damages laws to deter conduct by corporations doing business in Missouri that harms Missouri
residents.” Winter, 739 F.3d at 410. The Missouri Supreme Court has determined that Missouri
citizens’ right to trial by jury on a punitive-damages claim has a constitutional dimension. See
Lewellen v. Franklin, 441 S.W.3d 136, 144 (Mo. 2014). Whatever interest Indiana may have in
the application of its laws to this case “does not overcome Missouri’s presumption that the law of
the place of injury should apply.” Winter, 739 F.3d at 410.
III.

Conclusion
The Court finds that Missouri law applies to Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages.

Dated: October 2, 2020.

STEPHEN R. CLARK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4