GILBERT, et al., v. LANDS' END et al.

---

 Before JACKSON-AKIWUMI, PRYOR, and MALDONADO, Circuit Judges.  

The Bottom Line

The court affirms the grant of summary judgement on the personal injury claims. Plaintiff's experts were unable to sufficiently prove defectiveness, and the lower court did not act in abuse when excluding Dr. Freeman's testimony regarding causation. The summary judgement entered by the lower court regarding the warranty claims was also appropriate as the plaintiffs did not keep to the terms of the warranty.

Class Action Takeaway

The Seventh Circuit’s decision in Gilbert v. Lands’ End underscores that plaintiffs must present reliable, admissible expert evidence of both defect and causation in cases relating to personal injury and product liability.

Background

Delta Airlines partnered with Lands' End, a clothing company, to distribute uniforms to its employees. Upon receipt of the new uniforms, Delta employees reported dye from the garments was damaging their property. Two sets of employees sued, and the cases were consolidated. One for claims that Lands' End breached their warranty and 100% satisfaction guarantee, and the second for personal injury claims due to medical damages from the transfer of dye from the allegedly defective uniforms. At the conclusion of discovery, Lands' End moved for summary judgement claiming that plaintiffs provided no credible expert witness testimony concluding that the supplied uniforms were defective or caused injuries - the court excluded three plaintiff expert opinions. Lands' End also moved for partial summary judgment regarding the 100% satisfaction guarantee warranty breach. The district court ruled in favor of Lands' End in both matters. Both sets of plaintiffs appealed these rulings. One regarding the personal injury claims and the exclusion of their expert testimonies and the second on the breach of warranty claims.

Opinion

Under Wisconsin law, plaintiffs in a personal injury/product liability case must demonstrate the product in question was defective. Plaintiffs in part relied on laboratory testing the garments for crocking (dye and chemical transfer). These tests showed a 3.5/5 score, meaning they did crock. However, technicians noted that regardless of this, the uniforms produced “met general industry standards" for crockfastness. Additionally, the court found that the expert opinions provided by the plaintiffs were not enough to support a conclusion either of defectiveness or the personal injury claims from leeched toxins. The court also upheld that the plaintiffs failed to show direct causation between the potential defect and plaintiff's injuries/damages. The district court found that plaintiff's expert, Dr. Freeman, used unreliable methodology when forming his opinion affirming a direct causation. Dr. Freeman relied exclusively on questionnaires created by Lands' End that was sent out to plaintiffs in the proposed class to measure injuries they had experienced after receiving the new uniforms. The district court found the questionnaire to be filled with design flaws that would lead to biased results. It was concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretionary power in excluding Dr. Freeman's analysis because he failed to use the field's routine methodology to satisfy rule 702. Plaintiffs argued that Lands' End breached their warranty clause by not providing refunds to the Delta employees who were allegedly harmed. The contract agreed upon by both parties states, “if at any time, for any reason, … any actively employed Employee is not 100% satisfied with their Products (even if they have been washed, worn and/or embroidered), they can return them at any time … for a refund or exchange.” Notably, the employees in question did not return their uniforms when demanding a refund. Plaintiffs argued that because the contract was under confidentiality, they were not informed on the requirement to return the uniforms. However, the court upheld the lower court's ruling in favor of Lands' End because it is common industry practice for a refund to be conditioned on the return of the goods in question.