1984 DES Case: Glater v. Eli Lilly & Co.


“Cathy Ann Glater brought this diversity action in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire against Eli Lilly & Co. (Lilly) in January 1981. She sought damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by exposure in utero to diethylstilbestrol (DES), a drug manufactured and distributed by Lilly. By order dated October 13, 1982, the district court granted Lilly’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; Glater appealed.”…

GLATER v. ELI LILLY & CO., Leagle, 1984957744F2d213_1919, July 12, 1984.

….”The facts may be briefly summarized. At the time of Glater’s exposure in utero to DES, Glater’s mother lived in Massachusetts. Glater was born in Massachusetts and lived there until 1975, when she moved to New Hampshire. She was employed at the New Hampshire office of an insurance company, and was transferred to a Massachusetts office in 1980. In August 1980 Glater returned to live in Massachusetts, but continued thereafter to maintain certain contacts with New Hampshire. She was a Massachusetts resident in January 1981, when she commenced this action. Lilly is an Indiana corporation which has marketed DES nationwide since 1947. Lilly engages in limited advertising of its pharmaceutical products in professional trade journals which circulate in New Hampshire, and employs eight sales representatives whose duties consist in part of providing information concerning Lilly products to certain New Hampshire physicians, pharmacies and hospitals. Three of the sales representatives live in New Hampshire. Neither the sales representatives nor Lilly directly sells products in New Hampshire; rather, sales are made to individual wholesale distributors, some of whom are located in New Hampshire. Apparently, Lilly has appointed no agent to receive service of process in New Hampshire.

Lilly concedes in its answer to Glater’s complaint that it does business in New Hampshire. This appears to bring Lilly within the terms of New Hampshire’s longarm statute for foreign corporations, which has been construed to extend to the constitutional limits of due process The issue before us, therefore, is whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction in these circumstances would be consistent with the due process standard articulated in International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, and further elaborated in subsequent cases.” …

… read the full paper GLATER v. ELI LILLY & CO., on Leagle.

More DES DiEthylStilbestrol Resources

Have your say! Share your views