SC20607 - Glover v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc. ("This case presents two
questions of law certified to us by the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199b (d), regarding the interpretation the Connecticut Product
Liability Act (CPLA), General Statutes § 52-572m et seq., and the Connecticut
Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq. The
plaintiff, Marjorie Glover, brought this action in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut, alleging that she had been injured by defective
artificial lenses manufactured and marketed by the defendants, Bausch &
Lomb, Inc., Bausch & Lomb Holdings, Inc., Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., Valeant
Pharmaceuticals North America, LLC, and the "Doe defendants." The plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that the defendants
had violated the CPLA by failing to warn her of the inherent dangers of the
artificial lenses, thereby causing injuries to her eyes. After the operative
complaint was filed, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the
complaint to add a claim that the defendants had violated CUTPA by engaging in
deceptive advertising. The District Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the plaintiff's claims pursuant to the CPLA on the ground that they
were preempted by federal law. The court also denied the plaintiff's motion for
leave to amend the complaint to add a CUTPA claim on the ground that the
amendment would be futile because federal law would also preempt that claim.
The plaintiff appealed from the judgment of dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. That court determined that the resolution of the plaintiff's claims depended on the interpretation of Connecticut law for which there was no controlling precedent in this court's decisions, and it requested certification of the following questions of law for our consideration: (1) "[w]hether a cause of action exists under the negligence or failure-to-warn provisions of the [CPLA, General Statutes §] 52-572q, or elsewhere in Connecticut law, based on a manufacturer's alleged failure to report adverse events to a regulator like the [United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)] following approval of the device, or to comply with a regulator's [postapproval] requirements." And (2) "[w]hether the [CPLA's] exclusivity provision, [General Statutes] § 52-572n, bars a claim under [CUTPA] based on allegations that a manufacturer deceptively and aggressively marketed and promoted a product despite knowing that it presented a substantial risk of injury." Glover v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., 6 F.4th 229, 244 (2d Cir. 2021). We accepted the certified questions of law and answer "yes" to both."