Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, DAMAGES—HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS—Ill. App.: Johnson & Johnson restructuring did not shield successors from $45 million talc verdict, (Jul 15, 2026)

By Pankhuri Bhatnagar, B.A. LL.B.

The successor companies were mere continuations of the manufacturer’s consumer-products business and continued marketing the same product line despite the corporate restructuring.

In an appeal arising from a $45 million mesothelioma verdict against Johnson & Johnson and its successor entities, an Illinois appellate court affirmed the judgment in its entirety. The court held that a decedent’s estate could recover damages under the Survival Act for the years of life lost due to mesothelioma, that the trial court properly excluded and admitted challenged witness testimony, that successor liability was properly imposed upon the restructured entities under New Jersey law despite the company’s "Texas Two-Step" restructuring, and that Illinois’ prejudgment interest statute was constitutional (Salcedo v. Cyprus Amax Minerals Co., No. 1-24-2199 (Ill. App. July 10, 2026)).

Background. A woman allegedly used Johnson & Johnson baby powder for nearly five decades before being diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2020. She sued Johnson & Johnson and related entities, alleging that asbestos-contaminated talc in the powder caused her cancer. After her death later that year, her daughter, as administrator of the estate, continued the action under the Illinois Survival Act, 755 ILCS 5/27-6, and Wrongful Death Act, 740 ILCS 180/1 et seq., asserting claims including negligence, strict liability, fraudulent misrepresentation, willful and wanton misconduct, breach of implied warranties, and successor liability. Meanwhile, Johnson & Johnson undertook a corporate restructuring commonly known as the "Texas Two-Step," creating LTL Management LLC to assume talc liabilities and Johnson & Johnson Holdco NA Inc. (Holdco) to receive assets, while later spinning off its consumer-health business, including baby powder, into Kenvue Inc. Following a four-week trial, a jury awarded the estate and family $45 million and found Johnson & Johnson, Holdco, and Kenvue liable. The trial court denied posttrial motions and awarded prejudgment interest. The defendants appealed.

Survival Act damages. Johnson & Johnson argued that Illinois law does not permit recovery for "shortened life expectancy" after a plaintiff's death and sought a remittitur of the $30 million awarded for that element of damages. The appellate court rejected that argument. It explained that the Survival Act preserves claims that the decedent possessed before death rather than creating new claims, as noted in Wyness v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 131 Ill. 2d 403 (1989), and Moon v. Rhode, 2016 IL 119572. The injury compensated was not death itself but the years of life the decedent lost because mesothelioma had already drastically shortened her lifespan while she was alive. Neither Dillon v. Evanston Hospital, 199 Ill. 2d 483 (2002), nor Bauer v. Memorial Hospital, 377 Ill. App. 3d 895 (2007), limited such recovery to plaintiffs who survive until trial. Nor did the award duplicate wrongful death damages because the Survival Act compensates the decedent's own injuries, whereas the Wrongful Death Act compensates the losses suffered by surviving family members. Accordingly, the trial court properly instructed the jury and denied Johnson & Johnson's request for remittitur.

Evidentiary rulings. Johnson & Johnson argued that several evidentiary rulings denied it a fair trial. First, it challenged restrictions placed on testimony from its chief medical officer, who testified only as a corporate representative rather than as a disclosed expert. The trial court barred testimony about matters which predated the officer’s employment, such as whether the subject powder was asbestos-free, Johnson & Johnson’s effort to share talc-safety information, where it sourced its talc in the 1970s and 80s, and FDA’s warning label decision. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion because Illinois Rule of Evidence 602 limits lay testimony to matters within the witness's personal knowledge, while opinions regarding asbestos contamination and product safety required expert qualification under Illinois Rule of Evidence 701(c). The business-records and ancient-documents hearsay exceptions likewise did not permit the witness to testify to the contents of historical corporate documents. Union Pump Co. v. Centrifugal Technology Inc., 404 F. App'x 899 (5th Cir. 2010).

The court likewise rejected Johnson & Johnson’s challenge to the testimony of the claimant’s geology expert. Although the expert disclosed at trial that confidentiality restrictions on certain talc testing had been lifted, the parties had previously agreed he would not discuss that testing unless Johnson & Johnson opened the door. Because Johnson & Johnson itself raised the subject during opening statements and cross-examination, it could not claim unfair surprise or prejudice. Conner v. Ofreneo, 257 Ill. App. 3d 427 (1993). Finally, the court upheld testimony from the decedent’s pulmonology expert concerning asbestos contamination and testing methods. Experts may reasonably rely upon and explain information generated by specialists in other disciplines under Illinois Rule of Evidence 703, provided they do not merely parrot another expert's conclusions. Grauer v. Clare Oaks, 2019 IL App (1st) 180835. The pulmonologist permissibly explained how the underlying mineralogical evidence informed his own medical causation opinion.

Successor liability. Johnson & Johnson next argued that Holdco and Kenvue could not be held liable because Texas law governed the restructuring and neither entity expressly assumed Old JJCI's (Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc.) tort liabilities. The appellate court disagreed. Applying the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, it concluded that New Jersey, rather than Texas, had the most significant relationship to the successor liability issues because Holdco was incorporated in New Jersey, Kenvue's principal place of business was there, and the dispute concerned corporate successor liability rather than internal corporate governance. Ingersoll v. Klein, 46 Ill. 2d 42 (1970).

Applying New Jersey law, the court held that sufficient evidence supported both the "product line" and "mere continuation" exceptions to successor nonliability. Under Ramirez v. Amsted Industries, Inc., 431 A.2d 811 (N.J. 1981), Kenvue continued selling Johnson & Johnson's baby powder abroad, retained the same branding, goodwill, facilities, management, and consumer-health operations, and therefore continued the same product line. Likewise, Holdco and Kenvue satisfied the "mere continuation" factors identified in 160 West Broadway Associates, LP v. 1 Memorial Drive, LLC, 248 A.3d 404 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2021), including continuity of management, employees, assets, business operations, and dissolution of the predecessor. Viewing the evidence in the claimant’s favor, the jury reasonably found both entities liable as successors, making judgment notwithstanding the verdict inappropriate under Maple v. Gustafson, 151 Ill. 2d 445 (1992).

Prejudgment interest. Finally, Johnson & Johnson argued that Illinois' prejudgment interest statute, 735 ILCS 5/2-1303(c), violated the state constitutional right to a jury trial because it effectively awarded interest on future damages. The appellate court rejected that contention, explaining that prejudgment interest is a ministerial function similar to costs or postjudgment interest and does not alter the jury's role in determining liability or damages. Cotton v. Coccaro, 2023 IL App (1st) 220788. Since the court had already concluded that the challenged damages compensated an injury suffered before death rather than future harms, the constitutional challenge likewise failed. The judgments and prejudgment interest award were therefore affirmed.

The case is No. 1-24-2199.

Judge: Hyman, M.

Attorneys: Christian Luciano Santiago (Vogelzang Law, P.C.) for Stephanie Salcedo. Michael A. Scodro (Mayer Brown LLP) for Cyprus Amax Minerals Co., Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Holdco (NA), Inc. and Kenvue Inc.

Companies: Cyprus Amax Minerals Co.; Johnson & Johnson; Johnson & Johnson Holdco (NA), Inc.; Kenvue Inc.

Cases: CourtDecisions DamagesNews HouseholdProductsNews AsbestosNews SCLIssuesNews EvidentiaryNews ExpertEvidenceNews IllinoisNews GCNNews