Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING DEFECTS—MEDICAL DEVICES—N.D. Ind.: Breach of warranty claim not sufficiently distinct from time-barred tort claim in hip device lawsuit, (Oct 8, 2026)

By Leah S. Poniatowski, J.D.

The patient was given another chance to pursue warranty claims under the UCC.

A patient whose implanted hip nailing system failed could not recover against the manufacturer on breach of warranty theories because the nature of her allegation was based in tort and not contract, a federal district court in Indiana ruled, dismissing her claim as it fell within the applicable statute of limitations. The court granted leave to amend the warranties claim (Potempa v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp., No. 3:25cv843 DRL-SJF (N.D. Ind. Sept. 30, 2026)).

Background. Howmedica Osteonics Corporation and its affiliates Stryker Orthopaedics, Stryker Corporation, and Stryker Sales, LLC (collectively, Stryker) manufacture and sell the Stryker Gamma3 nailing system used in hip surgeries. In August 2021, a woman had fractured her hip, and her surgeon used the Stryker system for repair. For several months after, she had no hip or groin pain. By January 2022, she began to feel pain in both legs and her groin and fell after feeling a pop in her right hip.

She underwent revision surgery following confirmation that one of the distal interlocks in the Stryker system failed in addition to an intrameduallry nail having broken. A new system was installed along with a bone graft. In an attempt to recover from the medical expenses, pain, suffering, hospitalization, treatments, and her husband’s loss of consortium, they filed a lawsuit against Stryker in 2025. Their amended complaint alleged strict liability, manufacturing defect, breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, and breach of merchantability.

Stryker filed the present motion to dismiss, contending that the Indiana Products Liability Act (IPLA) subsumed all of the patient’s product liability theories, the Indiana two-year statute of limitations barred all the claims, and the amended complaint failed to state a valid claim. The patient conceded that the strict liability and manufacturing defect claims under the ILPA were time-barred and the breach of the implied warranty of fitness was not valid for lack of privity. However, the patient and her spouse asserted that the breach of express warranty and the implied warranty of merchantability, and the loss of consortium claim, were valid.

Indiana law. Indiana’s products liability statute was initially enacted in 1978 and later amended in 1998 and was based on the Restatement of Torts (Second) § 402A (1965). The IPLA expressly recognizes defective design, defective manufacturing, and lack of adequate warnings. Less precise is where warranty claims fall, as there is applicable precedent supporting the IPLA subsuming warranty claims, in addition to precedent permitting tort and contract-based theories for individuals injured by a medical device proceeding on warranty-based claims. Indiana’s high court has not ruled on this issue, the court observed.

However, the body of governing and persuasive authority weighed against permitting the patient to pursue her warnings claims separate from the IPLA claims, the court determined. First, the IPLA explicitly states that it “governs all actions” arising from injury caused by a product “regardless of the substantive legal theory or theories upon which the action is brought.” The court stated that a Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)-based claim can exist unless it is a tort claim “dressed within the UCC,” reflecting the state high court’s reiteration of the statute’s scope. The court reasoned that this position also conforms to the long-established economic loss doctrine. Thus, the patient’s reading of case law was too broad compared to other precedent.

Although the court granted Stryker’s motion to dismiss, it allowed the patient leave to amend to file a complaint that alleges a warranty or implied warranty of merchantability in order to recover commercial loss under the UCC as distinct from tort recovery for physical harm from the device. The court also denied as moot the request for oral argument.

The case is No. 3:25cv843 DRL-SJF.

Judge: Leichty, D.

Attorneys: Connor H. Nolan (Harris Welsh & Lukmann) for Frances Arlene Potempa. Steven J. Boranian Phv (Reed Smith LLP) for Howmedica Osteonics Corporation.

Companies: Howmedica Osteonics Corporation

MainStory: TopStory DesignManufacturingNews MedicalDevicesNews IndianaNews