Case Explained: THOR ZURBRIGGEN v. TWIN HILL ACQUISITION, INC., et al

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Filed: 2026-06-16 The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants in a products liability and intentional tort case arising from health complaints allegedly caused by airline uniforms manufactured by Twin Hill Acquisition, Inc. The court held that the district court properly exercised subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) and correctly excluded the plaintiffs’ expert testimony, thereby precluding their claims. Regarding jurisdiction, the court addressed a potential gap created when plaintiffs amended their complaint to drop class certification allegations for bellwether trials. Relying on *Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger*, 604 U.S. 22 (2025), which establishes that an amended complaint effectively remakes the suit and its jurisdictional basis, the court reasoned that while the third amended complaint may have temporarily undermined CAFA jurisdiction by removing class allegations, the subsequent filing of a fourth amended complaint reinstated those allegations and satisfied all CAFA prerequisites. Consequently, the district court possessed subject matter jurisdiction at the time it ruled on summary judgment. On the merits, the court upheld the exclusion of the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, Dr. Carson and Dr. Hauser, whose testimony was deemed to rely on unreliable methodologies and failed to identify any specific chemical defect in the uniforms capable of causing the alleged injuries. The court further rejected the plaintiffs’ attempt to invoke the *Tweedy* doctrine (a form of *res ipsa loquitur* for strict liability) or traditional *res ipsa loquitur* for negligence claims. The court explained that unlike mechanical failures where an accident speaks for itself, the wide range of symptoms reported by employees did not inherently prove a product defect given the existence of alternative explanations and the lack of evidence linking the injuries to the uniforms’ condition. Additionally, the plaintiffs could not satisfy the “exclusive control” element required for traditional *res ipsa loquitur* because the uniforms had been distributed globally and subjected to washing and wear before the alleged injuries occurred. The practical consequence is that the judgment in favor of Twin Hill Acquisition, Inc. and American Airlines stands, dismissing the plaintiffs’ products liability and intentional tort claims without a trial on the merits. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.