Court Ruling Dismisses Anaphylaxis Product Liability Claim

A federal court in Oklahoma has cleared a tanning lotion manufacturer and distributor of liability after a customer suffered a life-threatening allergic reaction. US Magistrate Judge Jason A Robertson of the Eastern District of Oklahoma granted summary judgment to Cosway Company, Inc., manufacturer of Love Bronze tanning lotion, and distributor Product Innovations Research, LLC, doing business as Sunevolutions. The court concluded that the customer failed to show the lotion was defective or unreasonably dangerous to ordinary consumers.

The case began in May 2022, when plaintiff Suzanna Mattox was rushed to an Oklahoma emergency room with severe respiratory distress and cardiovascular collapse before being airlifted to an Arkansas medical center. Medical records indicated that her symptoms began around the time her husband applied an anti-inflammatory cream prescribed by a chiropractor.

At a follow-up visit, Mattox said she had also applied Love Bronze before becoming ill. Although she had never received a formal diagnosis of a nut or bean allergy, she believed she was allergic based on prior reactions.

Clinic staff photographed the bottle. An office manager searched the ingredients online and concluded that one might have an almond-oil base, prompting Mattox’s physician to note a possible connection. However, the office manager later could not identify the ingredient, and the physician testified that he was not qualified to determine whether the lotion contained nuts or beans. The bottle was later discarded before its batch code was recorded.

Mattox and her husband sued Cosway and Sunevolutions, alleging negligence, negligent supervision, and strict product liability based on design defects, manufacturing defects, and inadequate labeling and warnings.

The defendants argued that the missing bottle and batch code prevented the plaintiffs from proving Mattox had used their product. The court disagreed, finding that witness testimony, branding, and clinic photographs provided enough circumstantial evidence for a jury to identify the lotion as Love Bronze.

The court nevertheless rejected the labeling and failure-to-warn claims. Federal law generally prevents states from imposing cosmetic-labeling requirements that differ from or add to federal rules. The plaintiffs did not show that the Love Bronze label violated those rules. Instead, they sought additional warnings about nut- or legume-derived ingredients, “may contain” language, common ingredient names, and possible photosensitization. The court held that those claims were preempted by federal law.

The design and manufacturing defect claims also failed. Under Oklahoma law, circumstantial evidence and expert testimony must support a concrete theory of defect and causation. A rare allergic reaction alone, the court said, does not prove that a product is defective or dangerous to the general public.

Other evidence weakened the case. Mattox had used Love Bronze several times without incident. She later tested positive for an almond allergy, but a skin test using Love Bronze itself was negative. The court found that this undercut the theory that the lotion contained enough of an allergenic ingredient to cause her reaction.

The medical timeline also undermined causation. Records linked the onset of symptoms more closely to the anti-inflammatory cream than to the tanning lotion. The court did not find that the cream caused the reaction, but concluded that attributing it to Love Bronze would be speculative.

With no reliable evidence of a defect or causal connection, the court granted summary judgment to both defendants. Because no viable underlying tort claim remained, it also rejected the request for punitive damages.

Have you taken action against a manufacturer of a product that caused a severe reaction? Share your experience in the comments section.