Jury Delivers $495M Verdict in Baby Formula Lawsuit

Missouri jury finds Abbott liable after plaintiff alleged Similac cow’s milk-based formula contributed to a premature infant’s development of necrotizing enterocolitis.

A Missouri jury awarded $495 million to a plaintiff in a product liability lawsuit involving Abbott Laboratories’ Similac baby formula and allegations that cow’s milk-based formula can increase the risk of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) in premature infants.

The lawsuit involved a premature infant who received Similac formula while in a neonatal intensive care unit and later developed NEC. The plaintiff’s attorneys argued that Abbott knew about the alleged risk associated with its cow’s milk-based formula but failed to adequately warn about that risk while marketing the product for use in hospital settings.

Quick Answer

The jury awarded $95 million in compensatory damages and $400 million in punitive damages, for a total verdict of $495 million. Abbott disputed the verdict and stated that it intended to appeal.

What Happened in the Abbott Baby Formula Case?

According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff’s infant daughter was treated in a neonatal intensive care unit after being born prematurely. During her treatment, she received Abbott’s Similac formula, which is cow’s milk-based.

The plaintiff alleged that the infant subsequently developed necrotizing enterocolitis, a serious intestinal condition that can cause significant injury in premature babies. The plaintiff’s legal team argued that Abbott should have disclosed the alleged risk associated with its formula to medical providers and other consumers.

Premature Birth and NICU Treatment

The infant was born prematurely and received care in a neonatal intensive care unit.

Similac Formula Was Provided

During the infant’s hospitalization, she received Abbott’s Similac cow’s milk-based formula.

NEC Developed

The family alleged that the infant developed necrotizing enterocolitis after receiving the formula.

Jury Returns $495 Million Verdict

The jury awarded $95 million in compensatory damages and $400 million in punitive damages.

Abbott Disputed the Cause of the Infant’s Injuries

Abbott disputed the plaintiff’s allegations and argued that the child’s injuries were caused by complications associated with a traumatic birth and a lack of oxygen that occurred before she received Abbott’s formula.

The jury ultimately found for the plaintiff. According to Courtroom View Network, the verdict totaled $495 million, including $95 million in compensatory damages and $400 million in punitive damages. Abbott later stated that it disagreed with the verdict and would challenge the result on appeal.

$495M

Total Jury Verdict

$95M

Compensatory Damages

Awarded to compensate the plaintiff for alleged injuries and losses.

$400M

Punitive Damages

Awarded in addition to compensatory damages based on the jury’s findings.

Why the $495 Million Verdict Matters

The Missouri case was closely watched because it was an early trial involving allegations that cow’s milk-based formula may increase the risk of NEC in premature infants. Courtroom View Network identified the case as a bellwether product liability trial.

At the time of the 2024 verdict, thousands of similar NEC-related baby formula claims were pending in courts throughout the United States. Federal litigation involving these claims was centralized in Illinois, making the litigation particularly significant for Illinois residents and families pursuing similar product liability claims.

Bellwether trials are intended to provide the parties and courts with information about how juries may respond to recurring evidence and legal arguments in a larger group of similar cases. A result in one bellwether case does not automatically determine the outcome of every other lawsuit.

Abbott Was Accused of Failing to Warn About an Alleged Risk

A central issue at trial was the plaintiff’s allegation that Abbott knew or should have known about the alleged risk of NEC associated with cow’s milk-based formula for premature infants but failed to provide adequate warnings.

The plaintiff’s attorneys argued that Abbott continued marketing its formula for use in hospital settings despite information they said demonstrated a potential danger. Those allegations were important to the punitive damages claim, which seeks to punish especially wrongful conduct rather than simply compensate an injured plaintiff.

Product Liability and Failure to Warn

Product liability claims may involve allegations that a product was defectively designed, manufactured improperly, or sold without adequate warnings or instructions about known or reasonably foreseeable risks. The specific legal theory available depends on the facts of the case and the applicable law.

What Is Necrotizing Enterocolitis?

Necrotizing enterocolitis, commonly called NEC, is a serious intestinal disease that primarily affects premature or medically fragile newborns. The condition can cause inflammation and injury to intestinal tissue and may require intensive medical treatment or surgery.

In lawsuits involving NEC and baby formula, the medical and legal questions can be complicated. A case may require extensive review of an infant’s birth history, medical records, feeding history, hospital treatment, expert testimony, and evidence concerning the design, warnings, and marketing of the product at issue.

What Evidence May Matter in a Baby Formula Product Liability Case?

Product liability cases involving baby formula can involve extensive medical, scientific, and corporate evidence. The following categories may become important when investigating an NEC-related claim.

Medical Records

Neonatal records, treatment notes, feeding records, imaging, laboratory results, surgical records, and other medical documentation may help establish the infant’s condition, medical history, treatment, and the timing of symptoms.

Product Information

Packaging, labeling, product specifications, warnings, instructions, and other information associated with the formula may become important evidence when evaluating whether consumers and medical providers were adequately informed about potential risks.

Corporate Documents

Internal company communications, research, marketing materials, scientific information, and other corporate records may be examined during litigation to determine what the manufacturer knew about potential risks and how it marketed the product.

Expert Testimony

Medical and scientific experts may be asked to address causation, the infant’s underlying medical conditions, the timing of symptoms, the infant’s feeding history, and the alleged relationship between the formula and NEC.

What Does This Mean for Illinois Product Liability Claims?

Illinois families dealing with serious injuries allegedly caused by a dangerous or defective product may have options under Illinois product liability law. These cases can involve complex questions about product design, warnings, causation, corporate conduct, and the damages suffered by an injured child and family.

Because product liability claims are highly fact-specific, preserving medical records, product information, hospital documentation, and other evidence can be important when investigating a potential claim.