for the Northern District of Florida (“Florida Federal Complaint”); U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and the Eastern District of Michigan (collectively “Michigan Federal Complaints.”); the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (“Colorado Federal Complaint”); the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon (“Oregon Federal Complaint”); the Fayette, Kentucky Circuit Court and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky (collectively, “Kentucky Complaints.”); the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (“Louisiana Federal Complaint”).
Plaintiffs in the Indiana State Complaints allege a cause of action under Indiana’s Product Liability Act, citing manufacturing defects, defective design and failure to properly warn and instruct, and several of the complaints allege loss of consortium. Plaintiffs in these actions assert that the defendants are strictly liable or have breached the duty of care owed to plaintiffs by failing to exercise reasonable care in designing, manufacturing, marketing and labeling FiberCel and are seeking various types of damages, including economic damages, non-economic damages and loss of consortium. Plaintiffs in one of the Indiana State Complaints allege causes of action for product liability, negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, and punitive damages. Each of the plaintiffs in the Delaware State Complaints alleges negligence, breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, and medical monitoring and punitive damages, and two also allege loss of consortium. Plaintiffs in the Delaware State Complaints are seeking economic, consequential, and punitive damages. The Maryland State Complaints assert claims of negligence, breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, medical monitoring, and loss of consortium. The Florida Federal Complaint contains three strict liability claims for defective design, defective manufacture, and failure to warn. A claim for punitive damages is also pled. The Ohio State Complaint alleges causes of action for product liability and negligence and seeks compensatory damages. The Colorado Federal Complaint asserts causes of action for strict product liability, misrepresentation, negligence, breach of express warranty, and breach of implied warranty of merchantability. The Michigan Federal Complaints assert causes of action for negligence, gross negligence breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and liability under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine. The Michigan Federal Complaints seek compensatory damages and punitive damages. The North Carolina Federal Complaint alleges causes of action for negligence, defective design, breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, and loss of consortium, and seeks both compensatory and punitive damages. The Oregon Federal Complaint asserts strict liability claims for defective design, defective manufacture, and failure to warn, and seeks compensatory damages. The Ohio Federal Complaint asserts strict liability claims for defective manufacturing, inadequate warning, nonconformance with representations, and also alleges loss of consortium and seeks compensatory damages. The Kentucky Complaints assert strict liability claims based on manufacturing defect, design defect, failure to warn, negligence, breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, and seek recovery for medical monitoring, loss of consortium, compensatory damages, and punitive damages. The Louisiana Federal Complaint asserts claims of violation of the Louisiana products liability act, negligence and gross negligence, breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty and seek recovery for medical monitoring.
In addition to the above, there have been 42 claims related to the FiberCel recall that have not yet resulted in a lawsuit. The Company refers to all of the aforementioned litigation, or claim notices, collectively as the “FiberCel Litigation.”
In October 2022, the Company engaged in a process to negotiate and attempt to resolve many of the cases in the FiberCel Litigation. The Company also mediated and resolved a Maryland lawsuit in August 2022. In total, Aziyo’s liability in 24 of the cases was settled (23 of which are pending finalization of the related settlement agreements) for a total of approximately $7.2 million. The settled matters included cases from the Indiana State Complaints, Ohio State Complaint, Florida Federal Complaint, Colorado Federal Complaint, Delaware State Complaints and Maryland Complaint, along with claims in six states. Of these settled matters, one case was both settled and paid as of September 30, 2022 for a total cash outlay of $1.3 million. For the remaining 73 cases, the Company estimated a probable loss related to each case and has recorded a liability at an estimated amount of $11.7 million bringing the total estimated liability at September 30, 2022 to $17.6 million, which is recorded as Contingent Liability for FiberCel Litigation in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets. Although we believe there is a possibility that a loss in excess of the amount recognized exists, we are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss in excess of the amount recognized at this time. In order to reasonably estimate the liability for the unsettled FiberCel Litigation cases, the Company, along with outside legal counsel, has assessed a variety of factors, including (i) the extent of the injuries incurred, (ii) recent experience on the settled claims, (iii) settlement offers made to the other parties to the litigation and (iv) any other factors that may have a material effect on the FiberCel Litigation. While the Company believes its estimated liability to be reasonable, the actual