Important case law stating that a compounding pharmacist may be held liable under a theory of strict liability

"The trial court order ruled on a motion for partial summary judgment, and addressed whether Franck’s could be held liable under theories of negligence and/or strict liability (Doc. 40, Ex. A). The trial court determined that Franck’s acts in compounding the nutritional supplements “distinguish [it] from that of ordinary retail pharmacists/druggists,” and held that Franck’s could be held liable under a theory of strict liability. (Id., p. 3). This order from the Underlying Case does not establish either that compounding is not part of the practice of pharmacy, or that the term “pharmacist” as used in Cincinnati’s Policies is ambiguous. Indeed, it suggests the contrary and merely states that when a pharmacist creates a drug (as opposed to merely selling something already in existence), the pharmacist may be liable under a theory of strict liability, as well as negligence. It does not mean that the pharmacist ceases to operate as a pharmacist. It does not mean that the pharmacist ceases to operate as a pharmacist. And in this case, it is clear that Franck’s and Campbell were operating here as compounding pharmacies/pharmacists. See Fontanez v. Parenteral Therapy Assocs., Inc., 974 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 5th Dist. Ct. App. 2007) (noting that a pharmacist who compounds a drug may be sued under a theory of strict liability, whereas pharmacists who merely sell drugs manufactured by others may only be sued under a negligence theory)."

Quoted from:

Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Quorum Management Corp., No. 5:12-cv-406-Oc ...

propertycasualtyfocus.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/cincinnati-ins-co.pdf

1 day ago - the loss of the polo horses.3 Cincinnati had insured Franck'