317-488-5500 
Yes, claims are still being brought over e-cigarettes, but not all of them are the same case, and the category a claim falls into decides almost everything about whether it survives. A burn from a battery that failed in someone’s pocket is a straightforward defective product claim. A lung injury traced to a cartridge bought from an acquaintance is a much harder one. A nicotine dependency that began in high school raises different questions again.
Indiana law adds its own filter on top of all three, including a deadline that has already closed the door on a large share of the devices people still have in a drawer. Our Indianapolis vaping injury attorneys at Christie Bell & Marshall look at these claims in that order: what kind of harm, what product, and how long ago. The review is free and there is no fee unless we win.
The Three Kinds of Vaping Claim
People say vaping lawsuit as if it were one thing, and it is not. The category your harm falls into decides the defendant, the evidence, and the deadline, so sorting that out is the first thing we do on any of these files. That review is free, and you owe no fee unless we recover for you.
Lung Injury
The condition that put vaping on the national radar is EVALI, short for e-cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported a total of 2,807 hospitalized EVALI cases or deaths as of February 18, 2020, from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and two U.S. territories, with 68 deaths confirmed in 29 states and the District of Columbia.
Two findings from that investigation shape the legal picture. CDC identified vitamin E acetate as strongly linked to the outbreak, having found it in patient lung fluid samples and in product samples tested by FDA and state laboratories, and never in the lung fluid of people without EVALI. It also tied most cases to THC-containing products obtained from informal sources instead of licensed retailers. That second finding is the practical obstacle: a claim needs an identifiable defendant who made or sold the product, and an unlabeled cartridge from a private seller often has neither.
CDC stopped collecting national EVALI case data after February 2020, so those figures are the outbreak’s final tally, not a current count. Lung injury claims still get filed. They simply depend on proving what was in the product and who put it there.
Battery Explosions and Burns
This category has never gone away and is frequently the strongest of the three. Lithium-ion cells in vaping devices can enter thermal runaway, and because the device is usually in a pocket, a hand, or against the face when it happens, the injuries are severe out of proportion to the size of the product: deep thigh and groin burns, hand and finger damage, facial injuries, and shattered teeth and jaw fractures where a device failed during use.
These cases behave like ordinary defective product claims because the failure is physical and the evidence survives. A cell that vented, a device with no vent holes or no protection circuit, and a mismatched charger are all things an engineer can examine and explain. Where the result is a serious burn injury, the damages are substantial and the causal chain is short.
Nicotine Addiction and Youth Marketing
The third category involves claims that manufacturers concealed how much nicotine their products delivered and marketed them in ways that reached minors. Nationwide litigation on those theories has been brought by individuals, families, and school districts.
Claims of this type are the hardest to prove on an individual basis, because they require connecting a specific product to a specific course of use and a specific harm over a period of years. They are also the ones most likely to run into the deadline discussed below. Where a young person developed a serious medical condition, a child injury claim should be evaluated on the medical record rather than on what the litigation looks like nationally.
What Indiana Requires You to Prove
Indiana does not apply a single standard to every product claim, and the difference decides how these cases are built. Under IC 34-20-2-2, a seller can be liable even though it exercised all reasonable care in manufacturing the product and even though the injured person never bought anything from it. But the statute then carves out an exception that matters enormously here: where the claim is based on an alleged design defect, or on a failure to provide adequate warnings or instructions, the claimant must establish that the manufacturer or seller failed to exercise reasonable care in designing the product or in providing the warnings.
In plain terms, Indiana applies strict liability to a manufacturing defect and a negligence standard to design and warning claims. A battery cell that left the factory flawed is the first kind. A device designed without a vent, or sold without any warning about carrying loose cells against keys and coins, is the second, and it requires proof about what the maker knew or should have known. That is why these files are built around engineering analysis and internal documents, not around the injury alone, and it is one of the health risks of e-cigarettes becoming a legal question rather than only a medical one.
The Deadline That Quietly Ends Vaping Cases
This is the issue that disqualifies more vaping claims than any argument about causation. IC 34-20-3-1 imposes two separate limits, and a claim has to clear both:
- Two years after the cause of action accrues, the ordinary injury deadline.
- Ten years after the product was delivered to its initial user or consumer, a statute of repose that runs from the sale rather than from the injury.
The repose period is the trap. It can expire before anyone is hurt, and it applies regardless of minority or legal disability, so a claim involving someone who was a minor at the time of purchase gets no extension from that fact alone. There is one narrow allowance: if the cause of action accrues at least eight but less than ten years after that initial delivery, suit may be brought within two years of accrual.
Run those numbers against a real timeline. A device or a supply of pods bought during the 2018 and 2019 peak is now past the ten-year mark or close to it. Anyone weighing a claim tied to a product from that era should have the purchase date pinned down before anything else happens, because that single date can decide the case on its own.
Who Can Actually Be Held Responsible
A vaping claim rarely has one obvious defendant, and the list is worth working through in order:
- The device manufacturer, for the design of the housing, venting, and protection circuitry
- The battery cell manufacturer, where a specific cell failed or was marketed for a use it was never rated for
- The e-liquid formulator, for what the fluid contained and what the label disclosed
- The distributor or importer that brought the product into the country
- The retailer or vape shop, particularly where it sold loose cells, paired an incompatible charger, or sold to a minor
Many of the companies at the top of that chain are overseas, which ordinarily would leave an injured person with no one to sue. Indiana anticipated this. Under IC 34-20-2-4, where a court cannot hold jurisdiction over a manufacturer, that manufacturer’s principal distributor or seller over whom the court can hold jurisdiction is treated as the manufacturer for purposes of the claim. In practice that provision is what keeps a case alive when the device came from a factory no Indiana court can reach, and identifying the domestic entity in the chain becomes the central investigative task.
The Evidence That Decides These Cases
Physical evidence carries vaping claims, and most of it gets thrown away in the first week.
Keep the device, the battery, the charger, the pods or cartridges, and the packaging, even if they are burned or in pieces, and do not let anyone from a manufacturer or an insurer take them without a written agreement about how they will be stored and examined. Photograph the damage and the scene before anything is cleaned up. Locate the receipt, the order confirmation email, or the card statement, because that establishes the purchase date the repose period runs from. Get medical treatment documented immediately, and tell the provider exactly what happened, since a chart that says the product involved is worth far more later than one that says burn to right thigh.
Those steps are the difference between a claim an engineer can reconstruct and one that comes down to memory. Our product liability team sends preservation demands early for that reason.
What Product Claims Have Recovered
Defective product cases are among the largest results Christie Bell & Marshall has obtained. A \$30,500,000 recovery went to a client trapped when a defective garage door failed, a claim that came down to what the equipment was designed to do and what it actually did, and a separate \$30,000,000 recovery went to a client who suffered severe burns over 50% of the body. Further outcomes are listed on the case results page. Past results cannot guarantee what any individual case will produce, because every claim turns on its own facts.
Where a vaping injury proves fatal, the claim proceeds as a wrongful death action with its own filing rules, brought by the personal representative of the estate.
Talk to an Indianapolis Product Liability Lawyer
The first question in a vaping case is not whether the product was dangerous. It is when it was bought, what is left of it, and who in the supply chain an Indiana court can reach. Those three answers determine whether there is a claim at all, and two of them get harder to establish every month.
Bring CBM the device, whatever packaging survived, and any record of the purchase. We will tell you where the deadline stands and whether the chain leads to a defendant worth pursuing, at no cost and with no obligation. Reach the firm through the contact page.
FAQs About Vaping and E-Cigarette Lawsuits
Are vaping lawsuits still being filed today?
Yes, though the mix has shifted. Battery and device failure cases are filed steadily because the physical evidence supports them. Lung injury and addiction claims are filed less often now, mostly because of the ten-year repose period rather than because the injuries stopped happening.
Do I have a case if I bought the cartridge from a friend rather than a store?
It is much harder. CDC linked most EVALI cases to THC-containing products from informal sources, and those products usually have no traceable manufacturer, no label, and no purchase record. Without a defendant who made or sold the product in the chain of commerce, there is generally no product liability claim, whatever the medical picture shows.
What if I was under 18 when I started vaping?
Being a minor does not extend the ten-year repose period, which the statute applies regardless of minority or legal disability. The two-year accrual deadline is treated differently for minors under Indiana law generally, so the two limits have to be checked separately and early. Anyone in that situation should get a date-specific answer instead of assuming time remains.
Can I sue the vape shop that sold me the device?
Sometimes. A retailer that sold loose battery cells, supplied a mismatched charger, modified a device, or sold to a minor may face its own claim. And where the actual manufacturer is beyond the court’s reach, Indiana law can treat the principal distributor or seller as the manufacturer, which puts a domestic business squarely in the case.
What health effects are linked to e-cigarettes?
CDC maintains current guidance on e-cigarettes and vaping, covering nicotine dependence, effects on the developing adolescent brain, and respiratory effects. A legal claim needs more than a recognized association, though: it needs a specific product, an identified defendant, and medical proof connecting the two.
Call 317-488-5500 or complete a Free Case Evaluation form
