Background
Brianne Dressen participated in an AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine trial in 2020 and signed an informed-consent form that disclosed potential limits on her right to sue under federal law. After suffering medical injuries, she filed a breach-of-contract suit alleging the company failed to compensate her as promised in the form. AstraZeneca moved to dismiss, claiming immunity under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, but the district court denied the motion, ruling that the Act only shields against tortious conduct, not contract claims.
The court’s reasoning
The court held that the plain text of the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act immunizes covered persons from all claims for loss, regardless of whether the claim is framed in tort or contract. The statute defines loss expansively to include any type of loss, and the court found no basis to read an implicit exception for contract claims. The court further determined that the denial of this statutory immunity from suit satisfied the third requirement of the collateral-order doctrine, allowing for immediate appellate review to protect the substantial public interest in avoiding the burdens of litigation for those entitled to immunity.
We reverse the district court and hold that the statute immunizes all claims for loss, including breach-of-contract damages.
Dressen v. AstraZeneca AB, No. 24-4114 (10th Cir. July 23, 2026)
What it means going forward
Vaccine manufacturers and other covered persons under the PREP Act are now protected from breach-of-contract lawsuits related to the administration of covered countermeasures, provided no waiver of immunity is found. This ruling reinforces the broad scope of statutory immunity intended to encourage the development of medical countermeasures during public health emergencies.