Contrary to Plaintiffs assertion that this Court is free to divine its own interpretation of public policy, in fact, Pennsylvania courts generally ascertain public policy “by reference to the laws and legal precedents and not from general considerations of supposed public interest.” Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Colbert, 572 Pa. 82, 813 A.2d 747, 752 (2002); Shick v. Shirey, 552 Pa. 590, 716 A.2d 1231, 1237 (1998). As Defendant GSK correctly argues, Pennsylvania courts have recognized the societal importance of new and effective prescription drugs, Gile v. Optical Radiation Corp., 22 F.3d 540, 546 (3d Cir. 1994). To encourage this process, the courts have also recognized the need not to unduly burden the pharmaceutical industry with unfettered liability. Hahn, 673 A.2d at 890-91 (<HOLDING>); Incollingo v. Ewing, 444 Pa. 263, 282 A.2d
recognizing strict product liability actions holding that indemnification by excess liability insurer for punitive damages imposed on drug manufacturer contrary to public policy holding joinder of a hospital medical malpractice claim and a drug manufacturer products liability theory was proper in claim alleging injury from administering a drug holding that notice not required because cercla is a strict liability statute holding on policy grounds that a strict liability claim should not lie against drug manufacturer