twenty-two states, have rejected “the contention that a name brand manufacturer’s statements regarding its drug can serve as the basis for liability for injuries caused by another manufacturer’s drug.” Foster v. Am. Home Prods. Corp., 29 F.3d 165, 170 (4th Cir.1994). These courts have arrived at this conclusion through either or both of the analytical avenues specified above, but often do not neatly indicate which route they are selecting. Some of these courts maintain that regardless of the label a generic consumer plaintiff might use (e.g. misrepresentation), she has effectively brought a product liability action and cannot circumvent the product identification requirement of applicable state product liability law. See, e.g., Couick v. Wyeth, Inc., 691 F.Supp.2d 643 (W.D.N.C.2010) (<HOLDING>). Other courts note that no matter whether they
holding that to prevail on strict liability claim for a defective product plaintiff must show the product was defective when it left the defendants possession and control holding that defendants were not in control and therefore were not supervisors and not subject to liability under  1983 holding that although plaintiffs claims were masked in various legal theories they were premised on a single claim of product liability and therefore fell under north carolinas product liability statute recognizing strict product liability actions holding warranty liability and strict liability were both shown by proof a product was defective