Summary of a Recent
Judicial
Development in
Pesticides
FIFRA Preempts All Claims Brought
Against Manufacturer
Patricia FarneseNational AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
In an action brought by a seed corn and seed soybean producer against a herbicide manufacturer for negligent testing and labeling, strict liability, breach of express and implied warranties, false advertising, and consumer fraud when the producer's crop was damaged by a herbicide, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota has ruled that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. §§ 136-136y, preempted each of the producer's claims. Dahlman Farms, Inc. v. FMC Corporation, 240 F. Supp.2d 1012, 1021 (D. Minn. 2002).
Dahlman Farms, Inc. (Dahlman Farms), was a Minnesota corporation that produced seed corn and seed soybeans. See id. at 1014. In 1999, Craig Dahlman, who was a partial owner of Dahlman Farms, purchased a herbicide known as AIM to use on Dahlman Farm's corn seed crop. See id. He decided to purchase AIM after reading on the label that AIM "‘is designed to be mixed with water and applied to corn (field, seed, popcorn, and silage) for selective postemergence control of broadleaf weeds.'" Id. The AIM label also stated that "‘[d]ue to environmental conditions and certain spray tank additives, some herbicidal symptoms may appear on the crop. However, the crop recovers quickly with no loss in yield." Id. Craig Dahlman also consulted with a salesperson who sold AIM and Dahlman Farm's crop consultant, "both of whom told him that AIM was safe for use on seed corn." Id.
Although Craig Dahlman applied AIM according to the instructions on the label, some of his crop experienced a condition known as "leaf wrap" or "buggy whipping," a condition which "severely damages or kills leaves wrapped around the outside of a plant, thereby preventing the plant from fully emerging." Id. at 1015. Craig reported this problem to FMC Corporation (FMC), the manufacturer of AIM. See id. FMC sent a representative to Dahlman Farms and offered to hire laborers to strip the damaged leaves from the plants. See id. Fearing further damage to his crop, Craig Dahlman refused FMC's offer. See id. A number of the seed corn plants died and others were badly damaged or suffered development delays. See id.
Dahlman Farms brought an action in state court against FMC in May, 2001. See id. FMC subsequently removed the case to federal district court and filed a motion for summary judgment. See id. Dahlman Farms alleged that FMC was liable for its loss under Minnesota law for negligent testing, negligent labeling, strict liability, breach of express and implied warranties, false advertising pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 325F.67, and consumer fraud pursuant to Minn. Stat § 32F.69. See id. FMC argued that each of Dahlman Farm's claims were preempted by the FIFRA or, in the alternative barred by the Minnesota economic loss doctrine. See id. FMC also argued that "to the extent [Dahlman Farm's] claims are not preempted or barred, a limitation of remedies provision found on the AIM label limits [Dahlman Farm's] recovery to the amount it paid to purchase the AIM." Id.
The FIFRA provides that a state "shall not impose or continue in effect any requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from those required under [the FIFRA]." Id. (citing 7 U.S.C. § 136v(b)). FMC argued that this clause preempted Dahlman Farm's claims because its claims were "premised on the inadequacy of the EPA-approved AIM label, which stated that AIM could be used on seed corn and that such use would not result in a loss of yield." Id. Dahlman Farms argued that the "FIFRA's preemptive scope did not extend to claims based on the inadequacy of statements relating to pesticide efficacy" because these statements were not required by the EPA. Id. at 1016.
The district court disagreed with Dahlman Farm's position, stating that it "is not supported by the language or purpose of the FIFRA's preemption clause." Id. at 1017. It noted that § 136v(b) prohibits any state requirements "in addition to or different from" those required by the FIFRA. See id. Consequently, "the scope of the provision is not limited to state requirements that overlap federal requirements." Id. (emphasis supplied). The court noted that "allowing states to impose such requirements could result in 50 different sets of requirements, each one potentially conflicting with some or all of the others, thereby frustrating the FIFRA's objective of establishing a uniform system of pesticide labeling requirements." Id. at 1018. The court also noted that there was no support for Dahlman Farm's position in Eighth Circuit decisions interpreting § 136(v)(b). See id. at 1019.
The court explained that common law rules can be a "requirement" for the purpose of the FIFRA's preemption clause. See id. at 1016. Thus, it held that because each of Dahlman Farm's claims are "premised on the inadequacy of statements related to pesticide efficacy," they were preempted by the FIFRA. Id. at 1021. Specifically, the court determined that Dahlman Farm's claim for inadequate testing was actually a claim for inadequate labeling and was therefore preempted by the FIFRA. See id. at 1019. Likewise, the court determined that Dahlman Farm's claim for negligent labeling was also preempted by the FIFRA because the claim did not arise from the defects in AIM's design or manufacture. See id.
Noting that previous Eighth Circuit decisions have determined that the FIFRA preempts claims for breach of express and implied warranties, the district court ruled that those claims were also preempted by the FIFRA. See id. at 1020 (citing Netland v. Hess & Clark, Inc., 284 F.3d 895, 898 (8th Cir. 2002), National Bank of Commerce of El Dorado, Arkansas v. Dow Chemical Co., 165 F.3d 602, 608 (8th Cir. 1999)). In addition, the court determined that Dahlman Farm's claim that AIM's label violated Minn. Stat. § 325F.67 because it was "false and misleading" was a "direct attack on the EPA-approved AIM label." Id. Therefore, the court ruled that the claim was also preempted by the FIFRA. See id. Similarly, the court ruled that Dahlman Farm's allegation that FMC committed consumer fraud through off-label claims of the product's suitability for use on seed corn by FMC's representative in violation of Minn. Stat. § 325F.69, was preempted by the FIFRA. See id.
The case was decided on December 2, 2002; this summary was posted April, 2003