Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Environmental Law

FIFRA Preempts State Law Packaging and Labeling Claims
Alleging Failure to Warn

Eric H. Foy
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Essenmacher v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 216 Fed. App'x 521 (6th Cir. 2007), the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the district court, which had denied a plaintiff's motion to vacate an arbitration award. The plaintiff, a homeowner, brought an action against a pest exterminator to recover for injuries sustained as a result of exterminator's allegedly negligent pesticide application. The instant court refused to vacate the arbitration award, holding that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempted the plaintiff's failure-to-warn claims.

Background

The plaintiff hired Orkin Exterminating Co. (Orkin) to spray her house for carpenter ants and wasps. Id. at 522. The two parties entered into a contract under which Orkin would spray the plaintiff's house once a month and either party could opt to resolve any disputes through arbitration. Id. After Orkin sprayed the plaintiff's house for a few months, she got sick and was forced to move out of her house. Id. Thereafter, the plaintiff brought suit against Orkin alleging negligence, violations of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, intentional misrepresentation, silent fraud, innocent misrepresentation, and trespass. Id. Orkin successfully moved to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration pursuant to the parties' contract. Id. After ten days of testimony and argument, the court held that Orkin negligently applied one pesticide; however, all other claims were decided in favor of Orkin. Id. The plaintiff then unsuccessfully moved to vacate the arbitration award and obtain her litigation costs. Id. The plaintiff then timely appealed. Id.

Arguments

The plaintiff argued that the arbitrators ignored negligence legal standards because "the factual record compelled a finding of negligence." Id. at 522-23. She also argued that "the arbitrators erred as a matter of law by deciding that FIFRA preempted her failure-to-warn claims." Id. at 523.

Analysis and Holdings

In response to the plaintiff's first argument, that the factual record compelled a finding of negligence, the court held that it could not consider the merits of the arbitration award because doing so would be outside of its powers. Id. Regardless, the court held that the factual record was "more than sufficient to allow the arbitrators to reach the legal conclusions they did." Id.

The court then addressed whether the arbitrators erred in deciding that FIFRA preempted the plaintiff's failure-to-warn claims. Id. The court held that this issue was immaterial because the panel ruled in favor of Orkin on each of the failure-to-warn allegations. Id. For this reason, the court found no justification for vacating the panel's decision. Id.

The case was decided on February 6, 2007.