Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Environmental Law

Herbicide Labeling Suits Must Be Brought in Federal Court

Eric H. Foy
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Burdock v. Land O'Lakes, Inc., No. 01-1081, 2002 WL 1585676 (Iowa Ct. App. July 19, 2002), the Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, which had entered summary judgment in favor of the herbicide applicator. Plaintiff farmer sued the applicator in contract and tort alleging damages to his soybean crop stemming from the application of herbicide as part of a rescue operation. The instant court held that the farmer's damages claims were based on the herbicide's label and were therefore preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

Background

In June 1996, the farmer requested Land O'Lakes' services to help save his weed-infested soybean crop. Id. at *1. The rescue operation involved application of the herbicide COBRA. Id. Although the farmer did not allege negligence in the herbicide's application, he did bring suit against Land O'Lakes claiming that COBRA itself damaged his soybean bean crop, and he sought recovery both in tort and contract. Id. Thereafter, Land O'Lakes successfully motioned the trial court for summary judgment. Id. The farmer appealed. Id.

Arguments

The farmer alleged that the company was negligent or breached some contractual right because the herbicide was applied more than seven to ten days after planting, as recommended by its label. Id.

Land O'Lakes argued that the court should dismiss the appeal because of the farmer's "failure to spell out any error in the trial court ruling or how it was preserved." Id.

Analysis and Holdings

The court confirmed the trial court's decision because the farmer's claims were "transparent labeling claims," preempted by FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. § 136v. Id. Therefore, the farmer's lawsuit was not a viable lawsuit in state court. Id.

The case was decided on July 19, 2002.