Summary of a Recent
Judicial
Development in
Environmental Law
Magnuson Moss Warranty Act Covers Consumer Products
but Not Commercial Products
Eric H. FoyNational AgLaw Center Research Associate
Summary of Decision
In Rogers v. Dow Agrosciences, L.L.C., No. 4:06CV00015, 2006 WL 3147393 (W.D. Va. Oct. 31, 2006), the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia partially denied and partially granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. Because the defendants failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their motions to dismiss the plaintiffs' Magnuson Moss Warranty Act claims, the court denied the defendants' dismissal requests.
Background
The plaintiffs owned a crop of pine trees. Id. at *1. In 2004, the defendants (manufacturers, distributors, and applicators of herbicides) mixed a series of herbicides and sprayed the mixture on the plaintiffs' trees. Id. On September 2, 2005, alleging damages to their trees, the plaintiffs filed suit against the defendants in state court for violation of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act (MMWA), 15 U.S.C. § 2301(1). Id. Enacted in 1975, the MMWA is a federal statute that governs warranties on consumer products. On March 27, 2008, the defendants removed the case to federal court based on diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. Id. In response, the plaintiffs filed a motion to join additional parties and remand. Id. On March 24, 2006, the plaintiffs initiated a separate lawsuit against the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Virginia Department of Forestry, and the Virginia Comptroller (collectively "Virginia defendants"). Id. The Virginia defendants filed a third party complaint, naming the manufacturers, distributors, and applicators the herbicides as third party defendants. Id. The defendants filed motions to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Id.
Arguments
The defendants argued that the plaintiffs' MMWA claim should be dismissed because "the chemicals used … [were] not 'consumer products' as defined by the MMWA, and therefore [did] not fall under this law." Id. at *9. Additionally, the defendants argued that Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) governed the defendants' products warranties and pre-empted the application of the MMWA. Id.
Analysis and Holdings
Although the MMWA applies to consumer products, its coverage does not extend to commercial products. Id. The MMWA defines consumer products as "any tangible personal property which is distributed in commerce and which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes . . . ." Id. (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 2301(1)). The defendants argued that the MMWA did not apply to their herbicides because they were not designed or used for "personal, family, or household purposes." Id. However, because the defendants' pleadings failed to specify who purchased and used the herbicides and the way they were designed to be used, the court assumed they were "widely available and used for household purposes." Id. Therefore, the court could not dismiss on these grounds. Id.
Defendant Dow Agrosciences also argued that the MMWA did "not apply when a written warranty [was] otherwise governed by federal law." Id. Dow Agrosciences argued that because FIFRA gave the Environmental Protection Agency the power to regulate its product labels, the MMWA was not applicable to its products implicated in the instant suit. Id. The court held that it had insufficient evidence "to rule that the products used [were] exclusively governed by FIFRA." Id. at *10.
The case was decided on October 31, 2006.