Summary of a Recent
Judicial
Development in
Pesticides
Plaintiffs Claims Against Pesticide
Manufacturers Precluded
Joshua Thomas CrainNational AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
Summary of Decision
In Starr v. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, 339 F.Supp.2d 1097 (D. Or. 2004), the United States District Court for the District of Oregon granted pesticide manufacturers' motion for summary judgment because the manufacturers effectively disclaimed liability under the breach of contract claim and because the limitations period had already run on the negligence claim.
Background
In March of 2001, several mint farmers (hereinafter plaintiffs) applied the herbicide "Goal" to their crops. See id. The plaintiffs asserted that Goal caused their crop yields to decline. See id. "Goal" was manufactured by defendants Dow Agrosciences, LLC and two other manufacturers. See id. As a result of the alleged damage, the plaintiffs brought an action against the defendants for breach of contract, negligence, and gross negligence. See id. The case was removed to federal court, and the defendants filed for summary judgment. See id.
Analysis and Holding
The court first explained that the parties had devoted considerable time to the issue of preemption under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), but that the issue would not be addressed by the court because the plaintiffs' claims failed on state law grounds. See id. The court explained that the plaintiffs' claims failed because the defendants effectively disclaimed liability for the damages sought in connection with the breach of contract claim and the limitations period had run on the plaintiffs' negligence claims. See id.
The court first addressed the plaintiffs' breach of contract claim. See id. It explained that the breach of contract claim arose out of an alleged breach of implied warranties and warranties of fitness for a particular purpose. See id. It also explained that the Oregon legislature had adopted Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code, which provides that sellers may disclaim liability for consequential damages. See id. The court stated that the "Goal" label clearly sought to limit the liability on warranty claims and that the plaintiffs did not dispute that the losses they suffered were consequential and that the label's disclaimer was appropriately designed to be effective. See id. The court held, therefore, that the plaintiffs' claim under breach of contract was prevented by the valid disclaimer. See id.
Turning to the issue of negligence, the court addressed the fact that the label did not address a disclaimer of the defendants' negligence. See id. The court explained that, under Oregon law, to contract away liability for negligence the intent to do so must be clear and unequivocal. See id. The court held, therefore, that the label did not effectively disclaim liability based upon negligence. See id. The court determined, however, that the negligence action was barred by the statute of limitations. See id. The court stated that even though the parties agreed that the applicable statute of limitations period was two years, there was disagreement concerning whether the "discover rule" applied. See id. The plaintiffs argued that the discover rule applied, effectively tolling the running of the limitations period until the plaintiffs either knew or reasonably should have known of their claim. See id. The defendants, on the other hand, argued that the discovery rule did not apply, effectively beginning the limitations period at the time of injury. See id.
The court explained that it was irrelevant whether the discovery rule applied because in either event the plaintiffs were beyond the limitations period. See id. The court explained that even applying the discovery rule, the plaintiffs themselves admitted that they knew of the claim more than two years prior to their filing suit. See id.
The case was decided on August 11, 2004; this summary was posted Mar. 24, 2005.