ELR Citation: ELR 20773
No(s). 93-3092 (W.D. Ark. Sep 26, 1994)

The court holds that Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) §24(b) preempts orchard owners' state-law claims against a fungicide manufacturer premised on failure to warn and inadequate labeling or packaging, but that the manufacturer may be estopped from asserting preemption if it withheld material facts from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning packaging or labeling defects in the fungicide. The court first holds that nothing in FIFRA §24(b)'s text indicates that courts should distinguish between its preemptive effect on inadequate labeling claims and its preemptive effect on inadequate packaging claims. The court holds, therefore, that §24(b) preempts the orchard owners' negligence and strict liability claims to the extent they premise them on failure to warn and inadequate packaging and labeling.

The court holds that the fungicide manufacturer may be estopped from asserting preemption of the packaging and labeling claims, because the orchard owners have introduced evidence showing that the manufacturer may have intentionally concealed material facts about the fungicide from EPA. The orchard owners allege that the manufacturer was aware that its label did not accurately state the product's ingredients; that its product was three times denser than labeled, thus causing an error in the prescribed application rate; and that the packaging leaked. The court holds that the company may be estopped from asserting FIFRA preemption to the extent that it withheld material facts from the agency, either at the time of registration or thereafter, and that if the evidence warrants, whether or not the factual predicate for estoppel exists will be submitted to the jury. The court notes that this holding furthers federal control of pesticide labeling and packaging, and protects the integrity of the pesticide regulation process by giving pesticide manufacturers in incentive to place all relevant facts before EPA lest they lose the coveted benefits of FIFRA preemption.

The court holds that the orchard owners' breach of express warranty claims should survive the manufacturer's summary judgment motion, even to the extent that they depend on statements made on the EPA-approved label. The court rejects the Fourth Circuit's reasoning in Worm v. American Cyanamid Co., 24 ELR 20120 (1993), that FIFRA preempts express warranty claims based on statements made on an EPA-approved label, because the state did not impose the terms of the warranty. The court also holds that FIFRA preempts the orchard owners' implied warranty claims to the extent that they guarantee the adequacy of the fungicide's labeling or packaging, because these claims depend entirely on state-law-imposed obligations. Finally, the court refuses to address the orchard owners' claims that the manufacturer violated various FIFRA duties unrelated to labeling and packaging because the manufacturer did not move to dismiss these claims.

Counsel for Plaintiffs
J. Bruce McMath
McMath Law Firm
711 W. Third St., P.O. Box 1401, Little Rock AR 72203
(501) 376-3021

Counsel for Defendant
W. Michael Adams
Wright, Lindsey & Jennings
2200 Worthen Bank Bldg., 200 W. Capitol Ave., Little Rock AR 72201
(501) 371-0808