ELR Citation: ELR 20120
No(s). 93-1003 (4th Cir. Sep 15, 1993)

The court holds that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act(FIFRA) preempts state common-law claims of negligent marketing, negligent failure to warn, breach of warranty, and strict liability for false representation that arise from alleged inadequacies of label warnings. Commercial farmers sued a chemical manufacturer for damages to the farmers' corn crops allegedly sustained when the carryover effect of an herbicide intended for use on soybeans turned out to be longer than the 11 months indicated on the label. The manufacturer later acknowledged the possibility of a prolonged carryover effect in drought conditions. The court holds that state common-law causes of action that are based on an alleged failure to warn or communicate information about a product through its labeling are preempted by FIFRA. FIFRA's labeling process is comprehensive, and §136v(b) of FIFRA expressly prohibits state labeling requirements in addition to or different from federal labeling requirements. Because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined that the language on the herbicide label complied with federal standards, the claim that the label warnings are inadequate under state law seeks to hold the label to a different standard. The court also holds that FIFRA preemption extends to promotional material that contains warning language identical to that approved by EPA for labeling purposes. The court next holds that the farmers' breach of warranty claims are preempted, because the manufacturer's statements were approved by EPA and the statements were not voluntary, since FIFRA's regulations require information concerning rotational crop use to be included on labels. The court further holds that, although FIFRA does not preempt state common-law claims for negligent testing, manufacturing, and formulating, the district court properly entered summary judgment on these claims, because the farmers failed to present sufficient evidence to proceed to trial. Finally, the court holds that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the farmers' motion for additional discovery after the case had been remanded.

Counsel for Plaintiffs
Patti Goldman
Public Citizen Litigation Group
2000 P St. NW, Ste. 700, Washington DC 20036
(202) 833-3000

Counsel for Defendant
Raymond G. Mullady Jr.
Piper & Marbury
Charles Ctr. S., 36 S. Charles St., Baltimore MD 21201
(410) 539-2530

Counsel for Amicus Curiae
Lawrence S. Ebner
McKenna & Cuneo
1575 Eye St. NW, Washington DC 20005
(202) 789-7500

Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and G. ROSS ANDERSON Jr., United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina, sitting by designation.