OLYMPIA, Wash. (Legal Newsline) - Washington raspberry farmers will get a second chance to sue Syngenta over an herbicide they said ruined their plants after a Washington appeals court said a U.S. Supreme Court decision forced the reversal of a lower court’s dismissal of their claims.
Five farms sued Syngenta and a local agent after they said Calisto herbicide destroyed their plants in 2012 and caused growing problems for several years after. A trial court dismissed their cases, ruling the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempted their claims based on violations of an express warranty.
The Calisto label included a disclaimer that “it is impossible to eliminate all risks inherently associated with use of this product.” It also gave detailed instructions for use with raspberries. The plaintiffs argued that constituted a warranty the product wouldn’t hurt their crops, while Syngenta argued any claims involving the label were preempted by FIFRA.
The trial court ruled for the defense and dismissed the cases. But the Washington Court of Appeals reversed in a Sept. 6 decision, ruling that the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Bates v. Dow Agrosciences held FIFRA didn’t bar state-law claims including violation of an express warranty. In that decision, the high court said peanut farmers’ defective design, manufacturing and warranty claims didn’t affect FIFRA’s control over herbicide labeling.
Syngenta also argued its warning that it was impossible to eliminate all the risks associated with the product limited its warranty liability. “To the extent that the disclaimer’s first sentence may be read to negate the effect of the express warranty, it is inoperative,” however, the appeals court ruled.