 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Peterson v. BASF Corp.3/11/2003
time of application.
The jury was presented with conflicting evidence as to whether the products were the same, and the jury was also presented with explanations as to why seeming differences were not significant. Although another fact-finder might have reached a different result, the jury clearly had evidence from which it could conclude that Poast and Poast Plus were the same product, and we will not substitute our judgment for that of the jury.
Preemption
BASF next argues that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. § 136a (2000), under which EPA registration is required, preempts private causes of action based on alleged abuse of pesticide regulations. It contends that, in any event, it proceeded legally under these provisions.
The farmers moved to strike this claim, contending that this court has already considered and rejected this argument in Peterson I. A careful reading of Peterson I, however, shows that this court did not explicitly address preemption; therefore, we will do so here. Peterson I, 618 N.W.2d at 824.
Pesticides are subject to federal regulation. 7 U.S.C. § 136a(a). " tate shall not impose or continue in effect any requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from those required" by federal law. Id. § 136v(b) (2000). Common-law tort actions have been interpreted to constitute such forbidden requirements. Goeb v. Tharaldson, 615 N.W.2d 800, 817 (Minn. 2000). Consequently, federal courts "uniformly hold that FIFRA preempts claims relating to labeling and packaging of federally-registered pesticides." Goeb, 615 N.W.2d at 817 (citations omitted).
BASF cites several recent federal cases that it contends support its claims of preemption. Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Comm., 531 U.S. 341, 353, 121 S. Ct. 1012, 1020 (2001) (holding fraud-on-the-agency claims preempted); Kimmel v. Dowelanco, 275 F.3d 1199, 1206 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that where allegations of fraud on the EPA and abuse-of-labeling process give rise to party's intentional-interference-with-prospective-business-advantage claim, claim is preempted); Dahlman Farms, Inc. v. FMC Corp., ___ F.Supp.2d ___, 2002 WL 31750005 (D. Minn. Dec. 2, 2002) (holding consumer-fraud claims based on label and off-label statements that were essentially the same were preempted).
In Buckman, the Supreme Court held that federal law preempts the state law claim where "the existence of these federal enactments is a critical element." 531 U.S. at 353, 121 S. Ct. at 1020. BASF contends that the farmers' regulator-abuse claims likewise make the federal regulations a "critical element." But in Buckman, the claims existed "solely by virtue of the FDCA disclosure requirements." Id. Here, the farmers' claims were based on BASF's misleading statements and omissions as to the EPA-authorized uses of the products, not on claims that BASF committed fraud in the labeling or packaging.
BASF's reliance on Dahlman Farms is similarly misplaced. There, Dahlman's corn crop was damaged after he applied defendant's herbicide pursuant to the label instructions and following assurances from the defendant's salesmen that the herbicide was safe for use on seed corn crops. Id. at ___, 2002 WL 31750005, at * 1. Dahlman sued under Minnesota's consumer fraud statute claiming, among other things, that the defendant committed consumer fraud by making off-label statements in its advertising that misrepresented the efficacy of the product. Id. at ___, 2002 WL 31750005, at * 7. The trial court held that Dahlman's claims were preempted because the off-label advertising statements concerning the efficacy of the product were essentially
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|