Agrofollajes, S.A. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.
2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 18327
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Consolidated mass tort by 27 Costa Rican leatherleaf fern growers against Du Pont over Benlate damage.
- Plaintiffs alleged cross-contamination and DBU formation as Benlate DF breakdowns caused harm.
- Trial court consolidated 27 cases; Du Pont objected to consolidation and sought severance.
- Trial produced identical verdicts: 60% of past damages for all plaintiffs, future damages denied.
- Court found consolidation improper due to disparate facts; ordered new separate trials.
- Court addressed Costa Rican statute of limitations, evidence of prior claims, settlements, and expert testimony issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was consolidation of 27 claims proper? | Du Pont challenges predomination of common issues. | Consolidation saves time; common risk linked all plaintiffs. | No; consolidation improper; remand for separate trials. |
| When does the Costa Rican ten-year statute start? | Knew or should have known when damage and cause were known. | Limitations began at injury occurrence. | Knew-or-should-have-known rule affirmed; statute proper as defined. |
| Was evidence of prior non-parties’ Benlate claims admissible? | Not substantially similar; notice relevance. | Prior claims show notice to Du Pont. | Erroneous; not substantially similar; inadmissible. |
| Was evidence of settlements admissible to prove notice? | Settlements show awareness of defect. | Settlement evidence fair to prove notice. | Error; settlement evidence excluded. |
| Was the consumer-expectation jury instruction proper for Benlate? | Consumer expectation supports defect finding for Benlate. | Third Restatement approach not applicable to Benlate. | Error; instruction improper; consumer-expectation cannot standalone. |
Key Cases Cited
- State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Bonham, 886 So.2d 1072 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (five-factor guidance on consolidation vs. separation of trials)
- In re Brooklyn Navy Yard Asbestos Litigation, 971 F.2d 831 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1992) (caution against aggregated mass trials compromising individual justice)
- Friedman v. DeSoto Park N. Condo. Ass'n, 678 So.2d 391 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (disfavor consolidation where majority facts are disparate)
- Cain v. Armstrong World Industries, 785 F. Supp. 1448 (S.D. Ala. 1992) (identical damages in consolidated trials signal prejudice)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Hall-Edwards, 971 So.2d 854 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (notice that probative value of evidence may be outweighed by prejudice)
- Arky, Freed, Stearns, Watson, Greer, Weaver & Harris, P.A. v. Bowmar Instrument Corp., 537 So.2d 561 (Fla. 1988) (pleading specificity principles and Arky rule cited)
- Kohler Co. v. Marcotte, 907 So.2d 596 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (Restatement-based approach to consumer design defect issues)
- City of Coral Gables v. Jordan, 186 So.2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966) (settlement evidence prejudicial and destructive to fair trial)