Ansagay v. Dow Agrosciences LLC
153 F. Supp. 3d 1270
D. Haw.2015Background
- Dow manufactured and sold the pesticide Dursban TC (active ingredient: chlorpyrifos), registered with the EPA under FIFRA and sold with an EPA-approved label containing safety warnings and a warranty disclaimer.
- From 1988–1991 Benjamin Ansagay applied Dursban TC frequently and admitted he did not wear the respirator recommended on the label; co-workers were allegedly told distributors claimed the product was safe and would “flush out.”
- Ansagay later developed infertility, depression, and lung cancer and died in 2014; his wife (on behalf of herself, his estate, and their child) sued Dow in Hawaii state court asserting wrongful death, negligence, breach of warranties, strict product liability, defective design/testing/manufacture, and emotional distress claims.
- Dow removed the case and moved for summary judgment arguing FIFRA preempts all state-law claims because compliance with state duties would conflict with FIFRA and EPA-approved labeling.
- The court denied summary judgment, holding FIFRA does not preempt the asserted state-law claims under the controlling framework in Bates and related precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FIFRA preempts the state-law claims | Ansagay: claims (negligence, strict liability, warranty, design/testing) do not impose additional labeling requirements and therefore are not preempted | Dow: state tort duties would impose labeling/packaging requirements or otherwise make it impossible to comply with FIFRA/EPA-approved label | Denied — most claims not preempted; FIFRA preempts only state requirements that impose labeling/packaging requirements additional to or different from FIFRA (Bates test) |
| Whether implied (impossibility) preemption applies | Ansagay: Bates controls and preserves state-law claims; Mensing/Bartlett (FDCA cases) are distinguishable | Dow: even if Bates, impossibility preemption (as in Mensing/Bartlett) should bar claims because federal law required sale with approved label | Denied — Bates implicitly rejects broad impossibility preemption under FIFRA; Mensing/Bartlett inapplicable (different statutory regime and generic-drug context) |
| Whether express and implied warranty claims are preempted | Ansagay: express warranty claims are contractual and not state-imposed labeling requirements; implied warranties likewise do not require label changes | Dow: warranty claims conflict with FIFRA labeling/registration | Denied — express warranty claims are not preempted; EPA allows certain warranty revisions without registration, so compliance not impossible |
| Whether a federally approved label conclusively establishes legal adequacy of warnings under Restatement §402A | Ansagay: federal approval does not automatically immunize manufacturer from state-law defect or design claims | Dow: an EPA-approved warning should bar claims under §402A or at least establish adequacy | Denied — federal approval is not a categorical bar; adequacy remains a question for the law/fact framework and Bates preserves state law roles |
Key Cases Cited
- Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009) (federal approval of labeling does not give manufacturers indefinite immunity from state-law duties; agency approval is not the final word on safety for all time)
- Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (1996) (Congressional intent is the touchstone of preemption analysis; presumption against preemption)
- Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005) (FIFRA’s express preemption limited to state labeling/packaging requirements that are additional or different; preserves broad state-law role for design, testing, warranty, and common-law claims)
- Pliva, Inc. v. Mensing, 564 U.S. 604 (2011) (FDCA/generic-drug context holding that impossibility preemption applies where federal law forbids unilateral label changes by generic manufacturers)
- Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000) (state law may be preempted if it frustrates the federal law’s purpose)
- Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (1992) (express preemption clauses guide courts to discern congressional intent regarding displacement of state law)
- City of Columbus v. Ours Garage & Wrecker Serv., Inc., 536 U.S. 424 (2002) (when two statutory interpretations are plausible, adopt the one disfavoring preemption)