719 S.W.3d 755
Mo. Ct. App.2025Background
- Three consolidated personal-injury actions (Anderson, Draeger, Gunther) alleged Roundup (glyphosate) exposure caused plaintiffs' non-Hodgkin's lymphoma; claims: strict liability (design), strict liability (failure to warn), and negligence; Mrs. Draeger asserted loss of consortium.
- Trial (Oct–Nov 2023) followed extensive pretrial practice including appointment of two special masters to resolve motions in limine and Daubert-type challenges.
- Jury returned verdicts for plaintiffs on liability; compensatory awards: $38M (Anderson), $5.6M (Draeger), $17.5M (Gunther); punitive awards: $500M each.
- Trial court granted Monsanto's remittitur motion in part, reducing punitive awards to $342M (Anderson), $50.4M (Draeger), $157.5M (Gunther) (approximately 9:1 punitive-to-compensatory ratios).
- Monsanto appealed seven points (evidence rulings, exposure methodology, medical-billing evidence, punitive damages/credits, and FIFRA preemption); the Missouri Western District Court of Appeals affirmed in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert testimony about the Ninth Circuit NRDC opinion (use to attack EPA reports) | Expert testimony explaining NRDC decision and regulatory context was relevant to impeach EPA-based defense and explain registration history. | Judicial opinions and expert testimony about them are categorically inadmissible and prejudicial; such testimony misleads jury and usurps judicial role. | Admission upheld: judicial opinions are not per se inadmissible; testimony was logically relevant to rebut Monsanto's reliance on EPA reports and was not shown to be unfairly prejudicial. |
| Expert exposure testimony using intensity-weighted lifetime days (IWLD) claimed as undisclosed opinion | IWLD was a standard retrospective-exposure method used to show plaintiffs’ exposures exceeded epidemiological thresholds; expert explained methodology and was cross-examined. | IWLD calculations were not disclosed in discovery and contradicted prior deposition statements, causing unfair surprise. | Overruled: objection was untimely/waived; Monsanto failed to show unfair surprise or inability to cross-examine; no abuse of discretion. |
| Admission of billed medical expenses (vs. amounts paid) | Parties stipulated to billed and paid amounts; Missouri law permits admission of billed amounts (Brancati). | Only amounts actually paid are recoverable; choice-of-law (CA/NY plaintiffs) should bar admission of billed amounts. | Admission affirmed: trial court followed Missouri precedent; choice-of-law objections were not preserved/timely and no prejudicial error shown. |
| Punitive damages: duplicative awards / statutory credits / excessiveness (due process) | Punitive awards warranted by reprehensibility; trial court reduced awards by remittitur to address duplicative concerns. | Awards were duplicative across plaintiffs and prior cases; Monsanto sought statutory credit under §510.263.4 and argued due-process gross-excessive punishment. | Affirmed: remittitur addressed duplication among plaintiffs; Monsanto failed to establish entitlement to statutory credit; remitted 9:1 ratios comported with due process under State Farm guideposts. |
| Preemption by FIFRA (express or implied) | State-law design/failure-to-warn/negligence claims are not preempted; FIFRA does not foreclose state tort remedies and no irreconcilable conflict shown. | FIFRA (and EPA registration process) preempts state failure-to-warn and related claims (relying on some other circuits). | Denied: court adopted Eastern District's Durnell analysis—FIFRA does not expressly or impliedly preempt plaintiffs' claims under the record and law presented. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nat. Res. Def. Council v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 38 F.4th 34 (9th Cir. 2022) (vacated human-health portion of EPA interim decision on glyphosate for not following agency cancer-guidelines; remanded)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (U.S. 2003) (three guideposts for reviewing punitive-damage excessiveness)
- Gamble v. Browning, 379 S.W.3d 194 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (judicial findings have special potency; admissibility assessed under logical/legal relevance framework)
- Durnell v. Monsanto Co., 707 S.W.3d 828 (Mo. App. E.D. 2025) (FIFRA does not preempt state-law failure-to-warn claims; adopted by this court)
- Schaffner v. Monsanto Corp., 113 F.4th 364 (3d Cir. 2024) (discussed by parties regarding FIFRA preemption in other jurisdictions)
- Elam v. Alcolac, Inc., 765 S.W.2d 42 (Mo. App. W.D. 1988) (permitting trial court mechanisms to avoid redundant punitive awards)