ESPOSITO, MARY v. CONTEC, INC., CA 16-00211

Background

Plaintiff Mary Esposito sued Contec, Inc. alleging personal injuries from use of Contec’s fungicide and asserted multiple common-law claims in an amended complaint.
Supreme Court (Onondaga County) granted Contec’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint on the ground that the claims were preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
The appeal challenged dismissal as overbroad, arguing FIFRA does not preempt all state-law claims arising from pesticide-related injuries.
FIFRA requires federal registration and EPA-approved labeling for pesticides and contains an express preemption clause forbidding state requirements for labeling or packaging that are “in addition to or different from” federal requirements.
The US Supreme Court in Bates v. Dow clarified that FIFRA preempts only state requirements that impose additional or different labeling/packaging requirements, not state rules that are parallel or complementary.
The Appellate Division reviewed whether each cause of action sought to impose additional/different labeling requirements (preempted) or asserted non‑labeling theories (not preempted).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failure-to-warn claims are preempted under FIFRA	Esposito argued state failure-to-warn claims can proceed where they do not impose label requirements different from FIFRA	Contec argued any failure-to-warn verdict would effectively impose labeling requirements inconsistent with EPA-approved label and thus is preempted	Court held failure-to-warn claims (1st, 2nd, and parts of 4th asserting failure to warn) are preempted and were properly dismissed
Whether claims alleging promotion/encouragement of unsafe use are preempted	Esposito contended promotion-based claims are tort duties independent of label requirements	Contec contended such claims would force changes to federally approved labeling and are preempted	Court held promotion/encouragement claims (1st and 2nd causes) are preempted and dismissed
Whether breach of warranty and ordinary negligence (non‑labeling theories) are preempted	Esposito argued breach of warranty and negligence based on defective product design/manufacture are distinct from labeling and not preempted	Contec argued broad preemption should cover any state duty related to pesticide safety	Court held warranty and ordinary negligence claims (3rd and 5th causes) are not preempted and were reinstated
Whether strict liability/defective design and manufacture claims are preempted	Esposito argued strict liability and defective design/manufacture claims do not impose label requirements and thus survive FIFRA preemption	Contec argued parts of the 4th cause seeking inadequate warnings are preempted, but design/manufacture theories would also implicate federal scheme	Court held strict liability and defective design/manufacture theories (part of 4th and 6th causes) are not preempted and were reinstated; only the inadequate-warning theory in the 4th cause is preempted

Key Cases Cited

Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (preemption principles under Supremacy Clause)
Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (state common-law rules can be preempted)
Bates v. Dow Agrosciences, 544 U.S. 431 (FIFRA preemption limited to additional/different labeling requirements)
Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218 (congressional intent required to displace state police powers)
Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202 (statutory interpretation in preemption analysis)
Mortellite v. Novartis Crop Protection, Inc., 460 F.3d 483 (FIFRA does not preempt non‑labeling product-defect claims)