989 N.E.2d 339
Ind. Ct. App.2013Background
- Gressers sued Dow for product liability under IPLA and Reliable for negligence over Dow’s termiticide Dursban TC applied Feb 2000.
- Dursban TC was EPA-registered and its label and warnings were approved by regulatory agencies.
- Gressers moved into a house with a strong odor and later suffered illnesses; they moved out in 2002.
- Dow sought summary judgment on IPLA failure-to-warn and defect claims, and on federal preemption; Reliable sought summary judgment and to strike expert evidence.
- The trial court granted some of Dow’s and Reliable’s motions (including preemption) and denied others; the appellate court granted in part, denied in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
- The opinion discusses IPLA standards, FIFRA presumption, causation expert admissibility, punitive damages, and federal preemption under PLIVA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| IPLA claims—effect of FIFRA presumption | Gressers argue product could be defective despite EPA label | Dow argues EPA/FIFRA registration creates a presumption of non-defect | Partial: Dow entitled to judgment on defect/design; presumption under IPLA respected but defeated on some theories. |
| Exclusion of expert causation evidence | Reigart and Meggs provide causation evidence linking exposure to illness | Expert opinions rely on inadmissible bases or insufficient grounding | Trial court did not abuse discretion; admission of Reigart and Meggs upheld. |
| Reliable's negligence defense—duty and foreseeability | Gressers allege duty to warn foreseeable occupants | No duty to unidentified future buyers | Duty to warn found; Reliable’s negligence defense defeated. |
| Punitive damages | Evidence shows gross negligence and deliberate disregard | Insufficient to warrant punitive damages as a matter of law | There is a genuine issue of material fact; denial of summary judgment affirmed. |
| Federal preemption under PLIVA/Mensing | State IPLA claims preempted by federal labeling standards | No preemption bar; state law can aid FIFRA objectives | Preemption not supported for some claims; vacates trial court’s grant; remands for proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. 2567 (U.S. 2011) (conflict preemption; impossibility to comply with both laws)
- Dow Chemical Co. v. Ebling, 753 N.E.2d 633 (Ind. 2001) (state tort labeling may aid FIFRA objectives)
- Outlaw v. Erbrich Prods. Co., 777 N.E.2d 14 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (excludes causation when solely temporal relationship)
- Kannankeril v. Terminix Int., Inc., 128 F.3d 802 (3d Cir.1997) (exposure-based causation with differential diagnosis upheld)
- Webb v. Jarvis, 575 N.E.2d 992 (Ind.1991) (duty factors balancing public policy; foreseeability)
- Hottinger v. Trugreen Corp., 665 N.E.2d 593 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (admissibility of expert testimony based on exposure and medical history)