989 F. Supp. 2d 735
N.D. Iowa2013Background
- Plaintiffs David and Barbara Stults (Michigan residents) sued flavoring manufacturers (Bush Boake/International Flavors) alleging David developed bronchiolitis obliterans from inhaling diacetyl-containing microwave popcorn (primarily Orville Redenbacher). Suit filed in federal court (diversity).
- Flavoring defendants supplied butter flavorings (containing diacetyl) to microwave popcorn manufacturers (ConAgra); defendants did not manufacture or employ agents in Iowa. Some implicated popcorn was produced/packaged in Iowa; plaintiffs purchased and consumed popcorn in Michigan.
- Industry and public-health events: NIOSH and CDC investigations (Jasper, Gilster-Mary Lee, ConAgra, American Popcorn) identified workplace lung disease linked to diacetyl; EPA Rosati study measured emissions from popping/opening bags; manufacturers and trade groups held meetings and circulated guidance beginning in early 2000s.
- Procedural posture: defendants moved for summary judgment on strict liability, failure-to-warn, negligence and implied warranty claims; core threshold issues were choice of law and statutes of limitations.
- District court applied Iowa choice-of-law rules, found a true conflict between Michigan and Iowa law, concluded Michigan had the most significant relationship, and therefore Michigan substantive law governed. Under Michigan law strict liability is not a products-liability theory and the three-year Michigan statute of limitations (without discovery tolling) barred plaintiffs’ negligence and implied-warranty claims. Derivative loss-of-consortium claim was also dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice of law — which state’s substantive law applies? | Stults argued Iowa law should apply because some popcorn was produced in Iowa. | Defendants argued Michigan law applies (plaintiffs’ residence and injury in Michigan). | Michigan law applies under Restatement (Second) §145/§6 "most significant relationship" test. |
| Viability of strict liability claim | Stults asserted strict liability for defective popcorn/butter flavorings. | Defendants argued Michigan does not recognize strict liability in products cases. | Strict liability claims dismissed: Michigan recognizes negligence and implied warranty only. |
| Applicable statute of limitations for negligence/warranty claims | Stults contended their claims were timely (invoked discovery rule). | Defendants argued Michigan’s three‑year limitations bar claims; Michigan does not apply discovery tolling for these claims. | Michigan three-year statute governs under Restatement §142; claims accrued when the wrong occurred and are time‑barred. |
| Loss of consortium derivative claim | Barbara Stults claimed consortium loss based on David’s injury. | Defendants argued derivative claim fails if primary claims fail. | Dismissed as derivative of plaintiff’s dismissed claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (genuine issue of material fact standard)
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 (federal courts apply forum state choice‑of‑law rules)
- Veasley v. CRST Int’l, Inc., 553 N.W.2d 896 (Iowa 1996) (adoption of Restatement (Second) §145/§6 most significant relationship test)
- Trentadue v. Buckler Automatic Lawn Sprinkler Co., 738 N.W.2d 664 (Mich. 2007) (Michigan rejects common‑law discovery rule for accrual under §600.5827)
- Toth v. Yoder Co., 749 F.2d 1190 (6th Cir.) (Michigan recognizes negligence and implied warranty, not strict liability, in products cases)
- Washburn v. Soper, 319 F.3d 338 (8th Cir. 2003) (use of Restatement §142 for choice of law on statutes of limitations)