Opinion ID: 2221997
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: FIFRA's PREEMPTIVE EFFECT ON STATE BREACH OF WARRANTY CLAIMS

Text: Analysis of FIFRA preemption in Nebraska begins with Ackles v. Luttrell, supra . In Ackles, this court held that failure to warn and labeling-based claims brought under common-law causes of action against manufacturers of pesticides are preempted by FIFRA. This is so because FIFRA mandates that certain information be placed on the labels of pesticides and herbicides. Courts have uniformly found that allowing state causes of action to be based upon language mandated by the federal government would amount to a state law requirement regarding such language. See, e.g., Welchert v. American Cyanamid, Inc., 59 F.3d 69 (8th Cir.1995); Worm v. American Cyanamid Co., 5 F.3d 744 (4th Cir.1993); Papas v. Upjohn Co., 985 F.2d 516 (11th Cir.1993), cert. denied 510 U.S. 913, 114 S.Ct. 300, 126 L.Ed.2d 248. FIFRA expressly prohibits states from making such requirements. Such State shall not impose or continue in effect any requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from those required under [FIFRA]. 7 U.S.C. § 136v(b). Ackles v. Luttrell, supra , did not specifically address warranty claims. The holding in Ackles was addressed solely to a claim of insufficient labeling. Nevertheless, the logic behind the holding applies equally to warranty claims if such claims are solely based on federally mandated label statements: If Ackles' labeling-based cause of action against Pennwalt were allowed to proceed and be successful, Pennwalt would be stuck between the proverbial rock and hard place in that it would be required to use the label approved by the EPA, yet pay damages because a jury determined that such label was not sufficient. This result would obviously run contrary to the intentions of Congress in passing FIFRA, namely, that labeling information will be regulated solely by the federal government. We therefore hold, in accordance with virtually all courts that have ruled on this issue both before and after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Medtronic, Inc. [ v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 116 S.Ct. 2240, 135 L.Ed.2d 700 (1996) ], that Ackles' labeling-based cause of action against Pennwalt is preempted by FIFRA.... Ackles v. Luttrell, 252 Neb. 273, 283, 561 N.W.2d 573, 579 (1997). Applying FIFRA to warranties, we find that manufacturers would be equally between a rock and a hard place if they were forced by the federal government to make statements regarding the use of the manufacturers' products, and the state then treated such statements as warranties and allowed juries to award damages based upon them. Thus, to the extent that the Pfeifers are alleging that the Extrazine label constituted an express or implied warranty, such a cause of action must be preempted by FIFRA. Otherwise, success on such claims would subject Du Pont to warranty liability for statements that it was forced to make in order to legally sell its product. Pfeifer testified that Jarecki told him that Extrazine was suitable for controlling weeds in corn crops. Jarecki's affidavit stated, I suggested to him that Extrazine II DF would be an appropriate application for his problem. Jarecki testified that the statement he made to Pfeifer was based on the agricultural herbicide labels. Jarecki also testified that he referred to a Du Pont product catalog, which is generally a set of the Du Pont product labels. What Jarecki said to Pfeifer is nothing more than a recitation of what is on the label, and as such, the Pfeifers' claim for a warranty based on what Jarecki said to Pfeifer is preempted under FIFRA. The granting of the motion for summary judgment to Du Pont on this issue was correct and is affirmed.