Opinion ID: 1966693
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Application of Preemption to Distributors

Text: After this case was submitted to this court following argument, we ordered the parties to provide supplemental briefs regarding whether a failure-to-warn claim is preempted when brought against a distributor. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that when a distributor's liability is essentially predicated upon the language in the manufacturer's label, we apply FIFRA's preemption provision equally to manufacturers and distributors. Taylor AG Industries v. Pure-Gro, 54 F.3d 555, 562 (9th Cir.1995). Other jurisdictions generally assume that FIFRA preempts state law failure-to-warn claims against both manufacturers and distributors. See, e.g., Arnold v. Dow Chemical Co., 91 Cal.App.4th 698, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 722 (2001); Hughes v. Tennessee Seeds of Brownsville, Inc., 970 S.W.2d 471 (Tenn. App.1997). We agree. Eyl's failure-to-warn claims are labeling based. Under FIFRA, a manufacturer or distributor cannot change a label. Because Eyl predicates his failure-to-warn claims on the quality of the warning, his claims are preempted against both the manufacturer and the distributor.