ILNews

Golf course manager suing DuPont over herbicide

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indianapolis-based golf course manager is leading a national class-action lawsuit charging that a herbicide manufactured by DuPont is killing trees and other vegetation.

R.N. Thompson Golf, which operates several area courses, including Gray Eagle, Ironwood, Winding Ridge, and Southern Dunes, said it has witnessed "catastrophic tree loss” after applying the herbicide Imprelis.

The two law firms representing the class-action suit, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein of San Francisco and Starr Austen & Miller of Logansport, announced the filing in a federal court in Delaware on Monday.

Their complaint alleges that Delaware-based DuPont failed to disclose the risks Imprelis poses to trees, even when applied as directed, and failed to provide instructions for safe application.   

Mario Massillamany, a lawyer at Starr Austen, estimated the damages to R.N. Thompson’s golf courses to be “hundreds of thousands of dollars.”

R.N. Thompson began using the herbicide in late April and began noticing signs of destruction about a month later. Most of the heavy damage has occurred at Winding Ridge in Lawrence, where between 130 and 160 trees have died since Imprelis was applied, Massillamany said.

Trees have also suffered damage at Southern Dunes in Indianapolis and at Gray Eagle and Ironwood in Fishers.
 
“I don’t think there’s any way to stop the destruction,” Massillamany said. “Once it starts, it’s over.”

Lawyers said they’ve engaged a leading scientist in the fields of forest resources, tree physiology, and landscape management to further identify the cause and nature of the problem and to recommend steps property owners should take to preserve evidence.

“Even though it’s a new product, Imprelis has been widely adopted by landscapers and lawn-care specialists who believed DuPont’s claims that it is safe and an environmentally friendly herbicide,” said Jonathan Selbin, a lawyer at Lieff Cabraser, in a prepared statement. “Instead, the evidence is quickly piling up that Imprelis is attacking trees as if they are weeds.”

R.N. Thompson CEO Mark Thompson said the company has received numerous complaints and inquiries about the tree damage and appearance of its courses from customers.

“We filed this lawsuit to inform other businesses and homeowners about this problem to let them know there is reason their trees are dying and to give them a course of action to fix the problem,” Thompson said in a written statement.

R.N. Thompson is joined as a leading plaintiff in the lawsuit by a Pennsylvania homeowner who claims trees in her yard died after she sprayed the herbicide.

Plaintiffs are seeking compensation for the cost of replacing damaged trees and an injunction preventing DuPont from continuing to sell Imprelis.

Dupont began selling Imprelis last November as a high-concentration herbicide that kills tough-to-control lawn weeds such as clover and the vine known as "creeping Charlie." Imprelis costs about $750 per gallon, but it only takes about 4.5 ounces to treat an acre of lawn.

In mid-June, DuPont responded to mounting complaints about the use of Imprelis, saying: "Our turf development team has been investigating these reports and we are trying to better understand the circumstances and whether the various symptoms are related to applications of DuPont Imprelis herbicide. Our investigation is not complete and we will need your help in gathering necessary information and in determining what variables may have contributed to the symptoms being observed.”

A majority of the damage involves Norway spruce or white pine trees, which are common on golf courses. As a precaution, DuPont instructed users to avoid applying the herbicide where those types of trees are present.

This story originally ran in the July 19, 2011, IBJ Daily. The IBJ is a sister pubilcation of Indiana Lawyer.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT