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. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  2. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  3. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

  4. For some strange reason this story, like many on this ezine that question the powerful, seems to have been released in two formats. Prior format here: http://www.theindianalawyer.com/nominees-selected-for-us-attorney-in-indiana/PARAMS/article/44263 That observed, I must note that it is quite refreshing that denizens of the great unwashed (like me) can be allowed to openly question powerful elitists at ICE MILLER who are on the public dole like Selby. Kudos to those at this ezine who understand that they cannot be mere lapdogs to the powerful and corrupt, lest freedom bleed out. If you wonder why the Senator resisted Selby, consider reading the comments here for a theory: http://www.theindianalawyer.com/nominees-selected-for-us-attorney-in-indiana/PARAMS/article/44263

  5. Why is it a crisis that people want to protect their rights themselves? The courts have a huge bias against people appearing on their own behalf and these judges and lawyers will face their maker one day and answer for their actions.

ADVERTISEMENT