ILNews

Summary judgments on federal preemption are reversible error

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has found an exterminator and the insecticide maker should not have been granted summary judgments on the issue of federal preemption.

In John Gresser and Janice Gresser, et al. v. The Dow Chemical Company, Inc; Dowelanco n/k/a Dow Agrosciences LLC; and Reliable Exterminators, Inc., 79A02-1111-CT-1014, the appeals court affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings.

Among its findings, the COA ruled that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of Dow Chemical Company and Reliable Exterminators on the issue of federal preemption.

The Gresser family filed product liability claims against Dow and negligence claims against Reliable after they began experiencing an array of health problems. They contend the pesticide made by Dow and used by Reliable to kill termites caused a host of physical and cognitive aliments which forced them to eventually move out of their home.

The lower court determined that the Gressers’ product liability and negligence claims were preempted pursuant to PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 131, S.Ct. 2567 (2011).

The Gressers appealed.

In regards to the federal preemption, the COA ruled that because the Gressers did not establish their product liability claims against Dow under Indiana Product Liability Act, the chemical company is not required to defend against these claims. Consequently there is no viable conflict preemption issue under PLIVA.  

In addition, the Gressers’ claim that Reliable failed to warn does not render compliance with both state and federal law impossible, the COA held. Pointing to Dow Chemical Co. v. Ebling, 753 N.E.2d 633, 640 (Ind. 2001), the court noted the use of state tort law to further disseminate label information facilitates rather than frustrates the objective of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and does not burden an applicator’s compliance with FIFRA.


The COA affirmed summary judgment to Dow on Gressers’ failure to warn claims under IPLA. The court also correctly denied Reliable’s summary judgment motions pertaining to the Gressers’ negligence claims and the possibility of a punitive damage award, the judges ruled.

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT