Bowen v. E I DuPont

August 18, 1997
Final judgment
United States, Delaware

Matthew Bowen, Melissa Ellis, Martin Griffin, Trudi Griffin
Dupont De Nemours
Thomas C. Crumplar, Joel S. Perwin

Civil court
Benlate, Benomyl, Fungicide
Prove the link between mothers' exposure to benlate during pregnancy and their children's malformations. Appeal from the Superior Court's Order excluding two of the plaintiffs' experts' opinions and the resulting grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant.
Supreme Court of Delaware, United States
Court of Cassation

September 15, 2006
After excluding Bowen’s experts testimonies on causation, the court dismissed the case. This is confirmed by the Supreme Court of Delaware on Sept. 15, 2006.
State law

Plaintiffs sue DuPont, manufacturer of fungicide Benlate (active ingredient benomyl), which they allege caused their children's teratogenic birth defects, due to the mothers' exposure while pregnant. But the court excluded the testimonies of Bowen’s experts, finding them unreliable under Daubert and Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The decision refers to Bourne v. DuPont (CIV A 2:97-0090 02-1469). After excluding Bowen’s experts opinions on causation, the court granted DuPont motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. Plaintiffs appealed on July 12, 2006. On September 15, 2006 , the Supreme Court of Delaware confirms.