Kissan berry farm et al v. Syngenta

Reference :

82774-0-I // 82775-8-1 // 82776-6-1 // 82777-4-1

Complaint date :

March 1, 2016

Status :

Final judgment

Place of jurisdiction :

United States, Washington

Plaintiffs types :

Farmers, Economic stakeholders

Plaintiffs names :

Kissan berry farm, G&B farm, JS berry farm, Ken sidhu farms, Maluka farm

Defendants :

Syngenta, Whatcom Farmers Coop, CHS Inc.

Lawyers for Health and Environmental Justice :

No description

Case nature :

Civil court

Type(s), Product(s), Active substance(s) :

Callisto, Herbicide

Requests :

Compensation for damages caused to their raspberry crops. They also challenge the trial court’s denial of their motions for reconsideration regarding its rulings on summary judgment and on their motions to amend.

Name of the Court :

Court of appeals of Washington, United States

Jurisdiction level :

Decision date :

September 6, 2022

Decision nature :

Positive

Decision content :

On appeal against dismissal and associated denials of their motions to amend their complaints, the appeals court reverses and remands.

Legal basis :

Court Ruling :

Link to the ruling

Summary :

In 2016, five farms sued Syngenta Crop Protection LLC (Syngenta) and Whatcom Farmers Coop (WFC) for alleged damages caused to their raspberry crop after using herbicide, Callisto, manufactured by Syngenta. The trial court dismissed, finding the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act preempted the farms’ two express warranty claims. The farms appeal that dismissal.

Consistent with U.S. Supreme Court precedent established in Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005), the Court of Appeals found that despite EPA-approved labeling and compliance with federal law, manufacturers cannot avoid liability for express warranty claims for defective design, defective manufacturing, and negligent testing in Washington State. Thus, federal FIFRA law does not preempt farmers' express warranty claims.

Also, the Court of Appeals agreed that the disclaimer on the packaging was ineffective because it negated the express warranty in its entirety. The Court of Appeal therefore reversed the judgment and remanded the case to the court.

Scientific references :

No scientifice reference for this case.