On June 25, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued a significant preemption decision in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, holding that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”) preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims that would require cancer warnings on Roundup’s label beyond those approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”). In a 7-2 opinion by Justice Kavanaugh, the Court reversed a Missouri judgment awarding more than $1 million to plaintiff John Durnell, who alleged that Monsanto’s Roundup caused his cancer and should have included a cancer warning. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: EPA, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, FIFRA, Supreme Court, Toxic Torts, United States Supreme Court

In a decision on February 5, 2025, the Superior Court of New Jersey dismissed the Attorney General of New Jersey’s state tort claims against various energy companies seeking redress for the effects of climate change in Platkin v. Exxon Mobil Corp (N.J. Super. No. MER-L-001797-22).  Because the dispute concerned interstate and global air emissions, which implicate uniquely federal interests, the court concluded that the federal Constitutional structure requires that federal common law preempts these climate-change related tort claims.   Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Air, Clean Air Act, Climate Change, Energy, New Jersey, NJDEP, Toxic Torts

On January 2, 2024, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan issued an order to exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Robert Michaels in a series of cases related to the corrosive water in Flint, Michigan. Carthan, et al. v. Snyder et al, No. 5:16-cv-1044 (E.D. Mich. 2024). The court held that Dr. Michaels, in applying a methodology commonly employed by epidemiologists known as the Bradford Hill guidelines, failed to establish an association between corrosive water and skin and hair conditions, and without such, the testimony was unreliable and could not be used to infer causation between Flint water and reported skin rashes and hair loss.  Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Evidence, Expert Witness, Toxic Torts

On August 24, 2023, in Catherine Baker v. Croda Inc., No. 393, 2022 (Del. 2023), the Delaware Supreme Court held that an increased risk of illness, without present manifestation of physical harm, is not a cognizable injury under Delaware law. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Class Actions, Delaware, Medical Monitoring, Toxic Torts

In a recent en banc decision out of the Eleventh Circuit, the Court found that the panel had used an improper standard in holding that a state law failure to warn cause of action was not preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”) and after clarifying the appropriate inquiry, sent the matter back to the panel for further consideration.  In the case, the plaintiff averred that after years of using the popular weedkiller, Roundup, he developed cancer, which he claims Monsanto failed to adequately warn consumers was a risk of using that product.  Carson v. Monsanto Company, 72 F.4th 1261 (11th Cir. 2023).  Monsanto responded that plaintiff’s Georgia state law claims were expressly or impliedly preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”) because the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) approved a label for Roundup which lacked a cancer warning, and classified Roundup’s principal ingredient, glyphosate, as “not likely to be carcinogenic.”     Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Eleventh Circuit, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, FIFRA, Georgia, Preemption, Toxic Torts

In September 2020, I wrote a Litigation Blog post about the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Nanouk v. United States, 974 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2020), which considered whether the so-called discretionary function exception barred tort claims against the government in connection with its lengthy, haphazard cleanup of a PCB hotspot near a Cold War-era military installation in Alaska. As I explained in that article, the exception bars tort claims that are based on discretionary government conduct—often following a policy-based analysis—but not claims that are based on simple negligence by government officials.  Because cleanup protocols for such bases were generally grounded in economic and national security policy, the Ninth Circuit held the exception barred all claims asserted by the plaintiff, whose adjacent land was impacted by the PCBs, except one claim: that after deciding to undertake the cleanup in 1990, the government simply failed to do it for 13 years. The Court remanded that issue, instructing the government to proffer evidence showing that the delay in effectuating the cleanup was likewise policy based.  On remand, the trial court addressed this issue in denying without prejudice the United States' Motion to Dismiss.  Nanouk v. United States, Case No. 3:15-cv-00221-RRB (Mar. 15, 2023).    Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Alaska, Case Update, Cleanup, Contamination, Federal Tort Claims Act, Negligence, Nuisance, Odors, PCBs, Property Damage, Remediation, Removal, Sovereign Immunity, Toxic Torts, Trespass

In In re LTL Management, LLC, No. 22-2003 (Jan. 30, 2023), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit had occasion to consider whether an entity that was created solely to house liabilities and file for bankruptcy could, in fact, file for bankruptcy where another entity was contractually obligated to pay those liabilities. The Court dismissed the bankruptcy petition, reasoning that this contractual obligation meant the former entity was not in financial distress and thus could not avail itself of the bankruptcy process.    Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Bankruptcy, Class Actions, Toxic Torts

The Federal Tort Claims Act permits claims for monetary damages against the United States for injury or loss of property caused by the wrongful acts of federal employees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). However, this waiver of sovereign immunity is limited by the discretionary function exception, which preserves immunity for claims “based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government.” 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a). Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit analyzed the discretionary function exception in the context of environmental contamination, finding that the exception does not apply to what can best be described as ordinary negligence in the performance of a site remediation. Nanouk v. United States, No. 13-35116 (Sept. 4, 2020). Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Alaska, Cleanup, Contamination, Federal Tort Claims Act, Negligence, Ninth Circuit, Nuisance, Odors, PCBs, Property Damage, Remediation, Removal, Sovereign Immunity, Toxic Torts, Trespass

Earlier this week the Eleventh Circuit issued a published decision in Pinares v. United Technology Corporation, No. 18-15104, slip op. (11th Cir. Aug. 31, 2020), affirming the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Pratt & Whitney, dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims as time-barred. In doing so, the Court held that the personal injury tolling provision in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) does not apply to public liability actions brought pursuant to the Price-Anderson Act (“PAA”) or to claims styled under state law based on injuries from radiation exposure. Thus, the lawsuit pursued by Joselyn and Steve Santiago alleging that Pratt & Whitney was liable for their deceased daughter Cynthia Santiago’s cancer was time barred. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Cancer, CERCLA, Contamination, Discovery Rule, Eleventh Circuit, Florida, Negligence, Price-Anderson Act, Statute of Limitations, Superfund, Toxic Torts, Trespass

In two recent decisions, courts have continued to preclude “classic” tort claims without proof of a current symptomatic condition and to place substantial limits on medical monitoring clams under state common law. In Benoit v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation, No. 17-3941 (2d Cir. 2020), the Second Circuit affirmed a district court’s denial of defendants’ motion to dismiss medical monitoring damages based on personal injury but cast significant doubt of the viability of such relief in the absence of any physical manifestation of exposure.  And in Letart v. Union Carbide Corporation, No. 2:19-cv-00877 (S.D. W.Va. 2020), the Court granted a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ common law claims but allowed medical monitoring claims related to ethylene oxide (“EtO”) emissions to proceed, yet without addressing or determining whether the plaintiffs can meet the evidentiary requirements for such claims.  Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Medical Monitoring, PFAS, Second Circuit, Toxic Torts