Million Dollar Roundup Verdict Reversed by SCOTUS
FIFRA Preempts the State-Law Failure-to-Warn Claim
Post number 5381
Posted on June 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, Certiorari To The Court Of Appeals Of Missouri, Eastern District, No. 24–1068, argued April 27, 2026, decided June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court reversed a $1 million judgment found by a Missouri state court.
Facts
John Durnell sued Monsanto in Missouri state court, alleging that his long-term use of Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and that Monsanto should have warned users of cancer risks. A jury awarded Durnell more than $1 million on a failure-to-warn theory, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether FIFRA preempts the state-law failure-to-warn claim.
Monsanto manufactures and distributes Roundup, a glyphosate-based herbicide. The Environmental Protection Agency has repeatedly evaluated glyphosate and has concluded that it is not likely to cause cancer; accordingly, EPA has not required a cancer warning on Roundup’s label.
Law
The case turned on the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, particularly its express preemption clause, 7 U.S.C. §136v(b). That provision bars States from imposing labeling or packaging requirements that are “in addition to or different from” those required under FIFRA. The Court also relied on FIFRA’s registration and labeling provisions, EPA regulations governing approved labels and label changes.
Discussion
The majority reasoned that EPA’s approval of Roundup’s label without a cancer warning created a federal labeling requirement under FIFRA. Because Monsanto was required to use the EPA-approved label unless EPA approved or required a change, a state-law duty requiring a cancer warning would impose a requirement different from or in addition to federal requirements. SCOTUS concluded that state tort duties can qualify as labeling requirements and that Durnell’s claim would directly alter what Roundup’s label must say.
Durnell argued that his Missouri failure-to-warn claim merely paralleled FIFRA’s misbranding prohibition, which requires adequate warnings and prohibits false or misleading labels. The majority rejected that view as too general, emphasizing EPA’s central role in determining pesticide labels and the statutory goal of uniform labeling.
Analysis
The decision gives strong preemptive effect to EPA label approval under FIFRA. It treats the agency-approved label as more than evidence of compliance; for preemption purposes, it functions as a federal requirement that limits inconsistent state tort duties. This approach favors national uniformity in pesticide labeling and protects manufacturers from state-law liability based on warnings EPA has not required.
At the same time, the dissent warned that the ruling narrows the traditional role of state tort suits as a parallel enforcement mechanism and may reduce incentives for manufacturers to seek label changes when new risk information emerges.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court reversed the Missouri Court of Appeals and held that FIFRA expressly preempts Durnell’s state-law failure-to-warn claim. Because the claim would require Monsanto to add a cancer warning to Roundup’s label despite EPA’s approval of a label without such a warning, the state-law duty was deemed “in addition to” and “different from” federal labeling requirements under FIFRA.
Justice Thomas concurred to raise broader constitutional concerns about Congress’s commerce power, delegation to agencies, and administrative preemption.
Justice Jackson, joined by Justice Gorsuch, dissented, arguing unsuccessfully that EPA registration is not itself a binding labeling requirement and that state claims equivalent to FIFRA’s misbranding prohibition should not be preempted.
ZALMA OPINION
Lawsuits alleging Roundup caused cancer to people using the product without a warning of its cancer causing effect resulting in multi-million dollar judgments working to exhaust Monsanto’s available insurance coverage and making plaintiffs and their lawyers rich and challenging the value of the investment of the manufacturer’s shareholders.
(c) 2026 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://gbarryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://Cwww.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Chutzpah is not Enough
Post 5397
Posted on July 20, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video and at https://lnkd.in/gNUs2XzT and at https://lnkd.in/g2MawyzX
Magistrate Issues a Search Warrant if there is a Fair Probability that Contraband or Evidence of a Crime will be Found in a Particular Place.
In United States Of America v. Frank Suess, et al., CRIMINAL No. 3:24-308, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (July 16, 2026) a federal grand jury indicted Frank Suess, Melissa Driscoll, and others in a 55-count health care fraud and anti-kickback prosecution arising from an alleged scheme involving medically unnecessary prescription “foot baths.”
As part of the investigation, the FBI obtained an August 19, 2022 warrant to search Driscoll’s Sterling Pharmacy Yahoo email account for emails from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020. Driscoll moved to suppress the resulting evidence, arguing that the warrant lacked probable cause, was overbroad, and rested on material misstatements and omissions.
LAW:
The ...
Fraud Shouldn’t Pay
Post 5396
See the video and at https://rumble.com/v7ctgmq-the-great-jewel-theft.html at https://youtu.be/aRbQ2sJfGwA
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the ¬¬¬Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
The Insured purchased, for the first time in his life, a policy of Personal Articles Floater Insurance (PAF) scheduling $125,000 worth of ladies jewelry. He advised the insurer that the jewelry was always kept in a class E safe at his residence. He also told the insurer that he was employed full time as the owner of a gasoline service station and that he had never been canceled or suffered a previous loss.
One month after the policy was ...
Specific Jurisdiction is Related to an Activity Conducted Within the Forum State.
Post 5408
Posted on July 23, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company v. Changan Chu, No. 14-25-00965-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District (July 21, 2026) NJM issued an automobile insurance policy in New Jersey to Changan Chu while Chu was a New Jersey resident.
Chu was injured in an auto-pedestrian collision in Harris County, Texas, allegedly caused by an uninsured driver. Chu sued the driver and NJM, seeking a declaration that his UM/UIM coverage was in force and provided $300,000 in limits. NJM filed a special appearance supported by affidavit evidence showing it was a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey, had no offices, agents, employees, advertising, registration, or insurance business in Texas, and did not insure any person, property, or risk located in Texas. Chu did not file evidence opposing the special appearance.
LAW
A Texas court may exercise ...
Victims of Fraud Should Always Fight Back Proactively
Post 5398
Posted on July 21, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Cross-Claim Against Fraudsters Successful
In Dual Diagnosis Treatment Center, Inc., et al. v. Health Net, Inc., et al., Health Net Life Insurance Company, B331260, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Third Division (July 16, 2026) a trial verdict in favor of Health Net and against Sovereign, a network of mental health and substance use disorder treatment centers, and Health Net, Inc., Health Net of California, Inc., Health Net Life Insurance Company, and Managed Health Network, Inc. (collectively, Health Net) was appealed to the California Court of Appeals.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Between 2014 and 2016, Sovereign submitted claims to Health Net for medical care provided to more than 400 patients. Health Net paid some claims but rejected many others. Sovereign, as the patients' assignee, sued Health Net for breach of contract, insurance bad faith, and breach of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)....
The Only Solution to Fraud is to Take the Profit Out of the Crime
It Takes Courage to Fight the Fraudster
Post number 5395
Posted on July 16, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Vivian Maritza Triana Marin, Sebastian Arroyave Penagos, and Daniel Arroyave Penagos v. Marc J. Paynter and Transport Marc Paynter Inc., No. 23-CV-6498, United States District Court, E.D. New York (July 10, 2026) Plaintiffs sued Defendants in diversity after a rear-end collision on the Whitestone Expressway in Queens, New York. Plaintiffs were in a Subaru driven by Vivian Maritza Triana Marin, while Defendant Marc J. Paynter drove a Transport Marc Paynter Inc. tractor-trailer.
Facts:
Dashcam footage from Defendants’ vehicle showed Plaintiffs’ vehicle braking suddenly in the left lane despite an open roadway ahead. Marin could not identify a specific reason for braking, the passenger plaintiffs did not know why she braked, and a non-party witness testified that Plaintiffs’ vehicle stopped abruptly for no apparent reason.
The Accident occurred when ...
