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.
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Another Anniversary for Barry Zalma, Inc
Posted on October 1, 2026 by Barry Zalma
From October 1, 1979 – 2026
Post 4854
Read the full issue of ZIFL at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ZIFL-10-01-2026.pdf Forty seven years ago today I left the world of the employed and became an entrepreneur by opening my own law firm. The law practice was incorporated shortly thereafter as Barry Zalma, Inc.
When I opened for business on October 1, 1979, I had no clients and no certainty that I would have any in the future. I had borrowed money from the bank to carry me through the first six months and was concerned about my ability to pay the loan with my third child about to be born.
Much to my surprise and pleasure, on October 1, 1979, at 8:10 a.m., the best claims handler in the London market, Alan Warboys, called from London and provided me with my first case as an independent lawyer to represent Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London. He, and the Lloyd’s Underwriters he represented, showed faith in me as a lawyer and insurance expert. Alan is now, although ...
Defendants Successfully Moved for Summary Judgment
Post 4854
Posted on September 30, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Jeffrey Wayne Phillips v. Creative Website Studios, et al., No. 5:23-CV-568-BO-BM, United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division (September 28, 2026) the Court needed to rule on the order and memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”) of the Magistrate.
Jeffrey Wayne Phillips had contracted with Creative Website Studios and SR Telecommunications for website and hosting services. He alleged that defendants repeatedly billed him for hosting periods he had already paid for and later took down his website. Phillips claimed the outage prevented him from bidding on U.S. government security contracts and sought roughly $300 million in consequential damages.
LAW
Under North Carolina law, fraud requires a false material representation or concealment, intent and effect of deception, resulting damage, and reasonable reliance. Obtaining property by false pretenses similarly requires an ...
Accused of 17 Counts Of Fraud Attempts to Keep Out Evidence of Crimes
Post 4853
Posted on September 29, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Court Refuses to Grant Most Motions in Limine
In United States Of America v. Seth Allen Aikens, II, Criminal No. 22-119, United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania (September 23, 2026) Defendant Seth Allen Aikens II faces thirty federal counts. The indictment alleges that, from about June 2016 through March 2020, Aikens solicited start-up businesses seeking websites, applications, hosting, payment processing, and related services. The Government estimated aggregate losses of approximately $1.3 million involving about eight charged customers.
The Government also sought to introduce evidence involving three uncharged persons. Robert Polonsky allegedly paid about $10,000 for web development, hosting, and advertising services but did not receive the promised core deliverables. Brandon Canwright allegedly paid approximately $1,877 for a website and related services that were not delivered and received no ...
