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.
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
The Right to Self-Defense is not Given Up by Employment
Colorado Employer Cannot Punish Employee for Exercising Right of Self Defense
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gmbSG-Nq and at https://zalma.com/blog, #insurancebooks, #insurance books, #amazon.
Post number 5380
In Mary Ann Moreno v. Circle K Stores, Inc., 2026 CO 46, No. 25SA134, Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc (June 15, 2026) Moreno, a seventy-two-year-old Circle K employee, was working when an armed robber approached the register with hunting knives, demanded cigarettes for free, and moved behind the counter toward her.
Moreno told him not to come behind the counter and extended her arms, which she characterized as an instinctive act of self-defense. The robber left with cigarettes and was later arrested for armed robbery. Circle K terminated Moreno for violating its “Don’t Chase or Confront” policy, and Moreno sued for wrongful discharge in violation of Colorado public policy.
The District court certified a question that only asked the Supreme ...
The Right to Self-Defense is not Given Up by Employment
Colorado Employer Cannot Punish Employee for Exercising Right of Self Defense
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gmbSG-Nq and at https://zalma.com/blog, #insurancebooks, #insurance books, #amazon.
Post number 5380
In Mary Ann Moreno v. Circle K Stores, Inc., 2026 CO 46, No. 25SA134, Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc (June 15, 2026) Moreno, a seventy-two-year-old Circle K employee, was working when an armed robber approached the register with hunting knives, demanded cigarettes for free, and moved behind the counter toward her.
Moreno told him not to come behind the counter and extended her arms, which she characterized as an instinctive act of self-defense. The robber left with cigarettes and was later arrested for armed robbery. Circle K terminated Moreno for violating its “Don’t Chase or Confront” policy, and Moreno sued for wrongful discharge in violation of Colorado public policy.
The District court certified a question that only asked the Supreme ...
Second Filing of Same Suit Precluded as Res Judicata
It Doesn’t Pay to Sue Twice
Post number 5379
Posted on June 24, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Susan Cheung & another v. Thomas B. Puschak & another, No. 24-P-1451, Appeals Court of Massachusetts (June 12, 2026) the plaintiffs, Susan Cheung and Christopher Cheung, filed an initial complaint against Dr. Thomas Puschak and Carol Puschak in December 2022. The complaint alleged that Dr. Puschak committed malpractice, sexually assaulted the plaintiffs, attempted to poison Christopher, and engaged in insurance fraud.
The Superior Court ordered the plaintiffs to provide a more definite statement, and when they failed to comply, the first action was involuntarily dismissed in March 2023. The dismissal was with prejudice, and the plaintiffs did not appeal.
About six months later, the plaintiffs filed a second complaint asserting the same allegations against the same defendants. A second judge entered summary judgment for the defendants on res judicata grounds.
Law
...
