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 ...
Claims of Res Judicata and Procedural Default Defeats Habeas
Post 5543
Posted on November 13, 2026 by Barry Zalma
A Health Insurance Fraud Conviction Rested On Knowingly Submitting Materially False Or Misleading Claim Information With Specific Intent To Defraud.
A Health Insurance Fraud Conviction Rested On Knowingly Submitting Materially False Or Misleading Claim Information With Specific Intent To Defraud.
In Tariq Mustafa Abdulaziz v. Commissioner Of Correction, No. CV 26-5002432-S, Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Tolland, Habeas Docket (October 29, 2026) Tariq Mustafa Abdulaziz submitted 114 claims for in-home, face-to-face services purportedly provided to thirty program participants during four one-week periods. The department paid Neurostrategies, Inc., $13,650.
FACTS
The defendant waived his right to a jury trial and elected a trial to the court, D'Addabbo, J. Trial occurred over the course of eight days in August, 2022. The state presented testimony from ten witnesses and introduced thirty-three exhibits into ...
Theft of Confidential Information
Post 4581
Posted on November 12, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In People Center, Inc. v. Deel, Inc., et al., No. 25-cv-02576-CRB (LJC), United States District Court, N.D. California (November 7, 2026) People Center, doing business as Rippling, and Deel compete in payroll and human-resource management software. Rippling alleges that Deel and its executives recruited Rippling employee Keith O’Brien, based in Ireland, to disclose confidential information and trade secrets.
THE IRISH SUIT
Rippling sued O’Brien in Ireland and Deel in the United States. O’Brien subsequently retained separate counsel, supplied an affidavit describing the alleged espionage, and entered into a Cooperation Agreement with Rippling. In exchange for his cooperation, Rippling agreed to provide financial assistance, indemnification, and conditional dismissal of the Irish proceedings. The agreement also permitted renewed proceedings or a monetary judgment upon a material breach.
The Irish proceedings against O’Brien were dismissed...
A Proposed Amended Complaint That Includes New Factual Allegations to Remedy Pleading Deficiencies
Posted on November 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
After Dismissal Fraud Victim May Amend Complaint After Dismissal
Post 4580
If A Proposed Amendment Is Not Clearly Futile, Then Denial Of Leave To Amend Is Improper
In John Hancock Life & Health Insurance Company v. Caring Connections LLC, Arthur Feldheim, and Blime a/k/a Vera Feldheim, Civ. No. 25-7574 (MAS)(JBD), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (November 6, 2026) John Hancock sued Caring Connections LLC, Arthur Feldheim, and Blime a/k/a Vera Feldheim on June 5, 2025, asserting thirteen claims, including fraud, breach of contract, and aiding and abetting fraud.
On March 26, 2026, this Court entered an order granting Caring Connections’ motion to dismiss and granting in part and denying in part the Feldheims’ motion to dismiss. The dismissed claims were dismissed without prejudice, and John Hancock timely sought leave to amend.
They also argued that the New ...
