What Bayer’s U.S. Supreme Court case means for thousands of Roundup lawsuits

admin

What Bayer’s U.S. Supreme Court case means for thousands of Roundup lawsuits

By Diana Novak Jones

April 26 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on Monday to limit thousands of Bayer lawsuits alleging the German company’s Roundup weedkiller causes cancer, part of years-long litigation over the product.

Here’s a look at how the court’s decision, which is expected at the end of June, could affect Bayer’s overall liability.

The justices are hearing Bayer’s appeal of a lower court decision in a case brought by a man who said he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a type of blood cancer, years after being exposed to Roundup. The Missouri Court of Appeals upheld a St. Louis jury’s $1.25 million verdict against the plaintiff, John Durnell, for his cancer diagnosis.

The company faces thousands of similar lawsuits in Roundup in federal and state courts across the country.

At issue before the Supreme Court is whether a federal law requiring warning labels on pesticides preempts similar state laws. Bayer argues that the plaintiffs cannot claim violation of state law by failing to warn of any cancer risk posed by Roundup because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has found no such risk and does not require such a warning on the product’s label. President Donald Trump’s administration has sided with Bayer in the case.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule by the end of June.

A ruling in favor of Bayer would be a major blow to a host of other lawsuits because the plaintiffs would no longer be able to claim that the company failed to comply with state laws when it did not include a warning about the cancer risk on its labels.

Bayer is facing claims over Roundup from about 65,000 plaintiffs in U.S. state and federal courts. In the lawsuits, which began in 2015, plaintiffs say they developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other forms of cancer after using the weed killer at home or at work. Roundup is one of the most widely used weed killers in the United States. Bayer says decades of studies have shown that Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, are safe for human use.

In February, Bayer announced that it had reached a $7.25 billion settlement with lawyers seeking to represent a nationwide class alleging that Roundup exposure caused their cancer. The agreement aims to resolve most of the remaining lawsuits and potential future lawsuits from people who were exposed to Roundup and developed cancer in the future. A Missouri state court judge gave a preliminary green light to the proposed settlement in March. Final approval has not yet been given, with a hearing scheduled for July.

If the Supreme Court sided with Bayer, such a decision would not automatically dismiss all remaining cases.

Most of the lawsuits involve claims that the company failed to warn consumers about cancer on Roundup’s label, the case before the jury. But most of them include other claims that can be issued. The plaintiffs accuse Bayer of negligently and misrepresenting Roundup’s safety in its marketing, and allege that the product was defective for its intended purpose.

Bayer, however, may try to argue in those cases that the remaining claims should be extinguished if the Supreme Court rules in its favor. A victory for the company at the Supreme Court could help Bayer win appeals in a handful of cases it has lost at trial.

Whatever the court rules, it won’t change the terms of the contract, so people who decide to settle won’t be affected. But if Bayer wins, people who opt out of the settlement and continue the lawsuits will be limited in the claims they can bring. The settlement also does not apply to a small number of cases in federal court instead of state court, so those cases would also be affected if the court sided with Bayer.

Plaintiffs suing Bayer in Roundup have until June 4 to decide whether to opt out of the settlement and pursue their cases in court. But that deadline could come and go before the Supreme Court issues its decision. Any plaintiffs concerned about how the Supreme Court’s decision might affect their case can choose whether to settle without knowing the justice’s final decision.

(Reporting by Diana Novak Jones in New York; Editing by Amy Stevens and Will Dunham)

Leave a Comment