JAMES R. BEGLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
TRULY NOLAN EXTERMINATING, INC., GREAT LAKES CHEMICAL CORPORATION & WOODBURY CHEMICAL COMPANY, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Begley sued pesticide manufacturers Great Lakes Chemical and Woodbury Chemical, claiming a fumigant left a bad odor that caused him to lose a house sale. The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing these defendants, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that federal pesticide law preempted the state lawsuit and that economic losses cannot be recovered in strict liability claims.
Federal pesticide law preempts state law claims against the manufacturers, and plaintiffs cannot recover lost profit damages in strict liability claims against pesticide manufacturers.
[1] A claim for economic loss, including lost profits, is not recoverable in a strict liability tort action.
[2] Claims against manufacturers and distributors of pesticides are preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act when the claims are based on allegati…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Begley's only claim was for loss of profits on the alleged unconsumated sale, a purely economic loss.”
Establishes that Begley sought only economic damages, which are not recoverable in strict liability
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBegley hired Truly Nolan Exterminating to fumigate his house using Meth-O-Gas fumigant, manufactured by Great Lakes and distributed by Woodbury. The f…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Strict Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
BARKDULL, Judge.
Appellant, plaintiff in the trial court, seeks review of a final summary judgment for the appellees, Woodbury Chemical Company and Great Lakes Chemical Corporation, which dismissed these parties as defendants in the cause.
Mr. Begley hired the appellee, Truly Nolan Exterminating to fumigate his house. Meth-O-Gas fumigant was used as the fumigating agent. It was manufactured by Great Lakes and distributed by Woodbury. The gas left a bad odor in the house and Begley claimed the odor caused him to lose a sale of the house. He sued Truly Nolan, Great Lakes and Woodbury alleging that the gas contained two inert ingredients not disclosed on the label in accompanying warnings and that these ingredients caused the bad odor. Begley’s only claim was for loss of profits on the alleged unconsumated sale, a purely economic loss. Begley ultimately lost the house through a foreclosure action. After discovery, Great Lakes and Woodbury moved for a summary judgment on the grounds that Begley’s claim against them was preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenti-cide Act, 7 U.S.C. § 136 et seq., and that he was seeking compensation for a purely economic loss, the loss of anticipated profits from the sale of his home, which is not permissible in a strict liability tort claim such as he had filed against Great Lakes and Woodbury. The trial court found for Great Lakes and Woodbury, holding that the Federal Act preempted this action and the trial court entered the summary judgment appealed.
Begley contends on appeal that there is a question of fact whether or not this Federal Act preempts the state action.
While there is a split of authority on this question, the vast majority holds in favor of the appellees. Professional Lawn Care Assn. v. Village of Milford, 909 F. 2d 929 (6th Cir.1990); Taylor v. General Motors Corp., 875 F. 2d 816 (11th Cir.1989); Pappas v. The Upjohn Co. (N.D.Fla.1989); Kennan v. Dow Chemical Co., 717 F.Supp. 799 (M.D.Fla.1989); Fisher v. Chevron Chemical Co., 716 F.Supp. 1283 (W.D.Mo.1989); Fitzgerald v. Mallinckrodt, 681 F.Supp. 404 (E.D.Mich.1987).
Furthermore, it is well established that a plaintiff cannot recover lost profit damages in a strict liability claim. See Florida Power and Light v. Westinghouse Electric, 510 So. 2d 899 (Fla.1987); Belle Plaza Condominium Assn. Inc. v. B.C.E. Dev., Inc., 543 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); GAF Corp. v. Zack Co., 445 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).
Therefore, the summary judgment under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 510 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 1987)
- GAF Corp. v. The Zack Co., 445 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Taylor v. Gen. Motors Corp., 875 F.2d 816 (11th Cir. 1989)
- Belle Plaza Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. B.C.E. Dev., Inc., 543 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Kennan Ex Rel. Kennan v. Dow Chem. Co., 717 F. Supp. 799 (M.D. Fla. 1989)
- Prof'l Lawn Care Ass'n v. Vill. OF Milford, 909 F.2d 929 (6th Cir. 1990)