In re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Lit.

• Decision Date: 09 February 2004
• Docket Number: Nos. MDL 381, CV 98-6383(JBW), CV 99-3056(JBW).,s. MDL 381, CV 98-6383(JBW), CV 99-3056(JBW).
• Citation: 304 F.Supp.2d 404
• Parties: In re "AGENT ORANGE" PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION. Joe Isaacson and Phillis Lisa Isaacson, Plaintiffs, v. Dow Chemical Company, et al., Defendants, Daniel Raymond Stephenson, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Dow Chemical Company, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

Page 404

304 F.Supp.2d 404

In re "AGENT ORANGE" PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION.

Joe Isaacson and Phillis Lisa Isaacson, Plaintiffs, v. Dow Chemical Company, et al., Defendants, Daniel Raymond Stephenson, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Dow Chemical Company, et al., Defendants.

Nos. MDL 381, CV 98-6383(JBW), CV 99-3056(JBW).

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

February 9, 2004.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Williams, Cuker, Berezofsky by Mark R. Kuker; Dan Bencivenga, Cherry Hill, NJ, Smoger & Associates by Gerson Smoger, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiffs Joe Isaacson; and Phillis Lisa Isaacson.

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP by William A. Krohley; Willam C. Heck, New York, NY, for Defendant Hercules, Inc.

Rivkin Radler & Kremer by Steven Brock; James V. Aiosa, Uniondale, NY, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP by James Lamont Stengel, New York, NY, for Defendant The Dow Chemical Company.

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP by Michael M. Gordon, New York, NY, for Defendant Occidental Chemical Corporation.

Seyfarth Shaw LLP by John C. Sabetta; Andrew T. Hahn, Sr., New York, NY, Latham & Watkins by James E. Tyrrell, Newark, NJ, for Defendant Monsanto Company.

Myron Kalish, New York, NY, for Defendant Omniroyal, Inc.

Clark, Gagliardi & Miller by Lawrence T. D'Aloise, White Plains, NY, for Defendants T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition Co.

MEMORANDUM, ORDER, JUDGMENT of DISMISSAL, and STAY in AGENT ORANGE III

WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

                  I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................ 407
                 II. AGENT ORANGE LITIGATIONS ............................................ 410
                     A. Generally ........................................................ 410
                     B. Agent Orange I ................................................... 415
                        1. MDL Panel ..................................................... 416
                        2. 1983 Class Certification ...................................... 417
                        3. Class and Notice .............................................. 417
                        4. Settlement .................................................... 418
                        5. Post Settlement ............................................... 418
                

                           a. Dismissal of Opt-Out Claims ................................ 419
                           b. Appeals .................................................... 419
                        6. Plan for Distribution ......................................... 420
                        7. Distribution of Settlement Fund ............................... 421
                     C. Agent Orange II .................................................. 421
                     D. Agent Orange III, the Instant Litigation ......................... 422
                        1. District Court ................................................ 422
                        2. Appeals ....................................................... 423
                III. FACTS AS TO GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR DEFENSE ........................... 424
                     A. Orders from Government ........................................... 424
                     B. Awareness by Government of Dangers ............................... 426
                     C. Designation by Government of Specifications ...................... 429
                 IV. LAW ................................................................. 431
                     A. Summary Judgment Standard ........................................ 431
                     B. Government Contractor Defense .................................... 432
                        1. Reasonably Precise Specifications ............................. 433
                        2. Conformity to Specifications .................................. 434
                        3. Warning of Dangers Not Known to Government .................... 435
                     C. Claims Based on Failure to Warn .................................. 436
                     D. Claims Based on Manufacturing Defects ............................ 437
                     E. Cost of Denying Defense .......................................... 438
                     F. Decisions Applying Defense to Agent Orange ....................... 439
                  V. APPLICATION OF LAW TO FACTS ......................................... 441
                 VI. CONCLUSION .......................................................... 442
                VII. DISCOVERY AND STAY .................................................. 442
                

I. Introduction

Plaintiffs, Vietnam veterans, sue manufacturers who supplied Agent Orange, a herbicide used in the 1960s by the United States armed forces as a spray, primarily from aircraft, to reduce foliage behind which the enemy might lurk. They allege that they suffer from diseases that have just recently become apparent, and that the cause of their ailments is the negligence of the manufacturers in delivering to the government Agent Orange containing an unnecessary toxic substance — dioxin. Mistakes in and of Vietnam can be attributed to the United States under at least three presidents. Cf. "The Fog of War" (Sony Classics 2003) (former Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara on Agent Orange and related matters). These errors do not form the basis for a tort action by these plaintiffs against these defendants.

In earlier waves of such suits in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, the courts concluded that none of the available evidence would support a finding to a more-probable-than-not standard of causality between exposure to Agent Orange and disease (except for a quickly discoverable and curable form of skin irritation, chloracne). The scientific basis for that conclusion of lack of any substantial proof of causality, either general or specific to individuals, remains much the same. See Institute of Medicine, Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 2002 (2003).

Congress has now provided for payment to veterans of compensation for a series of diseases presumptively caused by exposure to Agent Orange. See, e.g., McMillan v. Togus Regional Office, Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 294 F.Supp.2d 305 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) ("Based on statistical associations, the Academy's studies have resulted in the creation of presumptions that certain diseases are attributable to Agent Orange for purposes of Veteran's compensation. These `associations' are not equivalent to cause in a legal sense for such purposes as mass tort liabilities. These presumption decisions are made by the Secretary for Veterans Affairs. A showing of cause to any degree of probability is not required. The result is summarized in the privately funded National Veterans Legal Services Program, Self-Help Guide on Agent Orange, Advice for Vietnam Veterans and their Families (2000 plus supplement) (`Self-Help Guide'), financed, in part, by this court from proceeds from an Agent Orange Settlement Fund created by contributions from manufacturers of Agent Orange.").

Some three hundred and thirty million dollars was distributed to veterans and their families from an Agent Orange Settlement Fund resulting from a class action. Payments into the fund of one hundred and eighty million dollars were made by defendants in the instant case in settlement of the class action designed to terminate any liability they might have — present or future — for the production of Agent Orange. See Deborah E. Greenspan, Special Master, In Re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation: Final Report of the Special Master on the Distribution of the Agent Orange Settlement Fund (1997) ("Final Report"). A total of 105,817 individual veterans' claims were processed, of which 52,220 were approved for payment from the Fund. Id. at 30. 24,776 individual appeals were decided by the court and Special Master for Appeals. The Class Assistance Program for members of veterans' families granted funds to programs that served 239,110 members of Vietnam veterans' families. Id. at 41. Funds to many Vietnam veterans in Australia and New Zealand were distributed by committees in those countries.

In the present suit, plaintiff Joe Isaacson alleges that he has non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and other ailments that he attributes to exposure to Agent Orange while serving as a crew chief for an attack fighter squadron in Vietnam from 1968 to 1969; his wife sues for loss of consortium. Plaintiff Daniel Raymond Stephenson alleges that he has multiple myeloma, a cancer of the bone marrow, from exposure to Agent Orange while serving both on the ground in Vietnam from 1965 to 1966 and as a helicopter pilot from 1969 to 1970; his wife and children sue for loss of consortium. These diseases may be recognized by the Veterans Administration as presumptively connected to Agent Orange exposure. See Self-Help Guide at 5-6. Under the government program, both plaintiff veterans might qualify for a veteran's disability benefit regardless of when these diseases first appeared. Id. Both veterans allege that they discovered their diseases after the Agent Orange Fund had been fully expended and it was too late to apply for payment as a member of the class; that they had not been properly represented as members of the class; and that the settlement did not bind them.

Plaintiffs claims are based on theories of strict products liability in tort, including design defects, manufacturing defects, failure to warn, breach of implied warranty, negligence, fraud, and misrepresentation. They seek compensatory and punitive damages. All of the claims center on the presence of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo para dioxin ("dioxin") in Agent Orange.

Defendants manufactured and sold Agent Orange to the United States government for use by the military as a defoliant in Vietnam pursuant to contracts they entered into with the government at various times during the 1960s. They contend that dioxin contamination was known to, and considered by, the government in light of all the information then available of the possible hazards it posed, at the time Agent Orange was ordered from defendants and used in Vietnam. They claim that they were ordered by the government to supply the product according to government specifications; that the material supplied by the defendants was manufactured, mixed, used and marked on government orders and under its supervision; that the government was fully aware of...