Stults v. Int'l Flavors & Fragrances, Inc.

• Decision Date: 11 July 2014
• Docket Number: No. C11–4077–MWB.,C11–4077–MWB.
• Citation: 31 F.Supp.3d 1015
• Parties: David STULTS and Barbara Stults, Plaintiffs, v. INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS AND FRAGRANCES, INC. and Bush Boake Allen, Inc., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

31 F.Supp.3d 1015

David STULTS and Barbara Stults, Plaintiffs
v.
INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS AND FRAGRANCES, INC. and Bush Boake Allen, Inc., Defendants.

No. C11–4077–MWB.

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Western Division.

Signed July 11, 2014.

31 F.Supp.3d 1017

Dennis M. McElwain, MacDonald Smith, Smith & McElwain, Sioux City, IA, Michael S. Kilgore, Donald H. Loudon, Jr., Kenneth Blair McClain, Kevin D. Stanley, Scott A. Britton–Mehlisch, Scott B. Hall, Steven Edward Crick, Humphrey, Farrington & McClain, PC, Independence, MO, for Plaintiffs.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MARK W. BENNETT, District Judge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION 1017

A.	Factual Background	1017
B.	Procedural Background	1017

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS 1018

A.	Summary Judgment Standards	1018
B.	Failure To Warn	1020

1.	Proximate cause requirement	1020
2.	Changing ConAgra's warnings	1021
3.	Changing David's behavior	1024
4.	Sophisticated user defense	1025

C.	Implied Warranty Claims	1028
D.	Design Defect Negligence Claims	1028

III. CONCLUSION 1030

In this diversity action under Michigan products liability law, plaintiffs allege that David Stults developed “popcorn lung” by consuming multiple bags of microwave popcorn daily for several years. Presently, I am asked to determine whether the plaintiffs are entitled to present to a jury their failure to warn, implied warranty, and design defect negligence claims. These questions, and others, are presented by the defendants' motions for partial summary judgment.

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Factual Background

I incorporate by reference the detailed factual background found in my December 24, 2013, 989 F.Supp.2d 735 (N.D.Iowa 2013), Memorandum Opinion and Order Regarding Defendants' Motions For Summary Judgment. I will discuss additional factual allegations, and the extent to which they are or are not disputed or material, if necessary, in my legal analysis.

B. Procedural Background

On August 23, 2011, plaintiffs David Stults and Barbara Stults filed their First Amended Complaint against several manufacturers and distributors of microwave popcorn and several suppliers of butter flavorings containing diacetyl.¹ The Stults allege claims of strict liability, negligence, breach of warranty, and loss of consortium. The Stults' claims all stem from David's alleged respiratory injury resulting from his exposure to popcorn containing butter flavorings containing diacetyl. The parties are before me by virtue of

31 F.Supp.3d 1018

diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

On December 23, 2013, I granted defendant Bush Boake Allen, Inc. and International Flavors & Fragrances Inc.'s (collectively, “defendants”) Joint Motion For Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Strict Liability Claim. I also granted defendants' Joint Motion For Partial Summary Judgment as to Counts II–IV Based on Michigan's Three–Year Statute Of Limitations. In my summary judgment order, I initially determined that the substantive legal issues were governed by Michigan law.² I then held that the Stults' strict liability claim was not viable because Michigan does not recognize a strict liability theory of recovery. I then went on to hold that both the Stults' negligence and breach of implied warranty claims were time barred. Finally, I also granted summary judgment as to Barbara's loss of consortium claim because it was a derivative claim that could not survive without a viable cause of action against defendants. My decision rendered both defendants' Joint Motion For Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Failure To Warn (docket no. 156) and Joint Motion For Partial Summary Judgment On Plaintiffs' Negligence (Design Defect) and Breach of Implied Warranty Claim (docket no. 161) moot.

The Stults responded by filing a motion to reconsider. In their motion, the Stults argued, under Michigan law, a statutory discovery rule found in Michigan Compiled Laws § 600.5833 applies to their implied warranty claims, and that their implied warranty claims were timely filed under that statute. I granted the Stults' motion to reconsider. I concluded that Michigan Compiled Laws § 600.5833 tolls the accrual of the statute of limitations for breach of warranty claims until the breach is discovered. I further found that, because David was not diagnosed with bronchiolitis obliterans until 2009, the Stults could not have reasonably discovered that they had a possible cause of action until that time. Since the Stults filed their Complaint on August 24, 2011, absent merger of the Stults' negligence and breach of warranty claims, the Stults' breach of warranty claims were timely filed under the statutory discovery rule in § 600.5833. Finally, I determined that the Stults' breach of implied warranty claims did not merge with their negligence claims pretrial. In reaching this conclusion, I...