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

Motions denied.

[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 rejected defendants' argument that the Michigan Supreme Court's decision in Prentis v. Yale Manufacturing Co., 421 Mich. 670, 365 N.W.2d 176 (1984), necessitated the merger of the Stults' negligence and implied warranty claims pretrial. Therefore, I reversed that part of my December 24, 2013, order granting summary judgment to defendants on the Stults' implied warranty claims. Having reversed that part of my summary judgment order, I also reversed my conclusion that Barbara's derivative loss of consortium claim fails as a matter of law. My decision also had the effect of reviving both defendants' Joint Motion For Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Failure To Warn and Joint Motion For Partial Summary Judgment On Plaintiffs' Negligence (Design Defect) and Breach of Implied Warranty Claim. Those motions are currently before me.

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS A. Summary Judgment Standards

Motions for summary judgment essentially “define disputed facts and issues and

[31 F.Supp.3d 1019]

... dispose of unmeritorious claims [or defenses].” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 585, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323–24, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) (“One of the principal purposes of the summary judgment rule is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims or defenses....”). Summary judgment is only appropriate when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) (emphasis added); see Woods v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 409 F.3d 984, 990 (8th Cir.2005) (“Summary judgment is appropriate if viewing the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”).

A fact is material when it “ ‘might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.’ ” Johnson v. Crooks, 326 F.3d 995, 1005 (8th Cir.2003) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)). Thus, “the substantive law will identify which facts are material.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. An issue of material fact is genuine if it has a real basis in the record, Hartnagel v. Norman, 953 F.2d 394, 395 (8th Cir.1992) (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586–87, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986)), or when “ ‘a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party’ on the question,” Woods, 409 F.3d at 990 (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505); see Diesel Machinery, Inc. v. B.R. Lee Indus., Inc., 418 F.3d 820, 832 (8th Cir.2005) (stating genuineness depends on “whether a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party based on the evidence”).

Procedurally, the moving party bears “the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the record which show a lack of a genuine issue,” Hartnagel, 953 F.2d at 395 (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548), and demonstrating that it is entitled to judgment according to law. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548 (“[T]he motion may, and should, be granted so long as whatever is before the district court demonstrates that the standard for the entry of summary judgment, as set forth in Rule 56(c), is satisfied.”). Once the moving party has successfully carried its burden under Rule 56(c), the nonmoving party has an affirmative burden to go beyond the pleadings and by depositions, affidavits, or otherwise, designate “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); Mosley v. City of Northwoods, Mo., 415 F.3d 908, 910 (8th Cir.2005) (“The nonmoving party may not ‘rest on mere allegations or denials, but must demonstrate on the record the existence of specific facts which create a genuine issue for trial.’ ” (quoting Krenik v. County of Le Sueur, 47 F.3d 953, 957 (8th Cir.1995))).

As the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained,

“On a motion for summary judgment, ‘facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party only if there is a genuine dispute as to those facts.’ ” Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557, 129 S.Ct. 2658, 2677, 174 L.Ed.2d 490 (2009) quoting Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007) (internal quotations omitted). “Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from

[31 F.Supp.3d 1020]

the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge.” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000), quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The nonmovant...