A punitive damages award to a Missouri peach farmer who claimed his crop was nearly destroyed by weedkiller drift has been cut by $190 million after a federal judge ruled it was unconstitutional.
But U.S. District Court Judge Stephen Limbaugh upheld the finding by a jury that Monsanto and BASF were responsible for the damage done to the crop of farmer Bill Bader.
The two companies sold and marketed dicamba, which drifted from farms with crops resistant to the weedkiller to neighboring properties, according to Bader.
Judge Limbaugh cut the punitive award from $250 million to $60 million, or four times the $15 million in actual damages.
The two companies had argued against any punitive damages because they were denied due process as the jury's decision was based on passion or prejudice.
"The harm to third-party (non-dicamba tolerant) crop farmers like plaintiff was foreseeable and in fact foreseen by Monsanto,” Limbaugh wrote in his judgment. “The duty owed is clear."
Bayer, which took over Monsanto in a more than $60 billion deal in 2018, is appealing the verdict and award.
"Helping farmers safely and successfully grow healthy crops is what we do, and we have deep empathy for any farmer who experiences crop losses," Bayer spokesman Christopher Loder told the St. Louis Record.
"The court’s decision to reduce the punitive damages award is a step in the right direction, but we continue to believe that the jury’s verdict and damage awards are inconsistent with the evidence and the law, and Bayer plans to file an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit.
"Bayer stands strongly behind the safety and utility of XtendiMax and has continued to enhance training and education efforts to help ensure growers can use these products successfully. We will continue working with the EPA, growers, academics, and others to provide long-term access to this important tool.”
XtendiMax is the brand name for the dicamba-containing product.
In a statement, an attorney for Bader Farms, said the ruling was a “strong affirmation of the jury’s verdict” and that the court had to work on precedent when deciding on the amount of punitive damages.
“After reviewing hundreds of pages of post-trial briefing, the Court has vindicated Bader Farms’ position and rejected Defendants’ efforts to relitigate this case in the media,” Bev Randles said.
More than 180 internal company documents, from both Monsanto and BASF, were presented to the jury during the three week trial earlier this year.
Internal communications show the companies were prepared for thousands of farmers to complain about the use of dicamba and that Monsanto hampered the ability of scientists to test the product before it went on market.
A federal court earlier this year banned the use of dicamba during the growing season. The EPA, in October, ordered its continued use..