By Diana Novak Jones and Dietrich Knauth
June 25 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court sided on Thursday with Bayer in its bid to limit thousands of lawsuits claiming its Roundup weedkiller causes cancer in a case that is part of sprawling years-long litigation over the product.
Here is a look at how the ruling could affect the company's overall liability.
WHAT DID THE SUPREME COURT RULE?
The justices in a 7-2 decision overturned a jury verdict in Missouri awarding $1.25 million to John Durnell, a man who
said he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma after years of exposure to glyphosate in Roundup. The Supreme Court agreed with Bayer that plaintiffs cannot claim the German company violated U.S. state laws by failing to warn about any cancer risk posed by Roundup because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has found no such risk and requires no such warning on the product's label.
WHAT OTHER LITIGATION IS BAYER FACING?
Bayer is facing claims over Roundup from approximately 65,000 plaintiffs in U.S. state and federal courts. In lawsuits filed beginning in 2015, plaintiffs have said they developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other forms of cancer after using the weedkiller at home or on the job. Roundup is among the most widely used weedkillers in the United States. Bayer has said decades of studies have shown Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, are safe for human use.
DOES THE RULING END ALL ROUNDUP LITIGATION?
No. The ruling eliminates one type of claim — that Bayer failed to follow state laws when it did not include a warning about cancer risk on its label. Most of the lawsuits involve multiple claims by plaintiffs alleging the company is liable for their cancer diagnoses.
Failure-to-warn claims were part of most Roundup lawsuits and are generally considered easier to prove than other legal theories. Those claims are now preempted by federal law.
Plaintiffs also have accused Bayer of being negligent and misrepresenting Roundup's safety in its marketing, and have alleged that the product was defective for its intended purpose. Those claims can continue.
Bayer could try to argue in those cases that the Supreme Court's ruling should doom the remaining claims.
WHAT IS BAYER'S PROPOSED SETTLEMENT?
In February, after the Supreme Court had agreed to hear its appeal in Durnell's case, Bayer announced that it had reached a $7.25 billion settlement with attorneys seeking to represent a nationwide class of people who have said Roundup exposure caused their cancer. The deal is aimed at resolving most of the remaining lawsuits as well as potential lawsuits from people who already have been exposed to Roundup and develop cancer in the future. A state court judge in Missouri gave an initial green light in March to the proposed settlement. Several people have objected to the settlement, and the judge will consider final approval of the deal at a future court hearing.
WHAT DOES THE RULING MEAN FOR THE SETTLEMENT?
The Supreme Court's ruling does not change the terms of the settlement, and Bayer said it remains committed to moving forward with the deal it reached in February.
Plaintiffs were given a June 4 deadline to decide whether to opt out of the settlement and pursue their individual cases in court, forcing them to choose whether to settle without knowing the Supreme Court's final decision.
Lawyers who negotiated the settlement said the Supreme Court's ruling vindicates their decision to make a deal and lock in funds for cancer victims before the issuance of the decision.
(Reporting by Diana Novak Jones in Chicago and Dietrich Knauth in New York; Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Will Dunham)
