Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 09-08-2022

Case Style:

Coy's Honney Farm, Inc. v. Bayer Corp.

Case Number: 1:21-cv-00089

Judge: Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr.

Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (Cape Girardeau County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Click Here to Watch How To Find A Lawyer by Kent Morlan

Click Here For The Best Cape Girardeau Lawyer Directory

If no lawyer is listed, call 918-582-6422 and MoreLaw will help you find a lawyer for free.

Defendant's Attorney: Christopher M. Hohn and Sara Lynne Chamberlain

Description: Cape Girardeau, Missouri personal injury lawyers represented Plaintiff, who sued defendant on a product liability theory.

Plaintiff Coy's Honey Farms, Inc., is a bee-keeping and honey-producing operation based near Jonesboro, Arkansas. Plaintiff alleges that dicamba-based herbicide products, including those produced by defendants Monsanto and BASF[1], moved off target dicamba-tolerant plants and damaged non-tolerant vegetation surrounding plaintiff's bee-keeping operation. The result, plaintiff alleges, was reduced honey production and loss of bees. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in the Eastern District of Arkansas, and the matter was transferred to this Court's In re Dicamba Herbicides Litigation Multidistrict Litigation, No. 1:18md2820 (the “MDL”). The MDL has been comprised mainly of farmers alleging that their non-dicamba-tolerant soybean crops were damaged by dicamba moving off-target, but other crops have also been included, including peaches. See Bader Farms, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., No. 1:16cv299 (E.D. Mo.).

Defendants moved to dismiss [Doc. 15] plaintiff's original twelve-count first amended complaint [MDL Doc. 590; “FAC”]. The first amended complaint included the following counts: (1) violation of the Lanham Act; (2) breach of duty of manufacturer; (3) breach of duty of manufacturer to warn; (4) breach of duty of manufacturer to instruct; (5) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; (6) nuisance; (7) trespass; (8) negligence; (9) strict liability - products liability; (10) strict liability - ultrahazardous or abnormally dangerous activity; (11) violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act; and (12) punitive damages. This Court dismissed Counts 2 through 11, but plaintiff was allowed leave to replead Counts 2, 3, 4, 8, and 9.

Finally, defendants move to dismiss the plaintiff's punitive damages count under the assumption that all counts for which punitive damages may be available would be dismissed. The Court declines to dismiss plaintiff's product liability counts; thus, the Court will not dismiss plaintiff's punitive damages claim.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint [Doc. 33] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's Counts 5, 6, 8, and 9 are DISMISSED.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:


Find a Lawyer


Find a Case