ÿWPCê 2# ÌUN× %% 0 Y+w@„4ÄØ {(ç 0 0D¬ 0Jð 0@: 0Tz 0^Î 0h, 0r” 0| 0†‚ 0 1u˜ 0d U>q B¯ D3Ì B)ÿ DC( AMk U*¸ â Þ÷ 6Õ AQ Æ\ 0D" 0Df D/ª BÙ£öv~™vÓ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(1 g$¡¡Ô€QñÆQXXÔÓ<ýÓ        £Ó€ B\J#3|x ($¡¡(M(3É@$¤¤Ý ƒ g!ÝÔ€QaQXXÔÓ<ýÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman d 'ÿÿdxd% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd*#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÓ<ýÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òNovember€14,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ÔÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÓ<ýÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAt€some€point€during€the€proceedings€below,€Miles€Corporation€became€BayerÏCorporation.Ì ,Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÓ<ýÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€trial€courtððs€order€further€stated€that€ð ð[f]urther,€the€proof€presented€does€notÏdemonstrate€that€the€plaintiff€has€gone€forward€with€any€proof€that€the€defendants€conductedÏthemselves€in€any€tortious€manner€or€that€the€combination€of€the€chemicals€employed€by€theÏplaintiff€caused€the€damage€complained€of€herein.ðð€€We€believe€the€evidence€presented€by€HughesÏcreates€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€as€to€causation.Ì*+,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd ™Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÓ<ýÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAs€Hughes€concedes,€these€claims€are€pre„empted€to€the€extent€that€they€rely€on€a€failure„to„warn€theory€because€Freeman€had€no€duty€to€provide€warnings€other€than€those€contained€onÏFIFRA„approved€labels.€€ò òòòHopkinsv.€American€Cyanamid€Co.ó óóó,€666€So.€2d€615,€621€(La.Ï1996).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ<ýÓÝ  ÝÔT€Ôò òÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ` Ü` p”XÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE,€WESTERN€SECTIONÌà@ àAT€JACKSONó óÌà@ à_______________________________________________________Ìà à)Ìò òHARRIS€HUGHES,€JR.ó ó,à à)à àHaywood€County€Circuit€CourtÌà à)à àNo.€2898Ì€€€€€Plaintiff/Appellant.à à)Ìà à)ÌVS.à à)à àC.A.€No.€02A01„9611„CV„00290ÌÙ€*ÙßR€$&#A1-j|ú` ¤ `€€@ÿRßà à)Ìò òTENNESSEE€SEEDS€OFó óà à)Ìò òBROWNSVILLE,€INC.,€WATERFIELDó óà à)Ìò òGRAIN€CO.,€INC.,€LINDA€FREEMAN,ó óà à)Ìò òin€her€capacity€as€Manager€ofó óà à)Ìò òTENNESSEE€SEEDS€OFó óà à)Ìò òBROWNSVILLE,€INC.,€FMCó óà à)Ìò òCORPORATION,€and€MILESó óà à)Ìò òCORPORATIONó ó,à à)Ìà à)Ì€€€€€Defendants/Appellees.à à)Ì______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌFrom€the€Circuit€Court€of€Haywood€County€at€Brownsville.Ìò òHonorable€Dick€Jerman,€Jr.,€Judge€ó óÌÌÌò òRobert€L.€Greenó ó,Ìò òDarryl€D.€Greshamó ó,ÌNEELY,€GREEN,€FARGARSON,€BROOKE€&€SUMMERS,€Memphis,€TennesseeÌò òSteven€R.€Walkeró ó,€Memphis,€TennesseeÌAttorneys€for€Plaintiff/Appellant.ÌÌò òJames€M.€Doran,€Jr.ó ó,Ìò òE.€Frances€Coughlinó ó,ÌMANIER,€HEROD,€HOLLABAUGH€&€SMITHÌAttorneys€for€Defendants/Appellees€Tennessee€Seeds€of€Brownsville,€Inc.,€Waterfield€Grain€Co.,ÏInc.,€and€Linda€Freeman.ÌÌò òMatthew€J.€Sweeney,€IIIó ó,€Nashville,€Tennesseeò òÌLee€Davis€Thamesó ó,€Jackson,€MississippiÌò òMichael€E.€McWilliamsó ó,€Jackson,€MississippiÌAttorneys€for€Defendant/Appellee€FMC€Corporation.ÌÌò òLarry€E.€Killebrewó ó,Ìò òBradley€E.€Trammelló ó,ÌBAKER,€DONELSON,€BEARMAN€&€CALDWELL,€Memphis,€TennesseeÌò òJack€E.€Urquhartó ó,Ìò òJohn€W.€Ghezzió ó,ÌHOTLZMAN€&€URQUHART,€P.C.,€Houston,€TexasÌAttorneys€for€Defendant/Appellee€Miles,€Inc.ÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:Ìò òÌAFFIRMED€IN€PART,€REVERSED€IN€PART€AND€REMANDEDó óÌÌÌà àò òFARMER,€J.ó óÌò òÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ó ó:€(Concurs)Ìò òLILLARD,€J.ó ó:€(Concurs)ÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓÓ` Ü` ˜XÓà àPlaintiff€Harris€Hughes,€Jr.,€appeals€the€trial€courtððs€order€entering€summaryÏjudgment€in€favor€of€Defendants/Appellees€Tennessee€Seeds€of€Brownsville,€Inc.,€WaterfieldÏGrain€Company,€Linda€Freeman€(in€her€capacity€as€manager€of€Tennessee€Seeds),€FMCÏCorporation,€and€Miles€Corporation.× ƒ' ××  ×€€We€reverse€in€part€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€based€on€ourÏconclusion€that€the€Federal€Insecticide,€Fungicide€and€Rodenticide€Act€(FIFRA)€does€not€preemptÏall€of€Hughesðð€state„law€claims€against€the€Defendants.ÌÌÔ&  Ôà@ àò òòòI.€€Facts€and€Procedural€Historyóóó óÌÌà àIn€ruling€on€the€Defendantsðð€motions€for€summary€judgment,€the€trial€court,€andÏthisÔ'  Ô€court€on€appeal,€must€view€all€of€the€evidence€in€favor€of€Hughes,€the€nonmoving€party,€andÏdraw€all€reasonable€inferences€from€the€evidence€in€Hughesðð€favor.€€ò òòòByrdv.€Halló óóó,€847€S.W.2dÏ208,€214€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€evidence€in€this€case€consisted€chiefly€of€Hughesðð€lengthyÏdeposition.€€When€viewed€in€accordance€with€the€foregoing€standard,€Hughesðð€deposition€revealsÏthe€following€facts.ÌÌà àIn€the€spring€of€1991,€Hughes€planted€approximately€4200€acres€of€cotton.€€WhenÏHughes€began€planting€his€crop€in€April€1991,€he€used€a€chemical€program€which€includedÏTerraclor€SuperX,€Temik,€Command,€Di„Syston,€and€Cotoran.€€Hughes€included€Command€inÏhis€chemical€program€based€upon€the€advice€of€Linda€Freeman,€the€manager€of€Tennessee€Seeds,Ïand€Tom€Hayes,€a€representative€of€FMC.€€Freeman€and€Hayes€recommended€that€Hughes€useÍCommand€even€though€Command€had€not€yet€been€approved€for€use€on€cotton€in€Tennessee.€ÏFreeman€and€Hayes€represented€that€Command€would€be€approved€for€use€on€cotton€within€ð ðjust€aÏmatter€of€daysðð€and,€in€any€event,€by€the€time€planting€season€started.€€Hayes€specificallyÏrecommended€the€use€of€Command€on€Hughesðð€1991€cotton€crop€ð ðbecause€it€was€a€very€goodÏvelvet€leaf€control€material,€and€it€was€a€lot€cheaper€thanðð€an€alternative€product.€€When€HughesÏagreed€to€use€Command,€Freeman€and€Hayes€also€recommended€that€he€use€Di„Syston€inÏconjunction€with€Command€as€a€seed€ð ðsafener.ððÌÌà àOn€the€advice€of€Linda€Freeman,€in€early€May€Hughes€changed€his€chemicalÏprogram€by€substituting€the€chemical€Direx€for€Cotoran.€€Because€of€rain,€Hughes€had€decided€toÏbroadcast€his€chemicals€instead€of€applying€the€chemicals€in€bands.€€According€to€Freeman,ÏHughes€could€broadcast€Direx€just€as€cheaply€as€he€could€band€Cotoran.€€The€label€on€the€Di„Syston€container€cautioned€the€user€against€using€ð ðcertain€pre„emergent€herbicidesðð€in€conjunctionÏwith€Di„Syston.€€Hughes€knew€that€Direx€was€a€pre„emergent€herbicide,€so€he€asked€FreemanÏabout€its€use€in€conjunction€with€Di„Syston.€€Freeman€represented€that€it€would€be€ð ðokayðð€to€useÏDirex€with€Di„Syston€and,€in€fact,€recommended€the€combination€to€Hughes.€€Hughes€purchasedÏall€of€his€chemicals€from€Freeman€at€Tennessee€Seeds,€and€he€relied€upon€her€expertise€in€decidingÏwhich€chemicals€to€use.€€ÌÌà àAfter€Hughes€completed€his€planting€for€the€1991€season,€he€noticed€that€all€of€theÏcotton€treated€with€the€combination€of€Command,€Di„Syston,€and€Direx€either€died€or€sufferedÏsevere€damage,€while€the€cotton€treated€with€Command,€Di„Syston,€and€Cotoran€survived.€ÏHughes€later€learned€that€the€cotton€died€because€he€mixed€an€organophosphate€(Di„Syston)€with€aÏurea„based€product€(Direx)€and€that€Freeman€should€not€have€recommended€these€chemicals€inÏcombination€with€one€another.€€Hughes€further€learned€that€the€damage€to€his€cotton€crop€wasÏexacerbated€by€his€use€of€Command,€which€tended€to€damage€the€cotton€plant€by€whitening€theÏleaves€and€stunting€the€plantððs€growth€when€applied€at€rates€recommended€for€other€crops.€€ÌÌà àHughes€subsequently€filed€this€products€liability€action€against€the€DefendantsÏseeking€to€recover€for€the€damage€caused€to€his€1991€cotton€crop.€€Hughes€sued€the€followingÏentities:€€Tennessee€Seeds€and€its€manager,€Linda€Freeman,€who€sold€the€chemicals€to€Hughes;ÏWaterfield€Grain€Company,€the€parent€company€of€Tennessee€Seeds;€FMC€Corporation,€theÏmanufacturer€of€Command;€and€Miles€Corporation,€the€manufacturer€of€Di„Syston.€€TheÏmanufacturer€of€Direx€was€not€a€party€to€this€lawsuit.€€Hughesðð€complaint€asserted€the€followingÏcounts€against€all€named€Defendants:€€(1)products€liability€(negligence);€(2)products€liabilityÏ(strict€liability€in€tort);€and€(3)breach€of€express€and€implied€warranties.€€Additionally,€HughesððÏcomplaint€asserted€counts€for€breach€of€fiduciary€duty€and€negligence€against€Freeman,€TennesseeÏSeeds,€and€Waterfield€Grain€Company.ÌÌà àThe€Defendants€moved€for€summary€judgment,€contending€that€all€of€HughesððÏclaims€against€them€were€preempted€by€FIFRA.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€Defendantsðð€motions,Ïand€this€appeal€followed.× ƒ( ××  ×€€ÌÌÔ&  Ôà@ àò òòòII.€€FIFRA€Pre„emptionóóó óÌÌà àThis€court€previously€addressed€the€pre„emptive€effects€of€FIFRA€inÏò òòòWadlingtonv.Ô'  Ô€Miles,€Inc.ó óóó,€922€S.W.2d€520€(Tenn.€App.€1995):ÌÌÓ™Óà8 àFIFRA€is€a€comprehensive€federal€statute€that€regulates€pesticideÏuse,€sales€and€labeling,€and€grants€enforcement€authority€to€theÏEnvironmental€Protection€Agency€(EPA).€€ò òòòTaylor€AG€Indus.v.ÏPure„Groó óóó,€54€F.3d€555,€559€(9th€Cir.€1995).€€FIFRA€expresslyÍprohibits€states€from€posing€ð ðany€requirements€for€labeling€orÏpackaging€in€addition€to€or€different€from€those€requiredðð€under€it.€Ï7€U.S.C.A.€ðð136v(b)€(Supp.€1995).ÌÌÓ3+ÓÌò òòòWadlingtonó óóó,€922€S.W.2d€at€522.€€Accordingly,€section€136v(b)€of€FIFRA€prevents€states€fromÏenacting€legislation€which€conflicts€with€FIFRAððs€labeling€requirements.ÌÌà àIn€addition,€section€136v(b)€prevents€state€courts€from€granting€relief€on€common„law€claims€if€the€relief€granted€would€conflict€with€FIFRAððs€labeling€requirements.€€ò òòòPapasv.ÏUpjohn€Co.ó óóó,€985€F.2d€516,€518€(11th€Cir.),€ò òòòcert.€deniedó óóó,€510€U.S.€913€(1993).€€AsÏexplained€by€the€court€in€ò òòòPapasó óóó,ÌÌÓ™Óà8 à[T]he€term€ð ðrequirementsðð€in€section€136v(b)€ð ðsweeps€broadly€andÏsuggests€no€distinction€between€positive€enactments€and€theÏcommon€law.ðð€€[ò òòòCipollonev.€Liggett€Group,€Inc.ó óóó,€505€U.S.Ï504,€521,€112€S.€Ct.€2608,€2620€(1992)].€€Common€law€damagesÏawards€are€one€form€of€state€regulation€and,€as€such,€areÏð ðrequirementsðð€within€the€meaning€of€section€136v.€€ò òòòSee€Id.ó óóóÌÌÓ3+ÓÌò òòòPapasó óóó,€985€F.2d€at€518.€€Thus,€ð ð[t]o€the€extent€that€state€law€actions€for€damages€depend€upon€aÏshowing€that€a...€manufacturerððs€ððlabeling€or€packagingðð€failed€to€meet€a€standard€ððin€addition€toÏor€different€fromðð€FIFRA€requirements,ðð€section€136v(b)€pre„empts€such€claims.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó;€ò òòòaccordó óóóÏò òòòWadlingtonó óóó,€922€S.W.2d€at€524.ÌÌà àIn€deciding€what€types€of€claims€were€pre„empted€by€FIFRA€in€ò òòòWadlingtonó óóó,€thisÏcourt€noted€that€FIFRAððs€language€indicated€that€Congress€intended€to€create€a€broad€definition€ofÏlabeling.€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€(citing€U.S.C.A.€ðððð136(p),€136(q)€(Supp.€1995)).€€Based€upon€FIFRAððs€broadÏdefinition€of€labeling,€this€Court,€like€the€federal€courts€before€it,€concluded€that€FIFRA€pre„emptsÍstate„law€claims€to€the€extent€that€such€claims€are€based€upon€allegations€that€the€manufacturerÏfailed€to€adequately€warn€users€as€to€the€proper€use€of€its€product.€€ò òòòWadlingtonó óóó,€922€S.W.2d€atÏ523„24;€ò òòòPapasó óóó,€985€F.2d€at€518;€ò òòòsee€alsoó óóó€ò òòòTaylor€AG€Indus.v.€Pure„Groó óóó,€54€F.3d€555,Ï561€(9th€Cir.€1995);€ò òòòLowev.€Sporicidin€Internatððló óóó,€47€F.3d€124,€129€(4th€Cir.€1995);Ïò òòòWormv.€American€Cyanamid€Co.ó óóó,€5€F.3d€744,€748€(4th€Cir.€1993).€€Courts€uniformlyÏhave€reached€this€conclusion€because,€ultimately,€failure„to„warn€claims€challenge€the€adequacy€ofÏthe€warnings€provided€on€the€productððs€labeling.€€ò òòòPapasó óóó,€985€F.2d€at€519;€ò òòòTaylor€AG€Indus.ó óóó,Ï54€F.3d€at€561.ÌÌà àIn€accordance€with€these€authorities,€Hughes€concedes€in€this€appeal€that€theÏDefendants€were€entitled€to€summary€judgment€as€to€any€claims€which€were€based€on€allegationsÏof€improper€labeling€or€failure€to€warn.€€To€the€extent€that€his€claims€are€based€on€affirmativeÏrepresentations€by€Linda€Freeman€and€Tom€Hayes€as€to€the€suitability€of€the€products€used,Ïhowever,€Hughes€insists€that€his€claims€are€not€pre„empted€by€FIFRA.ÌÌÔ&  Ôà@ àò òòòIII.€€Hughesðð€Claims€Against€Miles€Corporationó óóóÌÌà àAs€an€initial€matter,€we€conclude€that€any€claims€which€Hughes€may€have€againstÔ'  ÔÏDefendant€Miles€Corporation€are€pre„empted€by€FIFRA€because€the€only€evidence€in€the€record€onÏthis€matter€indicates€that€Hughesðð€claims€against€Miles€are€based€on€improper€labeling€and€failure„Ïto„warn€theories.€€In€his€deposition,€Hughes€acknowledged€that€he€had€no€claim€that€MilesððÏproduct,€Di„Syston,€was€improperly€designed,€tested,€or€manufactured.€€Hughes€also€admitted€thatÏhe€did€not€rely€on€any€advertising€or€statements€made€by€Miles€beyond€those€indicated€on€theÏproduct€label.€€When€questioned€as€to€the€nature€of€his€claims€against€Miles,€Hughes€testified€thatÏthese€claims€were€based€on€the€Di„Syston€labelððs€failure€to€warn€potential€users€against€mixing€anÍorganophosphate€product€with€a€urea„based€product.€€Inasmuch€as€these€claims€challenge€theÏadequacy€of€Di„Systonððs€label,€the€claims€are€pre„empted€by€FIFRA,€and€the€trial€court€properlyÏdismissed€Miles€from€this€lawsuit.ÌÌà àHughes€criticizes€the€trial€court€for€extending€the€scope€of€the€summary€judgmentÏproceedings€beyond€the€single€basis€asserted€in€the€Defendantsðð€motions,€ò òòòi.e.ó óóó,€FIFRA€pre„emption,€and€for€reaching€the€merits€of€Hughesðð€claims€against€the€Defendants.€€Determining€theÏissue€of€whether€Hughesðð€claims€were€pre„empted€by€FIFRA,€however,€necessarily€involved€anÏinquiry€into€the€factual€bases€of€Hughesðð€claims.€€Accordingly,€when€presented€with€Milesðð€motionÏfor€summary€judgment,€it€was€incumbent€upon€Hughes€to€set€forth€evidence€which€contradictedÏthe€evidence€that€Hughesðð€claims€against€Miles€were€based€solely€on€improper€labeling€and€failure„to„warn€theories.€€ò òòòSeeó óóó€ò òòòByrdv.€Halló óóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€215€(Tenn.€1993)€(when€party€seekingÏsummary€judgment€makes€properly€supported€motion,€burden€shifts€to€nonmoving€party€to€setÏforth€specific€evidence€establishing€existence€of€disputed,€material€facts).€€At€that€point€in€theÏproceedings,€Hughes€could€not€simply€rely€on€the€allegations€of€his€complaint.€€ò òòòIdó óóó.;€ò òòòsee€alsoó óóóÏò òòòTaylor€AG€Indus.v.€Pure„Groó óóó,€54€F.3d€555,€562€n.4€(9th€Cir.€1995)€(declining€to€addressÏpre„emption€of€plaintiffsðð€design€defect€claim€on€appeal€from€summary€judgment€where€plaintiffsÏfailed€to€offer€evidence€to€support€such€claim).€€ÌÌà àIn€fact,€Hughes€has€presented€no€evidence€that€any€of€the€products€involved€in€thisÏlawsuit€were€improperly€designed,€tested,€or€manufactured,€and€on€appeal,€Hughes€acknowledgesÏthat€his€claims€ð ðare€based€upon€the€representations€and€recommendations€of€Linda€Freeman€andÏTom€Hayes.ðð€€This€leaves€only€Hughesðð€claims€for€breach€of€express€and€implied€warranties,Ïbreach€of€fiduciary€duty,€and€negligence€for€our€consideration.€€Ìà@ àÌÔ&  ÔÓ™Óà@ àò òòòIV.€€Hughesðð€Breach€of€Implied€Warranty€Claims€AgainstÌà@ àthe€Remaining€Defendantsó óóóÌÌÓ3+ÓÌà àAuthorities€addressing€the€pre„emptive€effects€of€FIFRA€on€breach€of€warrantyÏclaimsÔ'  Ô€generally€agree€that€claims€for€breach€of€ò òòòimpliedó óóó€warranties,€as€opposed€to€breach€ofÏò òòòexpressóóó ó€warranties,€are€pre„empted€by€FIFRA.€€ò òòòPapasv.€Upjohn€Co.ó óóó,€985€F.2d€516,€519„20Ï(11th€Cir.),€ò òòòcert.€deniedó óóó,€510€U.S.€913€(1993);€ò òòòTaylor€AG€Indus.v.€Pure„Groó óóó,€54€F.3dÏ555,€562„63€(9th€Cir.€1995);€ò òòòHopkinsv.€American€Cyanamid€Co.ó óóó,€666€So.€2d€615,€623Ïn.4€(La.€1996).€€In€making€this€distinction,€the€ò òòòPapasó óóó€court€explained€that,€whereas€impliedÏwarranties€of€merchantability€arise€by€operation€of€state€law,€express€warranties€arise€as€a€result€ofÏvoluntary,€express€promises€made€by€the€warrantor:ÌÌÓ™Óà8 àà àExpress€warranties€are€promises€that€are€made€in€some,€butÏnot€all,€sales€contracts.€€Express€warrantors€seek€competitiveÏadvantage€by€promising€buyers€that€certain€factual€representationsÏabout€their€goods€are€true.€€Liability€for€breach€of€an€expressÏwarranty€has€a€voluntary€quality;€it€ð ðderives€from,€and€is€measuredÏby,€the€terms€of€that€warranty.ðð€€[ò òòòCipollonev.€Liggett€Group,ÏInc.ó óóó,€505€U.S.€504,€525,€112€S.€Ct.€2608,€2622€(1992)].ÌÌà8 àà àIn€contrast,€implied€warranties€of€merchantability€arise€byÏoperation€of€law....€€Although€liability€for€breach€of€an€ò òòòexpressó óóóÏwarranty€may€be€viewed€as€ð ðimposed€by€the€warrantor,ððÏò òòòCipolloneó óóó,€505€U.S.€at€[525],€112€S.€Ct.€at€2622,€liability€forÏbreach€of€an€ò òòòimpliedó óóó€warranty€is€based€on€ð ðthe€agreement,Ïòòò òimposed€by€lawóóó ó,€to€be€responsible€in€the€event€the€thing€sold€isÏnot€in€fact€fit€for€the€use€and€purposes€intended.ðð€€ò òòòArcade€SteamÏLaundryv.€Bassó óóó,€159€So.€2d€915€(Fla.€App.€1964)€(emphasisÏadded).€€In€essence,€when€plaintiffs€argue€that€an€implied€warrantyÏobligates€the€seller,€plaintiffs€acknowledge€that€the€seller€did€notÏvolunteer€for€the€liability.ÌÌà8 àà àFIFRA€pre„empts€claims€based€on€requirements€imposed€ò òòòbyÏstatesó óóó.€€7€U.S.C.€ðð136v(b).€€If€[the€defendant]€were€to€haveÏliability€for€breach€of€an€ò òòòimpliedó óóó€warranty€of€merchantability,€thatÏliability€would€not€be€self„inflicted.€€Instead,€that€liability€would€beÏbased€on€a€requirement€imposed€by€state€law.€€Therefore,€to€theÏextent€the€implied€warranty€claim€depends€upon€inadequacies€inÍlabelling€or€packaging,€FIFRA€section€136v€pre„empts€the€claim.ÌÌÓ3+ÓÌò òòòPapasó óóó,€985€F.2d€at€519„20€(emphases€in€original);€ò òòòsee€alsoó óóó€ò òòòTaylor€AG€Indus.ó óóó,€54€F.3d€atÏ562„63;€ò òòòHopkinsó óóó,€666€So.€2d€at€623€n.4;€ò òòòbut€seeó óóó€ò òòòWrightv.€Dow€Chem.€U.S.A.ó óóó,€845€F.ÏSupp.€503,€510„11€(M.D.€Tenn.€1993).ÌÌà àIn€accordance€with€the€foregoing€authorities,€we€conclude€that€Hughesðð€claims€forÏbreach€of€implied€warranty€are€pre„empted€by€FIFRA.€€We€reach€a€different€result€with€regard€toÏHughesðð€claims€for€breach€of€express€warranty,€however,€because€these€claims€are€based€onÏvoluntary€representations€made€by€Freeman€and€Hayes€which€were€in€addition€to€or€different€fromÏFIFRAððs€labeling€requirements.ÌÌÓ™ÓÔ& ™ Ôà@ àò òòòV.€€Hughesðð€Breach€of€Express€Warranty€Claims€AgainstÌà@ àthe€Remaining€Defendantsó óóóÌÌÓ3+ÓÌà àAuthorities€also€agree€that,€to€the€extent€they€are€based€upon€inadequacies€inÔ'  ÔÏlabeling€or€packaging,€breach€of€ò òòòexpressó óóó€warranty€claims€are€pre„empted€by€FIFRA.€€In€ò òòòTaylorÏAG€Indus.v.€Pure„Groó óóó,€54€F.3d€555,€562€(9th€Cir.€1995),€the€court€held€that€the€plaintiffsððÏexpress€warranty€claim€was€pre„empted€by€FIFRA€to€the€extent€that€the€claim€was€ð ðpredicatedÏupon€a€duty€to€provide€information€in€addition€to€or€different€from€that€required€by€FIFRA.ðð€€InÏò òòòWormv.€American€Cyanamid€Co.ó óóó,€5€F.3d€744,€749€(4th€Cir.€1993),€the€court€similarly€heldÏthat€the€plaintiffsðð€claim€for€breach€of€express€warranty€was€pre„empted€where€the€representationÏmade€by€the€defendants,€ò òòòi.e.ó óóó€that€corn€could€be€safely€planted€eleven€months€following€theÏapplication€of€Scepter,€was€not€voluntary€and,€in€fact,€was€required€and€approved€by€the€EPA.€Ïò òòòSee€alsoó óóó€ò òòòLowev.€Sporicidin€Internatððló óóó,€47€F.3d€124,€129€(4th€Cir.€1995)€(ð ð[A]n€expressÍwarranty€claim€based€on€EPA„approved€labeling€materials€is€preempted.ðð).ÌÌà àThese€opinions€also€suggest,€however,€that€the€result€would€be€different€if€theÏplaintiff€were€able€to€provide€evidence€that€the€defendants€conveyed€information€or€madeÏassurances€which€went€beyond€the€label€recommendations.€€In€affirming€summary€judgment€inÏfavor€of€the€defendants,€for€example,€the€ò òòòTayloró óóó€court€noted€that€the€plaintiffs€had€failed€toÏpresent€probative€evidence€that€the€scope€of€the€defendantsðð€assurances€varied€from€or€wentÏbeyond€the€label€recommendations.€€ò òòòTaylor€AG€Indus.ó óóó,€54€F.3d€at€562€n.5.€€In€ò òòòWormó óóó,€theÏcourt€similarly€noted€that€the€plaintiffs€had€failed€to€present€evidence€that€the€defendants€made€anyÏstatements€ð ðother€than€that€required€and€approved€by€the€EPA.ðð€€ò òòòWormó óóó,€5€F.3d€at€749.ÌÌà àIn€ò òòòHopkinsv.€American€Cyanamid€Co.ó óóó,€666€So.€2d€615€(La.€1996),€theÏSupreme€Court€of€Louisiana€held€that€a€breach€of€express€warranty€claim€similar€to€the€one€broughtÏin€this€case€was€not€pre„empted€by€FIFRA.€€There,€the€defendants€allegedly€represented€that€theÏinsecticide€Thimex€could€safely€be€used€in€combination€with€Direx.€€This€combination€discolored,Ïstunted,€and€killed€many€of€the€plaintiffsðð€cotton€plants,€and€they€subsequently€sued€variousÏdefendants€for€the€damage€to€their€cotton€crop.€€In€holding€that€the€plaintiffsðð€claim€for€breach€ofÏexpress€warranty€was€not€pre„empted,€the€court€reasoned:ÌÌÓ™Óà8 à[The€plaintiffsðð€express€warranty€claim€does]€not€relate€to€labeling€orÏpackaging,€or€warning....€€An€express€warranty€is€a€guaranteeÏwhich€the€manufacturer€or€seller€of€a€good€voluntarily€undertakesÏand€extends€to€its€customer.€€It€is€not€a€warning,€nor€is€it€aÏmandatory€packaging€or€labeling€condition€which€constitutes€a€stateÏimposed€Ô&  Ôð ðrequirement.ððÌÌÓ3+ÓÌò òòòHopkinsó óóó,€666€So.€2d€at€623.Ô'  ÔÌÌà àAfter€viewing€the€evidence€in€this€case,€and€drawing€all€reasonable€inferencesÏtherefrom,€we€conclude€that€Hughes€has€presented€sufficient€evidence€to€withstand€the€remainingÏDefendantsðð€motions€for€summary€judgment€as€to€Hughesðð€breach€of€express€warranty€claims.€€AsÏin€ò òòòHopkinsó óóó,€the€record€in€this€case€contains€evidence€that€the€remaining€Defendants,€through€theirÏagents,€voluntarily€made€representations€as€to€their€productððs€effectiveness€or€suitability€onÏHughesðð€cotton€crop,€and€that€these€representations€exceeded€or€differed€from€the€informationÏcontained€in€the€productððs€label.€€According€to€Hughesðð€deposition€testimony,€Freeman€and€HayesÏrecommended€that€Hughes€use€Command€on€his€cotton€crop€even€though€Command€was€not€yetÏlabeled€for€use€on€cotton.€€Additionally,€Freeman€represented€to€Hughes€that€it€would€be€ð ðokayðð€toÏuse€Direx€in€combination€with€Di„Syston.€€These€representations€were€voluntarily€made€and€wentÏbeyond€the€information€contained€in€the€respective€productððs€labeling€information.ÌÌÔ&  ÔÓ™Óò òòòà@ àVI.€€Hughesðð€Breach€of€Fiduciary€Duty€and€Negligence€Claims€AgainstÌà@ àTennessee€Seeds,€Waterfield€Grain€Company,€and€Linda€Freemenó óóóÌÌÓ3+ÓÌà àWe€likewise€conclude€that€FIFRA€does€not€pre„empt€Hughesðð€claims€for€breach€ofÔ'  ÔÏfiduciary€duty€and€negligence€against€Tennessee€Seeds,€Waterfield€Grain€Company,€and€LindaÏFreeman.€€Like€Hughesðð€express€warranty€claims,€these€claims€depend,€not€upon€the€informationÏprovided€on€EPA„approved€labels,€but€upon€the€voluntary€representations€made€by€Linda€FreemanÏwhen€she€was€advising€Hughes€as€to€the€appropriate€chemical€program€to€use€on€his€cotton€crop.× ƒ/ ××  ×€ÌÌà@ àò òòòVII.€€Conclusionó óóóÌà àÌà àThose€portions€of€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€(1)dismissing€Hughesðð€claims€forÏbreach€of€express€warranty€against€Tennessee€Seeds,€Waterfield€Grain€Company,€Linda€Freeman,Ïand€FMC,€and€(2)dismissing€Hughesðð€claims€for€breach€of€fiduciary€duty€and€negligence€againstÏTennessee€Seeds,€Waterfield€Grain€Company,€and€Linda€Freeman€are€reversed€and€this€causeÏremanded€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.€€In€all€other€respects,€the€trialÏcourtððs€judgment€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€Appellees€(with€the€exception€ofÏMiles€Corporation),€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓ™Óà àà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌ______________________________ÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.€(Concurs)ÌÌÌ______________________________ÌLILLARD,€J.€(Concurs)ÌÌ