Statement on Rose

“The company is pleased that the jury found in favor of the company for nearly 75% of the plaintiffs in this case (11 of 15). However, we disagree with the verdict in favor of four plaintiffs and will pursue post-trial motions, and an appeal, if necessary, to get the adverse verdict overturned or reduce the excessive damages awarded. The objective evidence in this case, including blood, air and other tests, demonstrated that PCB levels were low or non-existent and could not be the cause of the injuries alleged in the case.

This case also may have to be retried because the trial court refused to stay it pending the outcome of the state Supreme Court case in Erickson, the first of the SVEC cases to go to trial, which raises many cross-cutting issues. Monsanto looks forward to arguing before the state Supreme Court in Erickson next month that the award of any punitive damages was error reflecting a mashup of Washington liability law and Missouri punitive damages law that fails to comply with the U.S. Constitution, state law or choice-of-law principles. Plaintiffs’ lawyers sought to evade the clear directive of the Washington Product Liability Act (WPLA), which bars punitive damages, by cherry-picking Missouri law to govern punitive damages while bringing their underlying claims under the WPLA. Punitive damages account for 80% of the overall damage awards in the SVEC litigation to date. The Supreme Court also should affirm the decisions by the appellate court on the statute of repose defense and the inadmissibility of most of the opinions of plaintiff’s exposure expert, Kevin Coghlan.”

Background on errors at trial

The Rose trial was held in King County Superior Court in the State of Washington, a jurisdiction that was recently named a “Judicial Hellhole™” for 2024-2025. Rose was the 10th trial in the SVEC litigation and was consolidated for trial with Grant and had a total of 15 plaintiffs, the largest number to date in this litigation.

There were several reversible legal and evidentiary errors made by the trial court that the company likely will cite in seeking relief through post-trial motions, and an appeal if necessary, including:

Improper Submission of Punitive Damages:

• The trial court erred in allowing the jury to consider punitive damages in this case by selectively applying Missouri law for punitive damages, rather than Washington law which prohibits punitive damages. Indeed, the Court permitted plaintiffs to cherry-pick Missouri law to apply to punitive damages even though plaintiffs brought their liability claims under the Washington Product Liability Act, in Washington, and claimed they were injured in Washington state. As previously mentioned, the availability of any punitive damages in these cases is currently under consideration by the Washington Supreme Court, which is notable given that more than 80% of the damages awarded in the SVEC litigation to date have been punitive damages.

Superseding Causes:

• The trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the company’s superseding cause defense. The Monroe School District knew of the potential harms from PCBs and that there were PCBs present at SVEC since the early 2000s - years before plaintiffs’ alleged exposure. But nevertheless, the Monroe School District did not take adequate steps to remediate the risk of PCB exposure until 2016. The trial court improperly prevented the jury from considering whether the Monroe School District was a superseding cause of the plaintiffs’ alleged harm.

Failure to Enforce the WPLA’s Statute of Repose:

• The trial court failed to properly enforce the WPLA’s statute of repose which bars claims for injuries sustained after the “useful safe life” of a product has expired. The plaintiffs did not successfully rebut the statute’s presumption that the “useful safe life” of the product expired 12 years after delivery of the product, and did not present sufficient evidence to invoke the fraud exception to the statute.

Admission of Exposure Opinions by Kevin Coghlan That Were Barred by the Court of Appeals Decision in Erickson, and the Lack of Required Exposure Evidence:

• The trial court erred in allowing the unrestricted testimony of plaintiffs’ sole exposure expert Kevin Coghlan, despite the fact that the Washington Court of Appeals found that most of Mr. Coghlan’s testimony in a similar SVEC case, Erickson, should have been excluded because it was based on methodologies he invented for this litigation that were novel, unreliable and junk science. Moreover, the plaintiffs offered no evidence of the dose at which PCBs can cause their alleged injuries or any evidence of the dose of PCBs any of them experienced.

Lack of Required Expert General and Specific Causation Evidence:

• The plaintiffs in this case chose to claim more than 100 unique injuries. It is the plaintiffs burden under the law to present expert evidence that PCBs could be, and were, the cause of each injury. While the Court properly granted the company’s motion for judgement as a matter of law on Plaintiffs’ claim of fear of cancer, the Court erred by allowing many of the remaining injuries to go to the jury despite the insufficiency of Plaintiffs’ evidence that their injuries were actually caused by PCBs.

Preexisting Conditions/Potential Alternative Causes:

• The trial court erred in preventing the company from presenting evidence of potential alternative causes of Plaintiffs’ alleged health issues, including a preexisting condition for one plaintiff that would have shown that she had been diagnosed with endometriosis prior to being at SVEC.

Admission of Improper Rebuttal Evidence:

• The trial court permitted plaintiffs to present improper and highly prejudicial evidence in their rebuttal case related to a 2024 EPA letter sent to the Monroe School District regarding remedial actions at SVEC, which the company objected to on the grounds that it contradicts testimony from plaintiffs’ own expert so it should not have been permitted to rebut the company’s case, the letter is irrelevant as it was sent approximately 6 years after any plaintiff was last allegedly exposed to PCBs at the school, and the plaintiffs’ counsel failed to produce the letter timely during the discovery process.

Background on PCBs

Widely recognized as nonflammable safety fluids, PCBs were once specified by many electrical and building codes and insurance companies to protect against serious fire risk, and their production was required by the federal government to protect the nation’s electrical grid. Monsanto voluntarily ceased all PCB production in 1977, conducted hundreds of studies on PCB safety, and provided appropriate warnings to its customers based on the state-of-the science at the time.