ST. LOUIS — A federal judge has denied Monsanto’s request to return its lawsuit against General Electric and other companies to state court, finding that General Electric properly moved the case to federal court because of its work supplying PCB-containing electrical equipment to the U.S. government.
U.S. District Judge Joshua M. Divine issued the order July 22, according to an order filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
The ruling leaves the case in federal court under the federal officer removal statute, which allows certain cases against companies acting under federal officers or agencies to be removed from state court.
Monsanto manufactured polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, for decades and sold them to companies that used the chemicals in electrical products, according to the order. The company says it has incurred substantial costs defending hundreds of lawsuits in which plaintiffs alleged that PCBs it produced caused harm.
Monsanto sued Magnetek, General Electric and others in state court, seeking to require them to pay the full amount of its defense costs from those cases.
General Electric removed the suit to federal court. Monsanto then sought to have the case remanded to state court, but the judge concluded that removal was proper.
The court found that General Electric acted under federal officers by supplying PCB-containing electrical products to the federal government, particularly during World War II.
PCBs were used to cool and insulate high-voltage equipment and, for much of the twentieth century, were described in the court record as the only nonflammable dielectric fluid available.
The order said their use in electrical equipment reduced serious risks of fatal fires and explosions.
During World War II, the Navy required General Electric to provide PCB-containing transformers at government facilities, the order said.
The federal government also invested more than $14 million in expanding General Electric’s Pittsfield, Massachusetts, facility, which was dedicated to producing PCB products for the government.
For part of the war, all capacitors produced at the facility went to the federal government, according to the ruling.
The court said the government’s wartime investment and the issuance of a necessity certificate demonstrated that General Electric’s products were considered necessary to the national defense.
A 1945 War Production Board ledger showed that the Pittsfield plant had the capacity to supply 2.5 million capacitors and 18,200 modulators and transformers each quarter.
The opinion also cited Monsanto’s own wartime documents.
In a 1941 request for a necessity certificate, Monsanto identified General Electric and Westinghouse as companies that would use its PCBs in support of the war effort.
Monsanto stated that all of the PCBs it planned to sell to General Electric and other manufacturers would be absorbed directly or indirectly into the defense program, the court said.
General Electric’s government work continued after World War II, according to the order.
A 1961 federal supply catalog listed General Electric’s Pyranol fluid as a product that could meet the usual needs of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps.
The company also supplied PCB-containing equipment used aboard the USS Forrestal aircraft carrier, where the Navy reviewed designs and exercised oversight over testing, installation and equipment performance.
The court said the Navy continued to rely on General Electric into the 1970s.
In a 1974 letter, the Navy told the company that military agencies had substantial numbers of transformers and electrical devices for which PCB-containing insulating fluid was essential, and that General Electric was needed to keep many of those devices operational.
Monsanto argued that General Electric had not shown that its government sales made up more than a minimal portion of the PCBs involved in the litigation.
Divine rejected that argument, ruling that the removal statute does not require an airtight merits case and that General Electric had established a sufficient connection between its federal work and the conduct for which Monsanto seeks indemnification.
The judge concluded that General Electric acted under federal direction and that Monsanto’s claims relate to those government duties. The court denied Monsanto’s motion to remand.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri case number: 4:23-cv-00204
