KANSAS CITY — Monsanto has petitioned the Missouri Supreme Court to review a landmark Roundup case after the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Western District upheld $549.9 million in punitive damages awarded to three plaintiffs, arguing that fundamental legal errors and misapplications of state statutes demand reconsideration.
The company contends the trial court’s actions—and inactions—not only contradict Missouri law but also threaten to set damaging precedents for thousands of pending personal injury claims across the state.
The appeal raises four central legal questions that Monsanto claims are of broad importance and require immediate clarification.
Chief among them is the interpretation of Missouri’s statute on recoverable medical expenses in tort cases. Enacted in 2017, § 490.715.5 stipulates that only the “actual cost” of medical care may be introduced as evidence and recovered in court.
This “actual cost” is defined by the statute as the amounts actually paid by or on behalf of the plaintiff, excluding amounts “billed” but written off through discounts or insurance adjustments.
However, the appellate court allowed plaintiffs in this case to present and recover inflated, billed amounts for medical care — multiples higher than what was actually paid.
“The Company believes the Missouri Supreme Court should grant its motion for transfer and vacate the appellate court’s decision that relies on erroneous case law and conflicts with the plain language of Missouri statute limiting compensatory damages for medical expenses to ‘actual costs’ and excluding unpaid ‘billed’ amounts,” a spokesperson for the company said. “This split between Missouri statutory law and a flawed holding by the appellate court warrants review by the state supreme court. The appellate court also erred by failing to credit the Company for previously paid punitive damages for the same conduct.”
Monsanto argues this practice contradicts the clear legislative language and purpose of § 490.715.5. The decision relied on Brancati v. Bi-State Development Agency, a 2018 Eastern District opinion that has been criticized and rejected by numerous federal courts in Missouri for its failure to apply the statute’s plain meaning.
“Additionally, the appellate court failed to correct errors committed during the course of the trial, including testimony by a plaintiffs’ expert who, contrary to state precedent, was allowed to improperly comment on the impact of another court’s opinion and misrepresent the status of Roundup’s registration,” the spokesperson said. “The appellate court also failed to recognize that federal law preempts plaintiff’s state-based failure to warn theory.”
Despite Monsanto’s arguments, the Western District summarily dismissed the company’s claims, citing procedural technicalities instead of conducting a substantive review.
Monsanto noted the discrepancy between billed and paid amounts in the case: Plaintiff Daniel Anderson’s billed medical expenses totaled more than $5.4 million, while only $826,000 was actually paid. Nonetheless, he was awarded over $38 million in compensatory damages and an initially higher punitive award later reduced to $342 million.
Similar discrepancies and award ratios applied to plaintiffs Jimmy Draeger and Valorie Gunther. Monsanto asserts that allowing recovery based on billed amounts leads to unjustified windfalls and undermines the statute’s intent.
In addition, Monsanto challenges the trial court’s refusal to apply § 510.263.4, a Missouri statute designed to prevent duplicative punitive damages for the same conduct.
The company argues that it satisfied all statutory criteria to receive a $100 million credit per plaintiff—having already paid nearly $100 million in punitive damages in three previous Roundup cases based on the same alleged misconduct.
Monsanto also ceased domestic sales of glyphosate-based Roundup products after these judgments. The lower courts denied this credit without meaningful justification, according to Monsanto, effectively nullifying the statutory safeguard.
Another focal point of the appeal is the trial court’s handling of evidentiary issues. Monsanto contends that the judge abdicated critical responsibilities by allowing a paid legal expert to instruct the jury on the legal impact of a federal Ninth Circuit decision—despite Missouri precedent that generally bars the introduction of prior judicial opinions as evidence due to their potential to prejudice jurors.
Monsanto raised the issue of federal preemption, arguing that plaintiffs’ failure-to-warn and design defect claims are barred by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which regulates pesticide labeling and use at the federal level.
While the appellate court previously declined to review this argument, Monsanto notes that the U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering a related petition and has invited the Solicitor General to weigh in—evidence, Monsanto says, of the national importance of this legal question.
