About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


2026 Op. Tenn. Att'y Gen. 1 (2026)

handle is hein.sag/sagtn0187 and id is 1 raw text is: STATE OF TENNESSEE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL January 13, 2026 Opinion No. 26-01 Scope of Proposed Legislation to Limit Civil Liability for Pesticide Manufacturers and Sellers Question 1 Is the presence, absence, or content of pesticide labeling in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 43-8-104 and/or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) an essential element of a claim against a manufacturer or seller of a pesticide that is based on one or more of the following theories of liability: negligence; strict liability; breach of warranty; design defect; inadequate testing; inherently unsafe for the intended use; deviation from intended design during production; and assurances of product quality or safety? Opinion 1 It depends on the specific allegations asserted against the manufacturer or seller. Question 2 Would passage of Senate Bill 527/House Bill 809 allow manufacturers to use labeling of a pesticide in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 43-8-104 and/or FIFRA as a defense against theories listed in Question 1? Opinion 2 It depends on the specific allegations asserted against the manufacturer. Ouestion 3 If Senate Bill 527/House Bill 809 becomes law, will a person who is injured by a pesticide that is labeled in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 43-8-104 and/or FIFRA be able to maintain a claim against the pesticide manufacturer? If yes, under which cause(s) of action and what elements would the injured person have to prove to establish a claim under such cause of action compared to the elements the injured person would have to prove to establish a claim based on negligence for failure to warn? Opinion 3 See response to Question 2. The viability of a given cause of action would depend on what is alleged.