## Facts

- Louisiana crawfish are commonly raised in flooded rice fields used in rice/crawfish rotation.
- During the 1999–2000 seasons, some rice/crawfish farmers used rice seed coated with a pesticide product supplied by Bayer.
- The coated seed was alleged to be toxic to crawfish, causing die-offs and sharply reduced crawfish yields for farmers.
- Tess Wiltz operated as a commercial crawfish buyer/processor; she did not farm or own the crawfish in the farmers’ ponds.
- Wiltz alleged her business suffered lost profits and supply interruption because the die-offs reduced the available crawfish she could purchase, process, and resell.
- In related Louisiana state-court litigation brought by farmers arising out of the same events, a state appellate court concluded that any duty owed regarding harm to farmers’ crawfish did not extend to crawfish buyers/processors seeking purely economic losses.
- Wiltz sued Bayer in federal district court under Louisiana tort theories (including negligence) tied to Bayer’s design, testing, labeling, and marketing of the pesticide-coated seed.
- The district court granted Bayer summary judgment, holding Bayer owed no duty to a downstream buyer/processor for economic loss resulting from damage to crawfish owned by others.

## Issues

1. Under Louisiana duty–risk (negligence) analysis, does a pesticide manufacturer owe a legal duty to a downstream crawfish buyer/processor for purely economic losses arising from damage to crawfish owned by third-party farmers?
2. Must a federal court applying Louisiana law follow an intermediate Louisiana appellate decision rejecting such a duty absent persuasive evidence the Louisiana Supreme Court would decide otherwise?

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Bayer.
- The court held Louisiana law did not recognize a duty running from Bayer to a non-owner crawfish buyer/processor for purely economic losses caused by damage to others’ crawfish.
- The court treated the claim as one for pure economic loss (lost profits and supply disruption) without injury to Wiltz’s person or proprietary interest.
- Relying on Louisiana precedent and the closely related state appellate decision, the court concluded Wiltz fell outside the scope of any duty Louisiana would impose in these circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- Louisiana negligence claims are analyzed under the duty–risk framework; a plaintiff must show the defendant’s duty encompasses the particular risk and the particular class of plaintiffs.
- Louisiana generally bars recovery for purely economic loss unaccompanied by personal injury or damage to the plaintiff’s proprietary interest, absent special circumstances creating a specific duty to the plaintiff.
- In predicting state law, federal courts generally follow intermediate state appellate decisions unless persuasive evidence indicates the state’s highest court would rule differently.
- Policy concerns about indeterminate and expansive liability may limit the scope of duty for downstream commercial actors affected by damage to others’ property.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that Louisiana law did not extend a pesticide manufacturer’s duty to protect downstream crawfish buyers/processors from purely economic losses caused by damage to crawfish owned by farmers, and it affirmed dismissal of the buyer/processor’s negligence-based claims on summary judgment.


Wiltz v. Bayer CropScience, Ltd. P'ship, 645 F.3d 690 (5th Cir. 2011)