DuPont still faces 1996 fraud claim
Associated Press
HILO, Hawaii — A recent Hawai'i Supreme Court opinion will allow former state Sen. David Matsuura and his brother to pursue fraud claims against DuPont Co. over the chemical company's agricultural fungicide Benlate.
The opinion in response to certified questions from the U.S. District Court in Hawai'i will allow David and Stephen Matsuura and four other plaintiffs to seek a jury trial on the fraud claims, said Hilo attorney Kris LaGuire, a co-counsel in the case.
In 1994, the Matsuura brothers and four other nurserymen settled their product liability cases against DuPont before learning that the company had withheld evidence of widespread Benlate contamination. The evidence involved raw data on soil chemical tests and notes of telephone calls between DuPont chemists and company lawyers, according to Steve Cox, the lead plaintiff attorney.
Distortions of test results were revealed in another Benlate trial in state court in Kona. The plaintiff, Kawamata Farms, won nearly $10 million in compensation and $14 million in punitive damages in January 1995. Circuit Judge Ronald Ibarra also fined DuPont $1.5 million for committing fraud.
DuPont ordered a halt to production of Benlate in 2001, after manufacturing it for 32 years. The company has paid out more than $1 billion in settlements and legal fees to settle claims that the fungicide destroyed crops.
But the Matsuuras went to federal court in late 1996 seeking punitive damages, saying DuPont fraudulently induced them to accept the 1994 settlement for damage to nursery crops.
U.S. District Judge David Ezra agreed with DuPont that the brothers weren't entitled to reopen the case after it had been settled. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, siding with the Matsuuras' position that they had not released DuPont from fraud claims, sent the case back.
Ezra then asked the Hawai'i Supreme Court to clarify state law. In its opinion issued Tuesday, the high court said that under state law, a party is not immune from a lawsuit based on the party's fraud in a prior court case.
