Tennessee Senate Bill SB0527

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/30/25
• Engrossed: 4/3/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 43, Chapter 8, relative to pesticides.

Summary

SB0527 creates a liability shield for pesticide manufacturers and sellers in Tennessee when the pesticide at issue was registered with the state commissioner and approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under FIFRA at the time of sale. In those circumstances, the bill bars civil actions challenging the product’s labeling, including failure-to-warn product liability claims under Tennessee’s products liability law. The protection is limited: it does not apply if the pesticide was manufactured or sold in violation of Tennessee law or FIFRA. The bill would amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 43, Chapter 8, by adding a new section governing pesticide labeling-related lawsuits. Its practical effect is to make EPA-approved labeling a defense to state-law claims based on inadequate warnings, reducing exposure for pesticide companies and potentially limiting remedies for injured plaintiffs. The measure does not change federal pesticide regulation, but it does alter how Tennessee courts may handle certain state tort claims involving federally approved pesticide labels.

Impact

SB0527 would add a new state-law immunity provision for pesticide manufacturers and sellers, preempting or narrowing Tennessee civil claims that attack EPA-approved pesticide labeling. It affects Title 43, Chapter 8, and interacts with Tennessee products liability law in Title 29, Chapter 28 by limiting failure-to-warn claims where the label complied with FIFRA and EPA approval requirements. The bill preserves liability for unlawful products, so it does not protect conduct that violates state pesticide law or federal FIFRA.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have generally favorable support in committee and on the floor, advancing through the Senate Energy, Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, the Senate Judiciary Committee, and floor votes by comfortable margins. The vote pattern suggests the measure was viewed positively by a majority of lawmakers, likely reflecting support for aligning state liability rules with federal pesticide labeling approvals. At the same time, the presence of dissenting votes indicates some concern about limiting access to civil remedies.

Contention

The main point of contention is the bill’s restriction on product liability and failure-to-warn lawsuits. Supporters likely view the measure as providing certainty for manufacturers and sellers who comply with EPA labeling requirements, while opponents may see it as reducing accountability and limiting injured parties’ ability to challenge pesticide warnings in court. The carveout for violations of Tennessee law or FIFRA narrows the immunity, but the core dispute remains whether EPA approval should bar state tort claims based on labeling.