The complaint specifically charges that DuPont failed to adequately disclose the risks Imprelis poses to trees, even when applied as directed, and failed to provide adequate instructions for its safe application. Plaintiffs' counsel are working with a leading academic scientist in the fields of forest resources, tree physiology, and landscape management to further identify the cause and nature of the problem and to recommend steps property owners should take to preserve evidence.
Trees at the house of Marsha Shomo, a Johnston, Pennsylvania, resident and one of the plaintiffs in the case, are dying after the spraying of her lawn with Imprelis. Included are two trees Shomo's sister bought after her diagnosis with cancer, which took her sister's life in 2001. "My sister was so anxious that the new little trees she bought be taken care of," Shomo stated. "I promised her I would do that. I want DuPont to know that there is a problem out there and people do have special trees with many years invested in them. This isn't right. I am filing this lawsuit to make sure DuPont answers to everyone harmed, and make DuPont act more responsibly in the future."
Plaintiff R.N. Thompson Golf, LLC, owns and manages several golf courses in the greater Indianapolis area, including the Winding Ridge Golf Course and the Ironwood Gold Course. "We have witnessed catastrophic tree loss around our golf courses after the application of Imprelis, and have received numerous complaints and inquiries about the tree damage and appearance of our courses from our customers," explained Mark Thompson, Chief Executive Officer of R.N. Thompson Golf, LLC. "We filed this lawsuit to inform other businesses and homeowners about this problem to let them know there is reason their trees are dying and to give them a course of action to fix the problem."
The lawsuit, entitled Shomo v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, was filed in federal court in Delaware, where DuPont has its headquarters. The proposed class consists of all persons and entities whose property was exposed to Imprelis between October 4, 2010 and the date of trial, in particular, those who own: (a) property on which Imprelis was applied; (b) trees or other vegetation whose roots extend under property on which Imprelis was applied or; (c) property onto which Imprelis migrated.
The relief plaintiffs seek for themselves and the proposed class includes compensation for the cost of replacing trees that have died or are dying and an injunction barring DuPont from continuing to sell Imprelis.