SESSION WATCH
Died HOUSE · SESSION 2026

No. HB 443

Products Liability Actions Under the Florida Pesticide Law
Send via email
SPONSOR
Grow
FILED BY
J.J. Grow — District 23, Republican [search donations]
EFFECTIVE
7/1/2026
DIED IN
Civil Justice & Claims Subcommittee

Filed under Occupational.

PROVIDED SUMMARY

Products Liability Actions Under the Florida Pesticide Law; Prohibits pesticide-related products liability action for failure to warn if pesticide's label meets specified conditions.

Full bill text →

Plain English Summary

AI-GENERATED
Bars failure-to-warn pesticide lawsuits when the label has EPA approval.

A failure-to-warn lawsuit over an EPA-registered pesticide may not be brought or maintained if the pesticide's label meets any one of three conditions: EPA approval, consistency with the latest EPA human-health risk assessment, or consistency with EPA's carcinogenicity classification.

Because EPA approval of the label is one of the three conditions on its own, and virtually every lawfully sold pesticide's label is EPA-approved, the shield reaches nearly any registered pesticide sold with an approved label.

The shield only blocks failure-to-warn claims; it does not touch other products-liability theories, such as design-defect or manufacturing-defect claims, under this part of the pesticide law.

The one exception requires the EPA itself, not a court or jury, to determine that the manufacturer knowingly withheld, concealed, misrepresented, or destroyed material health-risk or cancer data to get or keep the label's approval.

KEY PROVISIONS
§ 1 Failure-to-warn pesticide suits barred if the label meets any one condition majors. 487.082

AIA products liability action based on failure to warn may not be brought or maintained over an EPA-registered pesticide if its label is EPA-approved, consistent with the most recent EPA human-health risk assessment, or consistent with EPA's carcinogenicity classification -- any one of the three is enough.

“A products liability action under this part based on a failure to warn may not be brought or maintained” bill text, line 13 →
§ 2 EPA label approval alone can trigger the shield majors. 487.082

AIOne of the three qualifying conditions, standing alone, is that the EPA approved the pesticide's label, a condition nearly every lawfully marketed, federally registered pesticide already satisfies, without needing to also show consistency with any risk assessment or carcinogenicity finding.

“Approved by the United States Environmental Protection Agency” bill text, line 19 →
§ 3 Fraud exception requires an EPA finding, not a court's own majors. 487.082

AIThe shield does not protect a manufacturer that the EPA itself determines knowingly withheld, concealed, misrepresented, or destroyed material health-risk or carcinogenicity information to obtain or keep the label's approval; the determination must come from the EPA, not from the court hearing the case.

“a manufacturer that the United States Environmental Protection Agency determines knowingly withheld, concealed, misrepresented, or destroyed material information” bill text, line 27 →
§ 4 Shield reaches only failure-to-warn claims, not other liability theories moderates. 487.082

AIThe bar applies only to products liability actions based on a failure to warn. It does not by its terms extend to other liability theories, such as design-defect or manufacturing-defect claims, under this part.

“based on a failure to warn may not be brought or maintained” bill text, line 14 →
TIMELINE
3/13/2026
Died in Civil Justice & Claims Subcommittee
1/13/2026
1st Reading (Original Filed Version)
11/24/2025
Now in Civil Justice & Claims Subcommittee
11/24/2025
Referred to Judiciary Committee
11/24/2025
Referred to Housing, Agriculture & Tourism Subcommittee
11/24/2025
Referred to Civil Justice & Claims Subcommittee
11/18/2025
Filed
1 EARLIER →
STATUTES IT CHANGES
s. 487.082
+153 / −0