Missouri Appeals Court Affirms $58M Against Givaudan

A Missouri appellate panel has affirmed a $58 million judgment against Givaudan Flavors Corp. arising from allegations that a food manufacturing worker developed bronchiolitis obliterans after exposure to flavoring chemicals. The ruling leaves intact a jury’s finding that diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione in flavorings supplied to a General Mills plant contributed to the plaintiff’s irreversible lung disease. On appeal, Givaudan focused primarily on evidentiary and expert-admissibility challenges, as well as arguments directed to punitive damages and related post-judgment issues. The decision underscores the deference appellate courts often give to trial judges on gatekeeping determinations when the record supports the experts’ qualifications and methodology.

Exposure Allegations and Trial Proof

According to the appellate opinion, James J. Graham worked at a General Mills food manufacturing facility from August 2005 through February 2011. During that period, General Mills purchased 17 Givaudan flavorings that contained diacetyl and/or 2,3-pentanedione. Graham alleged he was exposed to those chemicals and developed bronchiolitis obliterans, a severe and typically permanent obstructive lung disease. A jury returned a verdict in his favor, awarding $2 million in compensatory damages and $56.6 million in punitive damages; the compensatory award was later reduced to $1.5 million to account for amounts Graham received through settlements with other parties.

At trial, Graham’s case relied on proof that the relevant chemicals were present in the work environment and capable of causing the type of lung injury he suffered, coupled with evidence directed to Givaudan’s knowledge and conduct. The plaintiff is represented by Ketchmark & McCreight PC, according to court filings. Givaudan challenged the sufficiency and admissibility of several categories of evidence, including causation opinions and information about respiratory injuries reported at other facilities, as well as evidence connected to alternative sources of exposure.

Appellate Review of Expert Testimony and Key Exclusions

Givaudan’s principal argument sought reversal based on the admission of testimony from Dr. Adam Finkel and Dr. Charles Pue. The panel held that Finkel was qualified to testify regarding general causation and exposure sufficiency—namely, that diacetyl and/or 2,3-pentanedione can cause bronchiolitis obliterans and were present in quantities sufficient to cause Graham’s disease. The company argued Finkel was not a “flavor scientist,” but the court emphasized that admissibility turns on “skill, experience, training and education,” rather than a preferred label. The panel also rejected Givaudan’s critique of Finkel’s purported standard-of-care testimony, concluding the company did not adequately identify the allegedly improper statements and that the court would not supply missing pinpoint citations or arguments.

The panel likewise found Pue qualified and held his differential diagnosis methodology sufficiently reliable to support specific-causation testimony tying Graham’s condition to exposure to diacetyl and/or 2,3-pentanedione—issues that commonly turn on toxicology concepts. Beyond expert admissibility, the court addressed several disputed evidentiary rulings. It upheld exclusion of evidence regarding cigarette smoke offered by Givaudan, finding a significant risk of jury confusion in light of the company’s competing theories—both that cigarettes contain the chemicals but do not cause the disease, and that cigarettes could be an alternative source of the chemicals. It also affirmed exclusion of certain evidence about nonparty chemical flavorings, noting briefing concessions that evidence of such flavorings existed in the record and rejecting the claim of reversible error on that point.

Punitive Damages, Procedural Challenges, and What Remains

The appellate court affirmed the punitive damages award, relying on evidence the company knew diacetyl was toxic by 1985 and that cases of bronchiolitis obliterans were identified among exposed workers in the mid-1990s. The panel credited evidence that Givaudan continued to use the chemicals without reporting the risk to customers and that, when General Mills asked it to stop using diacetyl, the company substituted 2,3-pentanedione, which the court described as similarly toxic or potentially more so. The court also concluded the award’s size was supported by evidence of “reprehensible” conduct and by the severity of Graham’s injury, and it rejected the argument that a lower compensatory award should materially constrain punitive damages in these circumstances.

Several additional appellate points were rejected on procedural and preservation grounds. The panel found that Givaudan’s “submissible case” argument did not comply with applicable briefing rules and improperly merged multiple issues into a single, incoherent point. It also concluded the company failed to make an adequate offer of proof on certain excluded evidence and therefore did not create a record enabling meaningful appellate review of how the excluded testimony would have altered the trial presentation. On statutory limits, the court declined to cap punitive damages, applying Missouri precedent holding the cap unconstitutional where the cause of action existed, or was analogous to a claim existing, in 1820; the panel treated the case as analogous to delivery of a “dangerous or noxious” article without notice. Finally, it upheld the award of post-judgment interest as calculated, rejecting the contention that the portion of punitive damages payable to the state should be removed from the judgment before interest accrues.