On April 20, 2009, Severn and IFC entered into a Pesticide Application Agreement (PAA) requiring IFC to use phosphine, a pesticide, to fumigate a peanut storage dome owned by Severn and located in Severn, North Carolina. The PAA required IFC to apply the pesticide "in a manner consistent with instructions ... and precautions set forth in [its] labeling."

In return for IFC's services, Severn promised to pay IFC $8,604, plus applicable sales taxes. The contract specified that this $8,604 sum was not "sufficient to warrant IFC assuming any risk of incidental or consequential damages" to Severn's "property, product, equipment, downtime, or loss of business.'

On August 4, 2009, IFC improperly dumped approximately 49,000 tablets of Fumitoxin into Severn's peanut dome through a single access hatch, which ultimately led to an explosion, and the peanut dome sustained extensive structural damage. The company sued IFC for breach of contract, among other claims. Severn argues that the PAA's consequential damages exclusion does not bar its breach of contract claim for damage to its dome and peanuts and its associated remediation and lost business costs.

[Severn Peanut Co, Inc, et al v. Industrial Fumigant Co &. Rollins, Inc. (2015).]

Do you think the appellate court ultimately agreed or disagreed with Severn? Why or why not?