News & Insights

Recent Posts

Covid-19: Assessing the Legal Risk of Infectious Diseases

WSHB Employer Alert: FFCRA and DOL Regulations 4.2.20

Employment Practices Consultation & COVID-19

It’s a No-Win Situation: The Perils Facing Hospitals Due to the Coronavirus

COVID-19 Employer Alert: Summary of the CARES Act

COVID-19: New York Malpractice Law Alert

COVID-19 Employer Alert: Enactment of Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA)

WSHB Co-Founder Stephen Henning to Announce the Winner of CLM's 2020 Outside Counsel Professional of the Year Award

WSHB Partner Robert Hellner Shares Mediation Tactics at CLM’s 2020 Annual Conference

Risk Transfer and Contractual Indemnification – Who Gets Left Holding the Bag?

New Developments in Challenging Certificates of Merit — Seeking Dismissal for Failure to Concurrently File Certificate with the Original Petition

Seven Habits that Define a Highly Effective Claims Team

Social Media Do's and Don'ts

WSHB Partner Kelly Waters Named to NJBIZ's 2020 Best Fifty Women in Business List

WSHB Names Andrew S. Kessler as Managing Partner of the Firm's Philadelphia Office

WSHB Employment Alert: California Law Banning Arbitration Agreements Temporarily on Hold

Sam McDermott on the Dos and Don’ts of Construction Project Termination

Full Disclosure! Insurer Beware: Colorado’s New Automobile Policy Disclosure Law Has Teeth!

Andrew S. Kessler Named Legal Counsel for Northeast Community Center for Behavioral Health

WSHB Elevates Ten Partners to Defined Equity Status

Eleven WSHB Attorneys Elected Into Partnership

Eighteen Attorneys Elected to WSHB Senior Counsel

Supreme Court Allows Suit Over Website Accessibility

Strategies for Defending Legionella and Mold Claims

Residential Revolution

Time Limit Demand Issues Arrive in North Carolina

Temp Agency Absolved of Liability in Hotly Contested Action

Alternative Fee Agreements and Construction Issues: Oil and Water or Perfect Pairing!?

WSHB's Graham Miller Helps Demystify Construction Claims in the Pacific Northwest

WSHB Partner Janice Michaels Named to The Best Lawyers in America© 2020 List

One Bad Apple: Navigating through Sexual Battery and other Intentional Torts

Leading Construction Litigator Cynthia Tari Joins WSHB's Dallas Office

WSHB’s Philadelphia Partner Secures Summary Judgment in Catastrophic Premises Liability Matter

WSHB Welcomes New Partner Andrew Kessler

New Bill In New York Proposed for Signature by Governor Andrew Cuomo is Set To Make Employers "SWEAT"

Renowned Litigator Jason Williams Joins WSHB's Nevada Office

Litigator Richard Young Joins WSHB's Nevada Office

Published Appellate Opinion Upholding Summary Judgment in Favor of Commercial Tenant Against $3.5M Subrogation Suit

17 WSHB Lawyers Honored as 2019's Rising Stars

Arizona Supreme Court Allows Court of Appeals Decision Expanding Defendants' Ability to Enforce Settlements to Stand

WSHB’s Jason Klein Breaks Down the Good, the Sad and the Funny Sides of Claims

Litigating Sexual Battery and Other Intentional Torts: Navigating the One Bad Apple in Medical Negligence

WSHB Partner Michelle Arbitrio to Moderate Panel on Insurance and Risk Management in the Age of Mass Shootings

Girl on Fire: The Price of Pursuing the Truth in the #MeToo World

Pragmatic Issues on Settlement Versus Trial for Legal Malpractice Cases

A Withering Assault

The Natural Progression of Natural Disasters

Nevada’s Governor Signs Chapter 40 Reform Bill

WA Condo Law Changes Hope to Curtail Frivolous Defect Lawsuits and Stimulate Production

WSHB Co-Founder Stephen Henning Steps Into the Spotlight at this Year's West Coast Casualty Seminar

Professional Liability Expert Weighs In On Protecting Your Practice From Opioid Doc Arrest Fallout

Penalties, Punitives, and Granny Cams: The Escalating Lure of Elder Abuse Litigation

Are Structured Settlements Still Relevant

Game Changing Trends Affecting Construction

He's Not My Guy: The Joint-Employer Doctrine

WSHB Case Update: DOL Proposes Increase to Minimum Salary Threshold

WSHB and DWF Announce Exclusive Association

The Coastal Fire and What it Portends for the California Fire Season Ahead

Stephen Henning Named a Finalist for RISE 2022 Mentor of the Year Award

New Agreement on MICRA Averts Ballot Box Uncertainty in November

Who to Pay? Florida Court Weighs in on Claim Payments to AOB and Insureds

WSHB Toxic Tort Update – California Defendants Lose Battle In Long Running War Over Toxic Tort Pleading

August 5, 2015

The situation is commonplace: Plaintiffs in a toxic tort case name a score of manufacturers as defendants and list 34 chemical products in their complaint. Although specific products are identified, the balance of the allegations are vague, describing the injuries as resulting from exposure to “organic solvents . . . and other toxic chemicals.” Despite the limited facts in the complaint, plaintiffs seek to recover on causes of action for strict liability, fraudulent concealment and breach of warranty.

This scenario played out in Ofelia Jones v. ConcoPhillips, Inc., a case in which the California Court of Appeal just released a significant decision on the pleading standards for toxic tort cases. In Jones, plaintiffs alleged that exposure to multiple products manufactured or supplied by almost twenty defendants had caused their husband and father to contract heart, liver and kidney diseases, resulting in his death. Although the complaint identified specific products, with one exception it was vague in regard to the toxins in those products that caused the alleged injuries. Defendants, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bockrath v. Aldrich Chemical Co., Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 71, challenged the complaint and ultimately obtained an order from the trial court dismissing the case. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision.

Bockrath, a case in which WSHB Partner David Wood took a lead role for the defense, established specific requirements for pleading causation in toxic tort cases. To meet these standards, a complaint must “identify each product that allegedly caused the injury” and allege that “each toxin that entered [plaintiff’s] body was a substantial factor in bringing about, prolonging, or aggravating that illness.” Based on this language and other references to “each” toxin, many defendants have interpreted Bockrath to mean that a plaintiff must identify both a specific product and its injury causing components to state a cause of action in a toxic tort case.

The Court of Appeal in Jones disagreed. Citing another decision, Rivas v. Safety-Kleen Corp. (2001) 98 Cal.App.4th 218, the Court of Appeal held that Bockrath was referring to toxins in a “general sense” and “was not expressing a requirement that the plaintiff identify specific chemical compounds before he or she can assert a claim.” The balance of this discussion in Jones is equally unfavorable to defendants, with the Court noting that manufacturers have presumably studied the risks associated with their products and therefore are already aware of the toxins they contain. In essence, the Court of Appeal decided that a plaintiff in a toxic tort case need only identify a specific product in his or her complaint and not the injury causing toxins in that product. That holding may conflict with the rule stated in Oddone v. Superior Court (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 813, 821, which held that to comply with Bockrath, a complaint must “specify the chemical that caused the injury.”

The Jones decision also ruled on the applicability of several specific causes of action to toxic tort cases. Finding that manufacturers possess or exert control over the contents of their products, a duty to disclose is created which can be used as the basis for a cause of action for fraudulent concealment.  The  decision also lowers the typical requirement of specificity in pleading fraud in this context, since defendants are held to have knowledge of facts, such as the “toxins” in their products, which have not been disclosed. In the view of the Jones Court, a complaint advising each defendant that it concealed or failed to disclose the “toxic properties” of its products is sufficient to state a cause of action for fraudulent concealment.

Finally, defendants argued that no warranty could arise where the decedent did not purchase a product from them. Despite the long standing requirement that parties must be in privity of contract for a cause of action based on warranty, the Jones decision found it was sufficient for plaintiffs to allege that decedent’s employer purchased products from defendants. The employer was in privity with defendants and plaintiffs, on behalf of decedent, were permitted to essentially step into the employer’s shoes for pleading purposes.

Unless it is overturned by the Supreme Court, this decision significantly limits defendant’s ability to challenge toxic tort cases at their early stages, prior to costly discovery and retention of expert witnesses. This concern is not theoretical. Plaintiffs’ counsel in both Jones and Bockrath was Raphael Metzger, who annually files a large volume of multi-defendant, multi-product toxic tort cases using the same basic complaint. Jones applies directly to this form complaint and generally protects similar pleadings from future challenges. Although this decision appears to conflict, at least in part, with prior cases such as Oddone, changes in our Supreme Court since Bockrath was issued may make further review unlikely.

This decision does not address whether defendants can serve contention interrogatories with respect to specific toxins. However, this panel appears to take the position that this issue should be left for expert discovery. If so, defendants may not be able to discover which specific toxins plaintiffs are targeting until expert depositions are taken. In California, such depositions normally do not occur until a few weeks before trial. A request for earlier expert discovery may become a necessity in many cases.

This is just one decision from one Appellate Court, and some of the holdings could be interpreted as dicta. The  decision  also appears to conflict, at least in part, with prior cases such as Oddone . However, changes in our Supreme Court since Bockrath was issued may make reversal in favor of defendants unlikely, so we may be dealing with this issue on a case-by-case basis for some time to come.


Privacy Policy      |      Site Map

© 2022 Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required