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 Partner Robert Hellner Shares Mediation Tactics at CLM’s 2020 Annual Conference
Risk Transfer and Contractual Indemnification – Who Gets Left Holding the Bag?
Seven Habits that Define a Highly Effective Claims Team
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
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
Renowned Litigator Jason Williams Joins WSHB's Nevada Office
Litigator Richard Young Joins WSHB's Nevada Office
17 WSHB Lawyers Honored as 2019's Rising Stars
WSHB’s Jason Klein Breaks Down the Good, the Sad and the Funny Sides of Claims
Girl on Fire: The Price of Pursuing the Truth in the #MeToo World
Pragmatic Issues on Settlement Versus Trial for Legal Malpractice Cases
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
Archives
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
WSHB Toxic Tort Update – California Defendants Lose Battle In Long Running War Over Toxic Tort Pleading
August 5, 2015The 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.