(216) 609-3940
SandRun Risk
  • Home
  • What We Do
    • Risk Management
    • Insurance Claims
    • Insurance Archaeology
  • Blog
  • About
    • Team
    • Our Company
    • Articles
  • Contact

The Not-So-Exclusive Remedy? Civil Liability for Toxic Torts in Missouri and Illinois Part I:  The (Evolving) Missouri Workers’ Compensation Act.

6/7/2019

5 Comments

 
Picture

This two-part guest article by Mark A. Prost and Tim P. Tryniecki continues our look at the nationwide effort by the plaintiffs’ bar to undermine and poke holes in workers compensation exclusivity laws. Part I looks at how these issues are playing out in the battleground state of Missouri.

The Tooey decision in Pennsylvania, recently addressed in this newsletter, is but one part of a nationwide trend to undermine and poke holes in the so-called “workers compensation exclusivity” laws, whose utility to employers cannot be understated. Historically, numerous states, like Pennsylvania, have had sections of their workers’ compensation acts dictate that a current or former employee’s claim against his employer for personal injury, including latent occupational diseases such as asbestosis, silicosis, and mesothelioma, were limited to an administrative claim for workers’ compensation.  

Perhaps not surprisingly, Missouri is another battleground state that has seen the pendulum swing back and forth on this issue.  Missouri is considered a hotbed venue for toxic tort claims where hundreds of new civil suits are filed every year alleging lung cancer or mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure.  Almost all cases are filed in the City of St. Louis, which in 2017 received the dubious honor of being named the #1 Judicial Hellhole in the Country by the American Tort Reform Association, at least in part due to the increasing number of asbestos claims and the highly publicized jury verdicts stemming from cases alleging the development of ovarian cancer from cosmetic talcum powder contaminated with asbestos and heavy metals.  Missouri’s Workers’ Compensation Act, like Pennsylvania, has long had an exclusivity provision, codified at Rs Mo. §§ 287.120.1-.2.   In short, where the workers’ compensation claim is available to an injured employee, a civil suit against the employer is not, and civil courts will lack subject matter jurisdiction over the claim, mandating a dismissal.  James v. Poppa, 85 S.W.3d 8, 9 (Mo. banc 2002). (“Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.” (citing Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 55.27(g)(3)).  

As in other states adopting similar provisions, the rationale of this rule was ostensibly to afford more certain remedies for injuries arising out of and in the course of employment, irrespective of fault, by replacing civil tort actions with a clearly defined administrative remedy.  Bass v. National Super Markets, Inc., 911 S.W.2d 617, 619 (Mo. 1995)( en banc).  In turn, employers and above all liability insurers relished the certainty that the administrative remedy provided, and above all the security of being insulated from potentially limitless civil liability, in a state widely considered to have a pro-plaintiff judiciary and jury pool, not to mention joint and several liability and available punitive damages.

However even as originally conceived, the exclusivity provision was not a slam dunk for employer defendants.  Employers were required to demonstrate that they carried workers’ compensation insurance covering the relevant employee and time period(s), and if an occupational disease claimant had (as is often the case) worked for numerous employers over the course of his career, only the final/most recent one could claim the protection (a common requirement of these provisions in other jurisdictions as well, including California). 

Missouri’s Workers’ Compensation Act underwent several amendments in 2014 and again in 2017 which were intended to make clear that notwithstanding some recent case law, occupational diseases (and not merely injuries) were covered by the exclusive remedy provision, while also specifically addressing certain particularly serious occupational diseases, including some related to asbestos.   Particularly noteworthy is section 287.020.11, which was amended to create a category of occupational diseases known as “occupational diseases due to toxic exposure.” That term was defined using a specific and exclusive list of exemplar diseases, among them mesothelioma and asbestosis.  

This new term “occupational diseases due to toxic exposure” in section 287.020.11 was ostensibly added to modify and limit section 287.200.4, which provided that in the event that an employee became permanently and totally disabled or died as the result of one of the specified toxic exposure occupational diseases, that in addition to the normal benefits paid in the case of total disability or death, the employer would also pay 100 weeks of compensation at a rate equal to 200% of the average state wage.  In other words, for a specific set of diseases that are unquestionably related to exposure to toxic substances in the workplace, a heightened degree of compensation would now be available to employees, theoretically providing employees (and their attorneys) an incentive to avoid the civil courts and obtain substantial compensation through the more formulaic and less contentious channels of workers’ compensation.  

The amendments also created new requirements for employers relating to one of these diseases in particular – mesothelioma – giving them a choice between either purchasing insurance, self-insuring, or pooling together into a mesothelioma compensation fund (§§287.200.4(3), 287.223).  An employer who rejected all three options would waive the exclusive remedy provision and be subject to civil liability, but otherwise, the Act and its exclusivity provision would continue to govern even mesothelioma claims.  Id.  

While these amendments seem logical and straightforward enough, we will examine in part 2 of this article how an apparent omission from the language of the legislation has led to confusion and attempts by plaintiffs to create a loophole in the Missouri statute, while also briefly examining a neighboring and equally active tort jurisdiction, Illinois, and how their statutory protections for employers are designed, but may also be subject to attack by the plaintiffs’ bar.

5 Comments
Larry Amaro link
3/12/2022 02:03:23 pm

While also specifically addressing certain particularly serious occupational diseases, including some related to asbestos. Thank you for sharing your great post!

Reply
Gregory Macdougall link
4/27/2022 03:43:22 pm

The highly publicized jury verdicts stemming from cases alleging the development of ovarian cancer from cosmetic talcum powder contaminated with asbestos and heavy metals. Thank you for the beautiful post!

Reply
Robert Ryan link
5/27/2022 05:42:18 pm

Employers and above all liability insurers relished the certainty that the administrative remedy provided, Thank you for taking the time to write a great post!

Reply
Steven Williams link
8/25/2022 02:18:08 pm

Missouri is considered a hotbed venue for toxic tort claims where hundreds of new civil suits are filed every year alleging lung cancer or mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure. Thank you for making this such an awesome post!

Reply
John Rhein link
3/18/2023 01:42:31 pm

The pendulum swing back and forth on this issue. Missouri is considered a hotbed venue for toxic tort claims where hundreds of new civil suits are filed every year alleging lung cancer or mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure. Thank you, amazing post!

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Authors

    Lori Siwik and Mark Siwik are the founders of SandRun Risk.  They apply the principles of vertical leadership and lean six sigma to the discipline of risk management.  From time to time they share their blog with guest authors who write about important risk management principles.

    Categories

    All
    Insurance Claims
    Mergers And Acquisitions
    Risk Management

    Archives

    March 2023
    February 2023
    May 2022
    December 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    March 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014

    Categories

    All
    Insurance Claims
    Mergers And Acquisitions
    Risk Management

    RSS Feed

What We Do.

Risk Management
Insurance Claims
Insurance Archaeology

Blog.

About.

Team
Our Company
Articles

Contact.

Legal.

Privacy
Terms of Use
 
Copyright ©2014 | 4199 Kinross Lakes Parkway, Ste. 275 Richfield, Ohio 44286 | 216-609-3940 | [email protected]