The California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District affirmed a trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a pipe manufacturer based upon the worker’s compensation exclusivity rule. Melendrez et al. v. Ameron International Corporation, Case numbers B256928 and B259423 (September 17, 2015).

Lario Melendrez worked for Defendant Ameron International Corporation for 24 years and alleged exposure to asbestos in the manufacture of Ameron’s pipe products.  Melendrez was allowed to take home reject pipes “every day he could” to make flower pots and to make improvements to his home patio.  In 2011 Melendrez was diagnosed with mesothelioma and died later that year.

Melendrez’s heirs filed a wrongful death complaint against his employer, Ameron, asserting that in addition to his workplace exposure to asbestos, Melendrez was also exposed to asbestos while using the Ameron reject pipes for his home projects.

Ameron filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that Plaintiffs’ wrongful death claims were barred under the worker’s compensation exclusivity rule.  The trial court agreed and granted the summary judgment.  Plaintiffs appealed.

The Court of Appeal affirmed, finding that although a triable issue of fact existed as to whether Melendrez’s exposure to asbestos at home arose out of and in the course of his employment, this factual issue was not material to the viability of Ameron’s worker’s compensation exclusivity affirmative defense. The Court of Appeal determined that Melendrez’s workplace asbestos exposure “substantially contributed” to his mesothelioma.  Thus, under California’s “contributing cause” standard applicable under worker’s compensation law, Melendrez’s mesothelioma is covered and his separate asbestos exposure at home does not create a separate injury outside of worker’s compensation coverage.  As the Court explained:

“Indeed, plaintiffs offered no evidence to show the extent to which Melendrez’s home exposure to asbestos contributed to his mesothelioma separate and apart from his workplace exposure. The most that can be said is that his home exposure likely contributed to the disease along with his workplace exposure. But under workers’ compensation principles, the contribution of his home exposure does not create a divisible, separate injury. The injury — mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure — is entirely covered by workers’ compensation. Thus, plaintiffs’ civil action is barred by workers’ compensation exclusivity.”  (Melendrez, at p. 11)

To read the complete opinion, please go towww.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B256928.PDF.