1/30/2008 - New Ruling Changes the Application of the Statute of Limitations for Toxic Exposure Cases
Griffin v. Unocal Corp.
For approximately twenty years, the decedent was employed at a tire-manufacturing facility in Tuscaloosa. During the course of his employment, he was exposed to a number of chemicals, including benzene, benzene derivatives, rubber solvents, other toxic and hazardous chemicals, formaldehyde, and other aromatic compounds. Roughly ten years after he left his employment with the tire plant, the decedent was diagnosed with acute myelogenous leukemia.
The decedent’s widow, as executrix of his estate, filed a wrongful death action alleging the decedent’s illness was caused by his exposure to the various chemicals during his employment. In particular, the executrix alleged certain chemical companies were responsible for the decedent’s leukemia. Based on existing precedent from the Alabama Supreme Court, the defendant chemical companies moved to dismiss the suit, arguing the executrix’s action was filed outside of the two year statute of limitations. In essence, the chemical companies argued the personal injury action was filed too late because a cause of action based on exposure to hazardous chemicals accrues on the date of last exposure to those chemicals. Consequently, an action not filed within two years of the date of last exposure was time barred.
The trial court granted the motions to dismiss and the executrix appealed. The Alabama Supreme Court overruled decades of precedent dictating the date of last exposure as the time when a cause of action accrued and, instead, adopted a rule that a cause of action will only be deemed to accrue at the time the injury from exposure manifests itself. Accordingly, the trial court was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings. This ruling was applied retroactively to rescue Griffin’s claim.
The impact of this ruling is profound. The pool of potential toxic tort/exposure claimants now includes anybody who for the first time manifests an injury, regardless of how remote the last date of exposure.
In the view of many, this decision also represents a troubling usurpation of the Legislature’s responsibility to author Alabama law. Please contact Mitch Frost, John Dodson, or Neal Moore, for more information on this important ruling.
