Exposure to Asbestos Father brought Home from Work Escapes Exclusivity Bar on Ky. Tort Claim

Case File

Evidence that the daughter of a worker developed mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos he brought home on his work clothes, and not from a brief summer job she held, allowed the daughter's estate to advance a tort action against the employer. Simply Research subscribers have access to the full text of the decision.

Case

Schneider Electric USA, Inc. v. Williams, 2023-SC-0436-DG, 2023-SC-0440-DG (Ky. 03/19/26)

What Happened?

A worker for a manufacturer of asbestos-containing compounds routinely returned home in work clothes contaminated with asbestos dust and repeatedly and regularly exposed his daughter to asbestos through laundering and close domestic contact.

When the daughter developed mesothelioma, she sued the manufacturer, and when she died, her estate took over her tort action.

In court, the manufacturer's workers' compensation exclusivity defense fell short because the manufacturer failed to set forth a legal authority supporting its position.

On appeal, the manufacturer cited Ervan Cable Constr. v. Lay, 461 S.W.3d 422 (Ky. App. 2015) to advance an argument that unless a worker opts out of the workers' compensation system, the injured worker's recovery from the employer for sustained work-related injuries is limited to workers' compensation benefits.

The appeals court ruled in the manufacturer's favor, prompting the estate to appeal to the Kentucky Supreme Court.

Rule of Law

In Kentucky, if an employer secures payment of workers' compensation, the liability of the employer under workers' compensation law "shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to the employee," so long as the injuries arise out of and in the course of employment. Essentially, the exclusive remedy provision grants immunity for liability arising from common law and statutory claims.

What the Kentucky Supreme Court Said

The court held that the daughter's injury did not arise out of or in the course of employment, so the manufacturer would not be entitled to immunity.

Although the daughter worked for the manufacturer briefly, no evidence pointed to her being exposed to asbestos during that time.

"The coverage available to Kentucky workers ... for workers' compensation cannot convert non-occupational exposure into employers' immunity," the court wrote.

Verdict: The court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling.

Takeaway

An injury that a worker experiences related to her employer doesn't automatically "arise out of or in the course of" employment.

Share This Article: