Jurisdiction: Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One

The plaintiffs — municipal employees — sued the City of San Diego and one of its officials for injuries they allegedly suffered from exposure to asbestos in the workplace, when asbestos was disturbed from the city’s renovation of the office building in which the plaintiffs worked.

The city moved for summary judgment that workers’ compensation was the exclusive remedy of the municipal employees, and the trial court ruled in its favor.

The plaintiffs appealed, arguing their lawsuit fell within an exception to the workers’ compensation exclusivity rule, where the employer aggravated employees’ injuries by fraudulently concealing the existence of the injuries and the injuries’ connection to the employment. The plaintiffs also argued their related claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress damages falls outside the workers’ compensation scheme, and that they presented sufficient evidence to support a claim for punitive damages against the city official.

The appellate court reviewed de novo and affirmed the trial court. It held that the city did not fraudulently conceal injuries from the employees. Renovations to the subject building were to start, and did start, July 2017. The city already knew the subject building was built with asbestos-containing materials and instituted a plan to test for airborne release of asbestos once renovation work began.

The city submitted evidence that it notified the plaintiffs that asbestos was released from renovation debris upon the first positive tests in January 2018, and that it advised the plaintiffs to stay out of the building at that time. The plaintiffs did not have evidence that the city knew about asbestos release any earlier, or (despite their generalized complaints of respiratory irritation from renovation dust in July-December 2017) that they suffered asbestos-related injury prior to January 2018.

The appellate court also held that the IIED claim was also under the exclusive remedy of workers’ compensation, and that the punitive damages claim was properly dismissed as ancillary to the properly dismissed tort claims.

A copy of the decision is attached.