The Washington Supreme Court issued a partial reversal in *Erickson v. Pharmacia LLC*, a complex product liability case involving three public school teachers who became ill after working in buildings contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) manufactured by Monsanto.
The teachers sued Pharmacia LLC, Monsanto's successor-in-interest, seeking compensation for health problems they attributed to PCB exposure in old school buildings. After an extensive trial featuring dozens of expert witnesses, a jury awarded the teachers both compensatory and punitive damages.
The Washington Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and ordered a new trial, citing multiple errors in the lower court's handling of choice of law determinations. The appeals court found that the trial court incorrectly applied Washington's Product Liability Act (WPLA) to assess Pharmacia's liability while simultaneously applying Missouri's statute of repose rather than Washington's repose provisions under the WPLA.
The appeals court also took issue with the trial court's approach to punitive damages. While it affirmed the application of Missouri law to punitive damages, the court held that the trial court erred by using a verdict form that failed to limit damages to only those claims recognized under Missouri law. Additionally, the appeals court found error in the trial court's admission of certain expert testimony during the proceedings.
In its October 30, 2025 opinion authored by Chief Justice Stephens, the Washington Supreme Court granted review and partially reversed the Court of Appeals decision. The high court concluded that the appeals court itself erred by failing to properly apply choice of law principles that have been established in Washington for more than five decades.
The Supreme Court specifically referenced the foundational case *Johnson v. Spider Staging Corp.*, decided 50 years ago, as establishing the proper framework for choice of law analysis in Washington courts. The court found that the Court of Appeals had not correctly applied these long-standing principles in reviewing the trial court's determinations.
PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, are industrial chemicals that were widely used in electrical equipment, paint, and building materials before being banned in the United States in 1979 due to health and environmental concerns. These chemicals can persist in the environment for decades and have been linked to various health problems including cancer, immune system effects, and reproductive issues.
The case highlights the ongoing legal challenges faced by those seeking compensation for exposure to toxic substances in older buildings, particularly in educational settings where many people spend significant portions of their lives. Schools built before the PCB ban often contain these chemicals in various building materials, creating potential exposure risks for students, teachers, and staff.
The litigation also demonstrates the complex legal issues that can arise in product liability cases involving long-term toxic exposure, particularly when multiple states' laws may apply. Choice of law determinations can significantly impact the outcome of such cases, as different states may have varying statutes of limitations, damages caps, and liability standards.
Pharmacia LLC inherited liability for Monsanto's PCB manufacturing through corporate succession. Monsanto was one of the primary manufacturers of PCBs in the United States before the federal ban took effect. The company and its successors have faced numerous lawsuits over the years from individuals and communities affected by PCB contamination.
The Washington Supreme Court's partial reversal suggests that the appeals court may have been too stringent in its review of the trial court's choice of law analysis. By invoking the 50-year-old *Johnson v. Spider Staging Corp.* precedent, the high court emphasized the importance of applying established legal frameworks consistently.
The case will now likely return to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's guidance on proper choice of law analysis. The ultimate resolution could affect how similar toxic exposure cases are handled in Washington state courts.
For the three teacher-plaintiffs, the Supreme Court's partial reversal represents a step forward in their lengthy legal battle for compensation. However, the case's complex procedural history suggests that final resolution may still be some time away.
The decision also has broader implications for product liability law in Washington, particularly regarding how courts should analyze which state's laws apply when dealing with interstate commerce and long-term exposure cases. The Supreme Court's emphasis on established choice of law principles may provide clearer guidance for lower courts handling similar complex litigation in the future.