When does a mesothelioma cause of action accrue for statute selection purposes? Riggs v. Asbestos Corporation Explained

In Riggs v. Asbestos Corporation, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed a critical timing issue in asbestos litigation: when does a cause of action accrue for purposes of determining which liability statute applies? The answer has significant implications for both plaintiffs and defendants in toxic tort cases.

Background and Facts

Vickie Warren was exposed to asbestos-containing joint compound at various construction sites from 1958 to 1977 while helping her father. She was diagnosed with malignant peritoneal mesothelioma in July 2007 and died in May 2010. Warren sued multiple defendants, with only three remaining at trial: Union Carbide (raw asbestos supplier), Georgia-Pacific (joint compound manufacturer), and Hamilton Materials. The critical issue was whether the Comparative Negligence Act (allowing joint and several liability) or the Liability Reform Act (limiting defendants to proportionate liability) applied to the case.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issue was when Warren’s cause of action accrued—at the time of asbestos exposure (1958-1977) or at diagnosis (2007). This determination would dictate whether the CNA (in effect during exposure) or LRA (in effect at diagnosis) would govern the case. Union Carbide also challenged the verdict based on the raw material supplier rule and insufficient evidence of medical causation. Georgia-Pacific contested the sufficiency of evidence linking its products to Warren’s exposure.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court applied established Utah law that “a tort cause of action accrues when it becomes remediable in the courts, that is, when all elements of a cause of action come into being.” The court emphasized that “until there is actual loss or damage resulting to the interests of another, a claim for negligence is not actionable.” Mere exposure to asbestos, even with resulting cellular damage, was insufficient to create an actionable claim because Warren’s development of mesothelioma was only a possibility until diagnosis. The court distinguished between inchoate harm and actual legal injury, holding that Warren’s cause of action did not accrue until her 2007 diagnosis.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that Utah follows the manifestation rule for latent disease cases rather than an exposure-based accrual rule. Practitioners should note that the choice between liability statutes can dramatically affect case value and strategy. Under the CNA, defendants face joint and several liability, meaning each defendant can be held responsible for the full judgment. Under the LRA, defendants are liable only for their proportionate share of fault. The court’s analysis of the bulk supplier defense also provides guidance for cases involving raw material suppliers in the supply chain.