Washington Supreme Court Eases Path for Workers Suing Over Latent Diseases

New Legal Ground for Workers in Toxic Exposure Claims

OLYMPIA, Wash. — The Washington State Supreme Court has issued a ruling that makes it easier for workers to sue their employers for diseases caused by long-term exposure to toxic substances on the job. In Cockrum v. C.H. Murphy/Clark-Ullman, Inc., the Court adopted a new standard allowing workers to pursue civil claims outside of the state’s workers’ compensation system for latent occupational diseases.

The decision marks a major shift in how Washington law treats such claims, expanding employee rights in toxic exposure cases and reversing prior precedent set in 2014.

Asbestos, Decades of Risk, and One Man’s Fight

Jeffery Cockrum worked at an aluminum plant from 1967 to 1997 and was repeatedly exposed to asbestos during his employment. His employer had known as early as 1953 that asbestos exposure could lead to serious illness. Records showed that workers had begun developing asbestos-related symptoms, including early-stage mesothelioma, decades before Cockrum’s diagnosis.

In 2022, Cockrum was diagnosed with mesothelioma. He sued his former employer’s corporate successor, Howmet Aerospace, Inc., claiming the company knowingly exposed him to asbestos without sufficient warnings or protections. A trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Howmet, a decision later upheld by the state Court of Appeals.

Court Rejects Old Standard, Sets “Virtual Certainty” Rule

The Washington Supreme Court overturned those rulings, rejecting the strict standard that had been used in a previous case, Walston v. Boeing Co. That case required employees to show employers had absolute certainty that an exposure would cause injury.

In the Cockrum ruling, the court held that “virtual certainty” — rather than absolute certainty — is enough to prove that an employer had actual knowledge that injury was likely. The Court emphasized that this lower threshold is more in line with the intent behind Washington’s workers’ compensation laws.

To meet the new standard, employees may point to evidence such as repeated symptoms among co-workers, known hazards linked to specific job duties, and the employer’s own medical monitoring efforts.

However, the court was careful to state that the ruling applies only to latent diseases — those that develop over time — and not to injuries with immediate effects. Workers must still show the employer acted with willful disregard, and employers who took meaningful preventive steps may avoid liability.

What This Means for Employers

The Cockrum decision is expected to open the door to more lawsuits involving long-term workplace exposures. Employers in industries that use hazardous materials may now face greater legal scrutiny.

To mitigate liability, the court advised that companies maintain robust hazard communication programs and adhere to industrial hygiene standards. Washington’s safety rules already require training, monitoring, and protective equipment, but the ruling makes clear that documentation and enforcement of these measures are more important than ever.

Employers that fail to take known remedial measures could now be found liable, even if the health effects of exposure take years to appear.