Riggs v. Georgia-Pacific LLC

• Decision Date: 30 January 2015
• Docket Number: No. 20130459.,20130459.
• Citation: 345 P.3d 1219
• Parties: Micah RIGGS and Amanda Riggs, Appellees, v. GEORGIA–PACIFIC LLC and Union Carbide Corporation, Appellants.
• Court: Utah Supreme Court

345 P.3d 1219

Micah RIGGS and Amanda Riggs, Appellees,

v.GEORGIA–PACIFIC LLC and Union Carbide Corporation, Appellants.

No. 20130459.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Jan. 30, 2015.

Gilbert L. Purcell, Alan R. Brayton, Brian Holmberg, A. Jase Allen, Salt Lake City, for appellees.

Karra J. Porter, Sarah E. Spencer, Katherine E. Venti, Salt Lake City, for appellant Georgia–Pacific, LLC.

Patricia W. Christensen, Salt Lake City, Mary Price Birk, Ronald L. Hellbusch, Denver, CO, for appellant Union Carbide Corporation.

Associate Chief Justice NEHRING authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice DURRANT, Justice DURHAM, Justice PARRISH, and Justice LEE joined.

INTRODUCTION

Associate Chief Justice NEHRING, opinion of the Court:

¶ 1 In this case we are asked to determine whether a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff in a personal injury suit bars a subsequent wrongful death claim arising out of the same injury and against the same defendants. This question is a matter of first impression in Utah. Though in some of our prior cases we have hinted at Utah's stance on this question, we have never explicitly addressed it.¹ In this case we are asked to examine Utah's wrongful death cause of action, which is found both in the Utah Code, at section 78B–3–106, and the Utah Constitution, in article XVI, section 5. We hold that a prior personal injury suit does not bar a related wrongful death claim brought by the decedent's heirs or personal representative.

BACKGROUND

¶ 2 Plaintiff Micah Riggs is the personal representative of the estate of decedent Vickie Warren, his mother-in-law. Mr. Riggs brought a wrongful death suit on behalf of Ms. Warren's children, Amanda Riggs and Benjamin Warren (Heirs).

¶ 3 In 2007, Ms. Warren developed peritoneal mesothelioma, a rare type of cancer linked to asbestos exposure. Later that year, Ms. Warren filed a personal injury lawsuit against Georgia–Pacific LLC, Union Carbide Corporation (Defendants), and other defendants not relevant here, seeking damages due to her exposure to asbestos, which she claimed caused her mesothelioma. She asserted claims for negligence, strict product liability, and failure to warn. Ms. Warren's complaint alleged that she came into contact with asbestos-containing products manufactured by the Defendants in various locations, including the school where she worked, the apartment units her brothers built on the family's property, and the house where she lived with her father.

¶ 4 The personal injury lawsuit went to trial, and on May 12, 2010, a jury found that Ms. Warren was entitled to $5,256,818.61 in damages. The jury allocated 5 percent of the fault to Georgia–Pacific and 20 percent to Union Carbide; the remaining fault was distributed among other parties. Ms. Warren died on May 25, 2010, thirteen days after receiving the verdict in her personal injury lawsuit. The court of appeals later affirmed the judgment.²

¶ 5 On May 23, 2012, Mr. Riggs, on behalf of the Heirs, filed a wrongful death and survival ³ suit against Georgia–Pacific, Union Carbide Corporation, and others, including some defendants who were named in Ms. Warren's personal injury suit and some who were not. The Heirs' wrongful death complaint stated causes of action for negligence, strict liability, and failure to warn. The Heirs sought compensatory and punitive damages for the loss of Ms. Warren and asserted her death was caused by Defendants' asbestos or asbestos-containing products. The court ruled that the claims against the new defendants were barred by the statute of limitations and dismissed them. The Heirs conceded that they are barred from re-litigating issues that were decided in Ms. Warren's personal injury case. They argue that the issue in their wrongful death suit is simply whether exposure to Defendants' asbestos products caused Ms. Warren's death and if so, what damages are owed to the Heirs.

¶ 6 Defendants moved to dismiss the wrongful death claim under rule 12(b)(6) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure on the grounds that Ms. Warren's personal injury trial and judgment precluded the wrongful death action. The Third District Court denied the motion and held that the Heirs had an independent cause of action for wrongful death. This court granted Defendants' motion for permission for an interlocutory appeal. We have jurisdiction under Utah Code section 78A–3–102(3)(j).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 7 Whether a plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted is a question of law, which we review for correctness.⁴ Similarly, whether the district court correctly interpreted Utah Code section 78B–3–106(1) is a matter of law that we review for correctness, ⁵ as is the interpretation of article XVI, section 5 of the Utah Constitution (Wrongful Death Clause).⁶

ANALYSIS

¶ 8 Utah Code section 78B–3–106 provides that, except as provided in the Workers' Compensation Act, “when the death of a person is caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another, his heirs, or his personal representatives for the benefit of his heirs, may maintain an action for damages against the person causing the death.” The question in this case is whether this cause of action is foreclosed when the decedent prevailed during her lifetime in a personal injury lawsuit stemming from the same injury. Based on the language of Utah Code section 78B–3–106 as well as article XVI, section 5 of the Utah Constitution, we conclude that a decedent's heirs may bring an action for wrongful death even when the decedent prevailed in a related personal injury suit during his or her lifetime.

¶ 9 Defendants argue on appeal that this court should adopt a rule barring heirs from bringing a wrongful death suit when the decedent herself already sued on the underlyingpersonal injury action. The Heirs counter that under the plain language of Utah Code section 78B–3–106, a wrongful death action is an independent cause of action that accrues “for the benefit” of the heirs. The Heirs also respond that to adopt Defendants' proposed rule would violate article XVI, section 5 of the Utah Constitution, which states that “[t]he right of action to recover damages for injuries resulting in death, shall never be abrogated ... except in cases where compensation for injuries resulting in death is provided for by law.” Defendants argue that the constitutional provision does not apply because the only rights protected by article XVI, section 5 were those that existed at the time it was adopted, ⁷ which they assert did not include the right to bring a wrongful death claim when the decedent had litigated the claim during her lifetime.

¶ 10 Today we are asked, simply, to analyze the language of Utah Code section 78B–3–106 and determine whether it forecloses the wrongful death cause of action when the decedent sued during her lifetime and prevailed. To answer this question, we turn to the plain language of the statute.⁸ If the plain language of a statute is unambiguous, “no other interpretive tools are needed.” ⁹ When evaluating a statute, we presume that the legislature used each term “advisedly.” ¹⁰ Additionally, we “seek to give effect to omissions in statutory language by presuming all omissions to be purposeful.” ¹¹

¶ 11 Defendants claim that section 78B–3–106 “does not address the issue ... one way or the other.” We disagree. Utah Code section 78B–3–106 states that when a person is wrongfully or negligently killed, “his heirs, or his personal representatives for the benefit of his heirs, may maintain an action for damages against the person causing the death.” This language unambiguously, and without caveat, grants a person's heirs the right to “maintain an action for damages” if they allege that the decedent's death was caused by “the wrongful act or neglect of another.” ¹² When faced with such “clear and unequivocal” ¹³ language, there is no further need for analysis. We find nothing in the statute to suggest that the cause of action is tied to the decedent's underlying personal injury claim. Moreover, in so holding, we find it unnecessary to analyze the Wrongful Death Clause of the Utah Constitution.

¶ 12 Though our plain language analysis ends there, we write further to note that it is true, as Defendants point out, that courts in a majority of states reason that a wrongful death action is barred if the decedent already won a personal injury or other similar action based on the same injuries.¹⁴ But these decisions are based on the plain language of wrongful death statutes that differ significantly from Utah's. Though it is not strictly relevant to our plain language analysis, it is interesting to note that most, if not all, of the states following the majority view have wrongful death statutes with some variation of the phrase “if death had not ensued,” indicating that the wrongful action in those states was intended simply to provide relief for persons who were injured and died without obtaining any recovery from the perpetrator of their injuries.¹⁵ And the history of the wrongful death cause of action in the United States further elucidates the both common-law and statutory divide between the states concerning the law of wrongful death.¹⁶ The accidental killing of another person was considered “compensable” under English law for hundreds of years-even prior to the Norman Conquest of the eleventh century,¹⁷ a historical event that deeply affected the development of the modern Anglo–American legal system. ¹⁸ Yet in 1808, an English court upended that rule and held that death “could not be complained of as an injury.” ¹⁹ In response, in 1846, England enacted Lord Campbell's Act to provide relatives of a deceased person the right to recover damages for that person's wrongful death. ²⁰ The American states followed suit and enacted their own statutes “patterned after Lord Campbell's Act” ²¹ to varying degrees. The Utah Territorial Legislature established a wrongful death cause of action in 1874, nearly thirty years after Lord...