Beauchamp v. Dow Chemical Co.
427 Mich. 1, 398 N.W.2d 882 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The exclusive remedy provision of the Workers' Disability Compensation Act does not bar an employee's civil action for an intentional tort if the employer knew its actions were substantially certain to cause injury. However, the provision does bar a civil action for breach of a contractual promise to provide a safe workplace, as this is fundamentally a negligence claim covered by the Act.
Facts:
- Ronald Beauchamp was employed by Dow Chemical Company (Dow) for two years as a research chemist.
- During his employment, Beauchamp was exposed to various chemicals, including tordon, 2, 4-D, and 2, 4, 5-T ("agent orange").
- Beauchamp alleged that this exposure caused him to suffer both physical and mental impairments.
- Beauchamp further alleged that Dow intentionally misrepresented and fraudulently concealed the potential danger associated with exposure to these chemicals.
- Beauchamp's wife, Karen Beauchamp, claimed a loss of consortium due to the injuries her husband sustained.
Procedural Posture:
- Ronald and Karen Beauchamp filed a civil lawsuit against Dow Chemical Company in the circuit court (trial court).
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for Dow on all counts, dismissing the Beauchamps' lawsuit.
- The Beauchamps, as appellants, appealed the dismissal to the Michigan Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of two tort counts but reversed the dismissal of the intentional infliction of emotional distress and breach of contract claims, remanding them for trial.
- The case was then appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers’ Disability Compensation Act bar an employee from commencing a civil action against his employer for (1) an intentional tort and (2) a breach of contract to provide a safe workplace?
Opinions:
Majority - Levin, J.
No as to the intentional tort claim; Yes as to the breach of contract claim. The exclusive remedy provision of the Workers’ Disability Compensation Act does not bar an employee's intentional tort claim, but it does bar a contract claim for failure to provide safe working conditions. The court reasoned that the legislative history of the Act demonstrates it was created as a substitute for negligence actions concerning accidental injuries, not intentional torts. Pre-existing common-law remedies for intentional torts by an employer were not displaced by the Act. The court adopted the 'substantial certainty' standard, holding that an intentional tort occurs when the employer intended the act that caused the injury and knew that the injury was substantially certain to occur. A contract claim alleging failure to provide safe working conditions is merely a recasting of a negligence claim and is therefore precisely the type of action the Act's exclusive remedy provision was designed to bar.
Concurring - Boyle, J.
No as to the intentional tort claim; Yes as to the breach of contract claim. The concurrence agrees that intentional torts are outside the scope of the Act's exclusivity provision and that the substantial certainty test is the proper standard. The opinion was written separately to emphasize that the 'substantial certainty' standard is a very high bar and must not be confused with recklessness or a high probability of harm. The author stresses that 'a strong probability is a different thing from the substantial certainty without which he cannot be said to intend the harm.' The standard requires proof of a 'virtual certainty' of injury to escape the exclusivity bar.
Analysis:
This case is significant for formally establishing the intentional tort exception to the workers' compensation exclusivity rule in Michigan. By adopting the 'substantial certainty' standard over the stricter 'true intent to injure' test, the court expanded the potential for employer liability for egregious conduct that does not involve a specific desire to harm an employee. This decision has a major impact on workplace safety and toxic tort litigation, allowing employees to bring civil suits in cases where an employer knowingly exposes them to conditions that are virtually guaranteed to cause injury, thereby deterring employers from 'costing-out' worker safety.
