448 P.3d 121
Wash. Ct. App.2019Background
- Plaintiffs (Boudreaux and co-workers) sued Weyerhaeuser in King County under the Washington Product Liability Act, alleging injury from formaldehyde in Weyerhaeuser’s Gen-4 Flak Jacket coating applied to joists in Louisiana.
- Plaintiffs were employees of a Louisiana contractor retained to apply the coating; exposure occurred in Louisiana between Dec 2016 and June 2017.
- Weyerhaeuser moved to dismiss under CR 12(b)(1), claiming it was a statutory employer under Louisiana law and thus plaintiffs’ exclusive remedy was Louisiana workers’ compensation (no court jurisdiction).
- The superior court found Weyerhaeuser was a statutory employer and dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; discovery had been stayed.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals held the statutory-employer defense concerns the existence of a cause of action (substantive immunity) and should be raised under CR 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), not CR 12(b)(1) (jurisdiction).
- The panel reversed the dismissal, explaining Washington courts retain original subject-matter jurisdiction over tort/product claims (consistent with the state constitution) and that foreign legislatures (Louisiana) cannot divest that constitutional grant; dismissal should be reconsidered under proper procedure and factual record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether employer immunity under a foreign workers’ compensation scheme implicates Washington superior court subject-matter jurisdiction | Boudreaux: immunity is a substantive defense affecting the existence of a cause of action; Washington courts retain jurisdiction; claims survive at pleading stage | Weyerhaeuser: Louisiana statutory-employer rule (two-contract defense) makes WC exclusive remedy and removes Washington court jurisdiction | Held: Immunity is nonjurisdictional (goes to existence of claim). CR 12(b)(1) was improper; should be addressed under CR 12(b)(6) or later stages with record. |
| Whether Washington’s Industrial Insurance Act (Title 51) divested superior courts of original subject-matter jurisdiction over workplace torts | Boudreaux: Title 51 abolished causes of action but did not remove constitutional grant of subject-matter jurisdiction; courts still have authority to adjudicate such controversies | Weyerhaeuser: Title 51 and precedent strip courts of jurisdiction over workplace injury suits | Held: Title 51 abolished causes of action (substantive), but did not and cannot divest constitutional original subject-matter jurisdiction of superior courts. |
| Whether a foreign (Louisiana) legislature can divest Washington courts of subject-matter jurisdiction by creating exclusive administrative remedies | Boudreaux: foreign law cannot alter Washington Constitution’s grant of jurisdiction | Weyerhaeuser: Louisiana WC scheme makes plaintiffs’ remedies exclusive in Louisiana and precludes Washington adjudication | Held: A foreign state cannot divest Washington courts of their constitutionally granted jurisdiction. |
| Whether, on the pleadings, Weyerhaeuser was necessarily a statutory employer under Louisiana law (two-contract defense) | Boudreaux: complaint plausibly alleges periods and tasks (preproduction testing; post-contract cleanup) outside contracts’ contemplation—so statutory-employer immunity may not apply | Weyerhaeuser: two-contract defense covers the work; it is statutory employer as a matter of law | Held: Complaint and plausible hypothetical facts could show some injuries occurred outside the scope of the contracts; dismissal for failure to state a claim was improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Davis-Smith Co. v. Clausen, 65 Wash. 156, 117 P. 1101 (1911) (IAA abolished common-law causes of action for workplace injuries and replaced them with statutory remedy)
- Seattle-First Nat’l Bank v. Shoreline Concrete Co., 91 Wn.2d 230, 588 P.2d 1308 (1978) (discusses IIA immunity and courts’ treatment of employer fault in third-party actions)
- State v. Posey, 174 Wn.2d 131, 272 P.3d 840 (2012) (explains enumerated vs. residual original subject-matter jurisdiction under the Washington Constitution)
- Walston v. Boeing Co., 181 Wn.2d 391, 334 P.3d 519 (2014) (summary-judgment review of industrial insurance immunity defenses)
- Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154 (2010) (distinguishes true jurisdictional rules from nonjurisdictional claim-processing rules)