Sabetian v. Exxon Mobil Corp. CA2/7
272 Cal.Rptr.3d 144
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- In 1954 Iran/NIOC entered an Agreement with an international oil consortium (including predecessors of Chevron and Exxon) to operate Iranian oil assets; the consortium formed IOP which owned Operating Companies IOEPC (exploration/production) and IORC (refining).
- The Agreement limited operational functions to the Operating Companies, assigned day-to-day refinery control to IORC and supervisory roles to NIOC/Iran, and had consortium members guarantee the Operating Companies’ performance.
- Houshang Sabetian worked for NIOC at the Abadan refinery (circa 1960–1979) and was later diagnosed with mesothelioma; plaintiffs alleged asbestos exposure at Abadan caused his illness and that defendants (as successors to consortium members) owed a duty to protect him.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment asserting they did not own, possess, or control the refinery and thus owed no duty; evidence showed consortium members seconded employees who became IORC employees and that IORC/NIOC ran the refinery’s operations.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Chevron and Exxon, finding the Agreement did not create a direct duty to refinery workers and that consortium members lacked control; the court also imposed discovery sanctions against plaintiffs for coercive/coaching conduct at deposition.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the summary judgment and the limited discovery sanctions, holding plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue that defendants had ownership, possession, control, or a special contractual relationship giving rise to a duty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants owed a duty of care based on their predecessors’ control/management of Abadan refinery | Consortium members supplied "capital, management and skills," guaranteed Operating Companies’ performance, and therefore had supervisory control that imposed a duty to protect workers from asbestos | Agreement vested operational control in separate Operating Companies (IORC/IOEPC) and NIOC; consortium members were shareholders/guarantors, not operators | No duty — plaintiffs failed to show defendants owned, possessed, or controlled the refinery or asbestos sources; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether the Agreement created a special duty to third parties (refinery workers) under Biakanja/J’Aire balancing factors | The consortium members’ guarantees and commitments (e.g., to "good oil industry practice") made harm to workers foreseeable and created a special relationship/duty | The Agreement was intended to benefit Iran/NIOC and enable oil production/export, not to confer enforceable protection for individual workers; control and operational duties were assigned to IORC/NIOC | No special-duty finding — J’Aire factors weigh against imposing tort duty on consortium members; Agreement did not intend to benefit refinery workers |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in imposing discovery sanctions for deposition coaching | Plaintiff contends defense questions were improper contention questions under Rifkind and plaintiff’s counsel reasonably attempted to preserve objections and assist witness | Defense says counsel coached witness with documents and legal contentions after court ordered answers limited to witness’s personal knowledge, obstructing deposition | No abuse of discretion — court reasonably found counsel violated its order, sanctioned and deemed certain testimony as lacking personal knowledge |
Key Cases Cited
- Kesner v. Superior Court, 1 Cal.5th 1132 (California Supreme Court) (owner/employer duty analysis for asbestos secondary exposure)
- Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal.2d 108 (California Supreme Court) (multi-factor duty analysis for negligence)
- Isaacs v. Huntington Memorial Hospital, 38 Cal.3d 112 (California Supreme Court) (no duty when defendant lacked ownership/possession/control)
- J’Aire Corp. v. Gregory, 24 Cal.3d 799 (California Supreme Court) (contractor’s duty to noncontracting third party — Biakanja/J’Aire balancing test)
- Biakanja v. Irving, 49 Cal.2d 647 (California Supreme Court) (factors for imposing tort duty from contract to third parties)
- Aas v. Superior Court, 24 Cal.4th 627 (California Supreme Court) (discussion of third-party duties arising from contracts)
- Goonewardene v. ADP, LLC, 6 Cal.5th 817 (California Supreme Court) (third-party beneficiary and tort liability discussion)
- Rifkind v. Superior Court, 22 Cal.App.4th 1255 (California Court of Appeal) (limits on contention questions at deposition)