Hundreds of Silica Lawsuits and Counting: Is P&C Heading Toward Another Asbestos Crisis?

ctuaries in the 1980s could be spooked by simply saying the word “asbestos.” Once thought to be a home builder’s dream in the 20th century, decades later, asbestos would become the insurance industry’s worst nightmare, with exposure to it being linked to mesothelioma, an aggressive form of cancer. The resulting commercial general liability and products liability claims rewrote how actuaries reserved not only for primary insurers but also for reinsurers who were caught unaware by the latency of these long-tailed claims. The estimated total industry losses for asbestos were around $100 billion in ultimate net losses, with combined ratios at the time exceeding 115% and threatening to bankrupt even Lloyd’s of London (AM Best).

Today, the industry has created a standardized framework to understand and manage asbestos liabilities. However, the modern age brings with it silica claims that could shape up to be the TikTok-era equivalent of the asbestos crisis. There are few, if any, current estimates regarding the size of insurance industry exposure to silica-related claims. OSHA estimated in 2014 that 2.3 million people in the U.S. were currently exposed to silica at work, sharing the same broad order of magnitude with the 1.3 million estimated by the CDC to still be exposed to asbestos at that time. Much like asbestos-induced mesothelioma, inhaling toxic crystalline silica causes an incurable lung condition in young individuals called silicosis. With silica lawsuits already popping up in California, this raises the question: should silica claims be treated with as much fear as asbestos claims?

The early 2000s ushered in engineered stone quartz kitchen countertops as all the rage in households, becoming the go-to choice for many builders—so much so that by 2021, it had become the most used countertop material in the U.S. (Freedonia Group). However, the levels of silica in these countertops were much higher than those found naturally in the earth. Other forms of countertops, like granite, were composed of less than 45% silica, while engineered stone quartz held over 90% silica (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health). Customers would visit their local big home goods retailer to purchase their favorite countertop designs. These retailers would then subcontract installation to smaller fabricator companies. To install these countertops, workers would use power saws and grinders to cut the slab into the desired shape, often inhaling massive amounts of fine crystalline silica.

Since the human body cannot process or break down silica, the particles become permanently trapped in the lungs. The body reacts by surrounding this foreign particle with immune cells that are unable to do anything, eventually creating inflammation and scar tissue (Merck Manual). This condition eventually leads to irreversible silicosis. In the case of the countertop installers, continuous exposure to respirable crystalline silica (RCS) caused young, affected workers to develop the fatal condition, with their only hope in some advanced cases for survival being a double lung transplant.

While engineered stone RCS levels were not widely recognized as an insurability problem until the late 2010s in the U.S., the CDC’s published report on outbreaks in 2019 brought public awareness to the issue (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health). Young workers in their 20s and 30s started to seek litigation to help pay for their care and lifelong support. This battle also brought about a different problem: Who was responsible for the sick workers? Was it the manufacturer of the engineered stone slabs? Was it the big retailers who sold these slabs to the general population? Or was it the subcontractors who actually employed these workers? Would these workers’ claims be covered by workers compensation policies or commercial general liability policies?

Part 1 of workers compensation policies in the U.S. does not cover non-economic tort damages. As a result, it does not take into account the harrowing ordeal that these workers and their families go through as they seek treatment for the condition. As a result, much like with asbestos, workers usually also seek pain and suffering damages, suing both the manufacturer and retailer, which is where the hot potato scenario plays out. Manufacturers may use the defense of selling their products to “sophisticated users” who should be aware of the dangers of their product, even if the general population is unaware of the risks posed through the use of this product (Webb v. Special Electric Co., Inc.). Courts have also set precedent of the need to not warn “sophisticated intermediaries” about such risks, citing “over-warning” as an issue. However, this precedent might not hold up in all states across the country, still keeping the manufacturer on the hook. A manufacturer might also claim that the quartz slab does not cause any harm unless it is actually cut without proper safety precautions, absolving them of responsibility (Restatement Third of Torts: Products Liability, Sec. 5). In both defenses, the manufacturer claims that the retailer should bear all responsibility.

Retailers may argue that they are simply the middleman, while the actual work is completed by the subcontracted fabrication companies. They may claim that since they do not have any say over the safety protocols followed by the impacted workers, they do not bear any responsibility for their suffering (Privette v. Superior Court). Courts have previously accepted this defense in California. However, these retailers might still be on the hook under the Peculiar Risk Doctrine, stating that the intermediaries cannot delegate all safety responsibility to the subcontractors (Hooker v. Department of Transportation).

In this complex web of whodunit, multiple parties could be held responsible, making it difficult for their insurers to remain fully prepared ahead of time.

Workers compensation policies cover the subcontractor’s responsibility for their workers’ medical claims, lost wages, and death benefits under Part 1, and through “exclusive remedy,” workers generally cannot sue for anything else like pain and suffering (California Public Law). Since recovery potential through the law surrounding these policies is limited, a lot of the litigation surrounds the retailers and manufacturers who are insured by primary and secondary layers of commercial general liability insurance. Due to these parties also being able to shoulder large verdicts, lawyers can sue them for multimillions, making them a much likelier target for litigation.

However, insurers today have learned from their past experiences. The early 2000s saw a wave of sandblasting silica claims, spooking many insurance companies into explicitly including silica exceptions into their policies (RNC-Pro). Generally, this exclusion is supposed to be a catch-all to avoid the exact scenario of insurers being on the hook for silicosis claims. Retailers and manufacturers, too, are smarter, employing large legal teams to find loopholes in the exclusions. They claim that the exclusion covers “silica dust,” a natural mineral, while the dust inhaled by the workers is a highly toxic combination of not just silica, but other chemical components. Using the “Concurrent Causation Doctrine,” these litigation teams may claim that the policies must provide coverage, potentially bypassing the silica exclusion (Alafriz). Lawyers could also use the “Duty to Defend” precedent set under California courts, claiming that even the potential of indemnity under the policy could require an insurer to defend its insured in court (Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court).

If a primary insurer’s defenses don’t hold in court, the scale of silica verdicts will inevitably drag reinsurers into the picture. If a court holds insurers responsible for payment, reinsurers may also remain on the hook to uphold their treaties, potentially shouldering a large share of the verdict burden depending on the precise terms. To protect their interests, global reinsurers are sounding the alarm to include ironclad silica exclusions in their treaties, forcing primary insurers to absorb the multimillion-dollar verdicts within their net retention if they don’t follow suit. However, these exclusions are a more recent development, still leaving reinsurers exposed to historic treaties that included weaker silica exclusions.

While there have only been five silica lawsuits that have reached the verdict stage, KFF Health News reported in March 2026 that more than 370 lawsuits had been filed by workers alleging injury from engineered stone (Gounder).¹ Of the five completed trials, four resulted in multimillion-dollar verdicts for the plaintiffs totaling over $120 million, with only one verdict siding with the manufacturer. The cases that sided with the plaintiff generally recognized the devastation brought about by silicosis: If the disease didn’t end up being fatal, the surviving worker, almost always, required a double lung transplant,often in their early 30s or 40s. In the case of 41-year-old Wilmer Ruben Martinez Paredes, whose widow won $47 million in damages in August 2026, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on medical treatments also proved fruitless (Stone Update).

While only five trials have concluded, the number of silica lawsuits are expected to ramp up over the next several years. With juries seeming to side with the plaintiffs, it could only be a matter of time until several more lawsuits are filed, causing the manufacturers and retailers to fight harder for insurance to cover these verdicts.

While the current silica exceptions might tempt the insurance industry into thinking that it ultimately has nothing to worry about when it comes to silica claims, carriers should remain aware of how verdicts roll in and who the blame is assigned to. With young workers in their 20s and 30s suffering from irreversible lung damage, primary and secondary insurers could be on the hook for multi-million dollar verdicts for each claim. The silica exclusions might give insurers some breathing room today, but blindly expecting the courts to uphold them could lead to an asbestos-sized hole in the industry’s pockets tomorrow.

However, not all is lost. As the industry did in the past with asbestos, it not only has the time to manage future exposure, but there is also a large coverage opportunity in the market that could be filled. First, insurers should immediately consider tightening their policy definitions, if this has not been done already, using stricter definitions for engineered stone quartz and RCS. To make their policy exclusions for silica claims more robust, carriers may incorporate not only natural silica, but all the toxic chemicals that are released in the process of grinding these quartz countertop slabs.

For carriers that are willing to underwrite silica risk, their strategy may include incorporating strict sub-limits for silica exposure or providing coverage on a claims-made basis. This would help them deal with the high severity and latency of such claims. By updating their policy language and underwriting guidelines, insurers and reinsurers can adequately handle the silica problem instead of letting it balloon into the next great industry crisis.