Daily Blast July 6, 2018

Yesterday, the Supreme Court of California issued an opinion regarding the applicable statute of limitations for prenatal toxic exposure claims. In Lopez v. Sony Electronics, Inc. (B256792, July 5, 2018) __ Cal.5th __, the court held that the two-year toxic exposure statute of limitations applied in the case of prenatal toxic exposure and was tolled during the plaintiff’s minority. (Slip opn., p. 1.) Aside from the specific statute of limitations question, this opinion also elucidates the California Supreme Court’s jurisprudence when faced with two equally applicable but mutually exclusive statutes.

Plaintiff, a 12-year-old, sued Sony alleging damages for birth defects allegedly caused by her mother’s exposure to toxic chemicals while plaintiff was in utero. (Slip opn., p. 2.) Sony moved for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff’s action was time-barred pursuant to a six-year statute of limitations for birth and prenatal injuries. (Ibid.; Code Civ. Proc. § 340.4) Plaintiff urged the court to instead apply the two-year toxic exposure statute found in Code of Civil Procedure, section 340.8, subdivision (a), which is tolled until the plaintiff reaches majority. (Slip opn., p. 3.) The trial court applied section 340.4 and granted summary judgment. A divided panel of the Court of Appeal affirmed. (Id. at p. 2.)

The Supreme Court reversed. (Slip opn., p. 1.) The court held that section 340.8 applied, and that plaintiff’s claims were therefore timely. (Id. at p. 14.) The fact that section 340.8 was enacted more than 60 years after section 340.4 weighed in favor of the more recent statute. (Id. at p. 6.) Moreover, the court relied upon the maxim of statutory construction, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, reasoning that because section 340.8 contained specific exceptions for asbestos exposure and medical malpractice claims, the Legislature likely intended to alter the law for all toxic exposure claims except those specifically excluded. (Id. at pp. 6-7.) Lastly, the court determined that applying section 340.8 to all hazardous exposure claims does not produce absurd results, therefore its plain language controls. (Id. at p. 13.)