TOP
Silica is a naturally occurring mineral found in various forms like sand and quartz. It is a common element in the Earth’s crust and is used in many products and applications, such as glass, ceramics, and construction materials. While generally non-toxic, inhaling fine crystalline silica particles in large quantities can be potentially hazardous to health, possibly leading to lung diseases such as silicosis, a deadly and incurable disease.
What has been described as “one of the worst industrial tragedies in the history of the United States” involved silica exposure.1 In 1930, construction began on a three-mile tunnel through a mountain in West Virginia, the Hawk’s Nest Tunnel. The construction of the tunnel involved drilling through silica-rich rock using a dry technique, releasing hazardous silica dust into the air. Workers, mostly African American men, labored in confined, poorly ventilated spaces without adequate safety measures or respiratory protection. This led to widespread cases of silicosis. Misdiagnosed as “tunnelitis,” the disease quickly claimed hundreds of lives. Of the approximately 5,000 laborers, about 2,900 worked inside the tunnel, and at least 764 died from silicosis, making it the deadliest industrial disaster related to silicosis in U.S. history. Many more died in the years following due to prolonged exposure.2 A congressional investigation and then a “Stop Silicosis” workplace safety campaign led by Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins followed.3
Despite these efforts, silica exposure continued to be a serious health hazard for workers in the construction industry. An early incarnation of silicosis litigation in the 1990s and early 2000s mostly related to alleged injuries and illnesses associated with sandblasting activities. By 2001, a surge in workers’ claims of lung damage from silica dust raised fears that silica could become the next asbestos. In 2003, over 10,000 claims were consolidated in a Texas court. The case revealed widespread diagnostic fraud, and Judge Janis Graham Jack’s harsh 2005 ruling played a key role in dismantling the litigation.4
Consequently, silicosis claims declined significantly until reemerging recently as the renewed popularity of engineered stone is bringing an increase in claims by the tradespeople who work with these products. Engineered stone is a man-made material composed primarily of crushed natural stone (usually quartz) combined with a polymer resin binder and sometimes pigments. It is designed to look like natural stone but offers more uniformity, greater durability, and a larger selection of colors and patterns. The use of engineered stone has increased over the last decade to become the most used countertop material in the United States.5
Unfortunately, the growing popularity of engineered stone has led to serious health risks for workers. Unlike natural stone (granite = 30% silica, marble <10% silica), engineered stone contains over 90% crystalline silica. Cutting and polishing it releases large amounts of silica dust, along with other harmful substances, putting workers at high risk for severe, fast-progressing silicosis.
First reported over a decade ago in Spain and Israel, more than a thousand cases of silicosis among engineered stone workers have now been documented globally.6 Furthermore, in response to hundreds of silicosis cases among engineered stone workers since 2015, Australia implemented stricter regulations, certifications, inspections, and education requirements. Ultimately, a national task force determined that dangerous silica dust exposure continued despite these measures. As a result, Australia became the first country to ban engineered stone, effective July 2024.7
The California Department of Health began recording reported silicosis cases among engineered stone countertop workers in 2019. As of March 6, 2025, they have recorded 336 confirmed cases, 19 deaths, and 41 lung transplants.
Many affected workers are young immigrants from Mexico and Central America, often undocumented and lacking proper training and healthcare access.8 Similar clusters are appearing in other states.
Nationwide, underdiagnosis and underreporting are widespread. Despite OSHA regulations, silica overexposure remains common due to poor enforcement and the high cost of safety measures for small businesses. This situation is especially heartbreaking since silicosis is entirely preventable, yet insufficient workplace protections and oversight continue to fuel this growing, deadly epidemic.
Compensation for these injuries is being pursued from a variety of sources. Most injured employees would be able to file under their employers’ Workers’ Compensation policy initially, and generally also be able to seek recovery in tort from the “upstream” supply chain. This would include the entire manufactured stone ecosystem, such as designers, manufacturers, suppliers, protective equipment companies, and wholesalers and retailers (e.g., Home Depot, IKEA, Lowes).
Two landmark verdicts have been returned from California courts in 2024 and 2025 against these “upstream” defendants. In August 2024 a California jury returned a verdict of $52.4 million against a number of fabricators in Gustavo Reyes Gonzalez v. Caesarstone which involved a 33‑year-old tradesman with 15 years of exposure who requires a double lung transplant.9 The second case recently settled for more than $26 million in Anonymous v. Caesarstone, U.S.A., et al.10 There is now a class action suit underway, brought by the same law firm as the above cases.11
Although none appear to have been brought yet, there is also the possibility of “take home” suits from family members of workers that bring home dusty clothing, which are handled and washed by other family members (analogous to asbestos “take home” cases). There is also the potential for other third-party claims, such as from injured persons adjacent to a work, manufacturing or cutting site.
Whether there would be insurance coverage for these and future loses under General Liability or other policies is an evolving area. Some insurers have routinely excluded silica from certain policies since the early 2000s, and the Insurance Services Office (ISO) introduced an optional silica or silica-related dust exclusion in March 2025. Policies issued without these exclusions or issued prior to their advent may have an uphill battle disputing coverage.
Pollution exclusions could also preclude coverage in some instances. Questions regarding these issues may ultimately require resolution in the courts, particularly considering the recent upswing in activity and awards.
As the situation continues to develop, the insurance industry will benefit by incorporating this information into its underwriting and coverage form drafting.
