Colorado Silica Dust Trial Stands as Test for Mass Tort Lawsuits

An ongoing trial pitting a seriously ill worker against the manufacturers of engineered stone used in kitchen countertops will be an early benchmark of whether individual lawsuits will steamroll into multidistrict litigation that could threaten the industry’s existence or force it to make changes.

What’s at stake is not just damages for this single plaintiff in Colorado, but a potential shift in the liability framework that shapes how the industry behaves, according to Betsy Malloy, a University of Cincinnati College of Law professor who teaches torts and health law.

“Even when cases are individual tort claims, plaintiffs’ broader aims for bringing such suits beyond monetary compensation often include stronger safety standards and enforcement, product reformulation,” said Malloy. “Litigation and the surrounding publicity can accelerate the adoption of alternative materials and safer products.”

Tyler Jordan, who spent a decade as a stone fabricator, sued Cambria Co. LLC and Caesarstone USA Inc., claiming the quartz slab manufacturers failed to warn him about the high silica content of their products and the potential dangers of breathing in silica dust. Jordan says cutting and shaping the material widely used for kitchen countertops gave him an incurable progressive lung disease.

Jordan is among the hundreds of fabricators in the US who’ve filed lawsuits against engineered stone makers after being diagnosed with silicosis—a progressive disease that causes severe lung scarring from inhaling silica particles that leads to severe breathing problems.

Jordan is seeking to convince a jury that the stone manufacturers knew of the health hazards associated with cutting their products, but failed to warn workers or instruct them on necessary safety measures.

The companies could be on the hook to pay Jordan millions of dollars if a jury finds them liable for his illness, adding to the worries of an industry already facing intense scrutiny as the issue becomes more prominent through each case.

Trial Coverage

Jordan’s case represents one of the first that looks to expand the litigation over silica from engineered stone beyond its base in Southern California, where a landmark jury verdict in August 2024 awarded more than $52 million to a 34-year-old former fabricator.

As more workers are diagnosed with silicosis, similar claims may follow, allowing for a number of cases like Jordan’s to quickly spring up in other places.

During the trial, the jury has been shown internal company training logs related to silica dust and wet-cutting methods, photos of the fabrication shop, as well as safety data sheets and warning labels on the quartz slabs.

Manufacturers argued its labels clearly identified silica dust as a potential hazard and warned that dry-cutting its engineered stone slabs could result in fabricators breathing in the particles that cause silicosis. Jordan’s attorneys pushed back, pointing to broad and vague use of language on those labels such as “invisible dust.”

The trial is set to end May 1. The jury has heard testimony from Jordan, his wife, his parents—who own the Colorado-based fabrication shop where he worked for a decade—a former employee of the shop, as well as a medical expert and a company representative for Hyundai L&C USA Inc.

Attorneys for Cambria and Caesarstone have argued during the trial that Jordan’s illness resulted from his employer’s negligence rather than a defective product, often noting instances where his father failed to use safety controls in the shop.

The verdict could influence a wave of similar claims nationwide as more workers learn about the possibility of a lawsuit and lawyers increasingly become aware of the problem, said Michael D. Green, an expert in mass tort litigation and visiting professor at Washington University School of Law.

“There are lots of parallels with what occurred in asbestos litigation, although this is a smaller ‘mass tort'—one that I expect will very soon be in a federal multidistrict litigation proceeding,” said Green.

Mass Tort Litigation

Tort trials test liability and damages before a jury, and Jordan’s case will set an early benchmark, signaling how similar claims may be argued, valued, and decided in courts nationwide, legal observers say.

Mass tort litigation, which involves numerous plaintiffs suing one or more defendants for injuries caused by a common product, allows those individuals to pursue a coordinated case across jurisdictions.

Jordan’s case could provide the factual and legal foundation to support a broader, multidistrict litigation—a process that transfers similar civil lawsuits pending in different federal courts across the country to one federal judge.

This means cases are consolidated for efficiency, but still retain their individual status. In product liability tort trials, Green noted, injured workers typically rely on two primary theories: design defect and failure to warn.

An expert witness testified that engineered stone contains more than 90% silica, far more than natural stone, and even cutting it under the permissible exposure limits set by the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration is still too dangerous for workers.

“Even where warnings were provided, workers could argue that they weren’t adequate, which would then result in contending experts testifying the warnings were or weren’t adequate,” Green said.

During the trial, Cambria made clear that it offers trainings for working with its slabs through its Cambria University, focusing on fabrication techniques and installation best practices. The company’s website also notes its slabs must be ordered through an approved professional partner.

A significant verdict or settlement in this case would reverberate across the industry, increasing the likelihood of mass tort litigation that would create sustained, nationwide pressure rather than isolating risk to a single workplace or case, according to Malloy.

“As claim counts rise, insurers litigate exclusions and coverage, and such outcomes can materially affect whether defendants fight, settle, or restructure,” she said.

“In addition, the manufacturers may begin to implement more training certifications and compliance audits to ensure safety conditions,” Malloy said.