The Washington Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Erickson v. Pharmacia LLC, 578 P.3d 306 (2025), marks a pivotal moment in product liability litigation—especially when it comes to punitive damages. Although the plaintiffs were Washington teachers exposed to PCB-contaminated school buildings, the Court held that Missouri law—not Washington law—governs punitive damages, a ruling with major implications for future cases involving out-of-state manufacturers. This split-law approach, known as dépeçage, means Washington’s substantive product liability rules still apply, but Missouri’s punitive damages standards control when evaluating misconduct.
Why Missouri? The Court emphasized that punitive damages exist primarily to punish and deter aggravated misconduct, and that the most relevant state for punishment is the one where the wrongful conduct occurred. Here, Pharmacia (Monsanto’s success-or-ininterest) conducted its PCB design, testing, marketing, and warnings decisions at its Missouri headquarters—not in Washington. Missouri law allows punitive damages where a defendant shows “complete indifference to or conscious disregard for the safety of others,” a threshold the jury found satisfied based on decades of internal knowledge about PCB hazards.
In contrast, Washington law does not allow punitive damages unless expressly authorized by statute—and the Washington Product Liability Act (WPLA) contains no such authorization. But the Court clarified that Washington courts can award punitive damages when another state’s law applies. That is exactly what happened here: the WPLA governed liability, but Missouri’s punitive damages framework governed punishment. This approach honors both states’ interests—Washington’s goal of fully compensating victims and Missouri’s goal of deterring corporate misconduct occurring within its borders.
Importantly, the Court rejected arguments that punitive damages needed to be tied to liability theories recognized under Missouri substantive law. Instead, the jury’s findings under Washington liability standards—combined with Missouri’s punitive damages standard—were enough. The verdict therefore stood: each teacher was awarded $45 million in punitive damages, reflecting the jury’s conclusion that Pharmacia’s conduct met Missouri’s heightened standard for conscious disregard.
For Washington residents harmed by defective or toxic products made by out-of-state corporations, Erickson v. Pharmacia is a watershed decision. It confirms that punitive damages may be available even when Washington law would otherwise prohibit them—if the misconduct occurred elsewhere and that state allows punitive damages. For plaintiffs, this opens a critical pathway to accountability. For corporate defendants, it underscores that misconduct in their home state can follow them across the country. And for legal advocates like KND Law, the case highlights the importance of aggressive choice-of-law strategy in maximizing justice for injured Washington clients.