$72 Million Verdict for Two Students Harmed by PCBs at Sky Valley Education Center

Sky Valley Education Center in Monroe, Washington was built in an era when polychlorinated biphenyls were a standard ingredient in fluorescent light ballasts and construction caulk. Monsanto produced PCBs under the trade name Aroclor from the 1930s until Congress banned their manufacture in 1979. Long after the ban, the chemical persisted in the Sky Valley building, leaching into the air and dust that students breathed daily.

Two former students at the school, identified in court filings under the case styled Clinger, et al. v. Pharmacia LLC, Case No. 18-2-54572-2, alleged that years of PCB exposure caused them chronic neurological injuries. PCBs are classified as probable human carcinogens and are documented endocrine disruptors; at the concentrations documented at Sky Valley, plaintiffs' experts testified the chemicals crossed into ranges known to impair neurological function and development.

Plaintiffs argued at trial that Monsanto had known for decades that PCBs accumulated in human tissue and posed serious health risks, yet the company continued to sell the chemicals without adequate warning and suppressed internal research showing the dangers. The case was one in a continuing series of trials arising from contamination at Sky Valley, where more than two hundred former students, parents, and teachers filed suit against Pharmacia LLC, the Monsanto corporate successor now owned by Bayer AG.

Rick Friedman of Friedman Rubin, alongside firm colleagues Sean Gamble, Henry Jones, and Ronald Park, tried the case before King County Superior Court Judge Jim Rogers. Co-counsel from Pfau Cochran Vertetis Amala also participated on the plaintiff side. The jury deliberated and on July 14, 2023, returned a verdict of $72 million for the two plaintiffs: $12 million in compensatory damages and $60 million in punitive damages.

The jury deadlocked on five additional plaintiffs in the same trial group, resulting in a mistrial on those claims. The case was one of several Sky Valley verdicts that Monsanto stated it intended to appeal; as of the time of the verdict, earlier awards in related cases remained under appeal and no reduction to this award had been reported.