Caesarstone Silicosis Verdict: LA Jury Awards $67.7M to Fabricator Facing a Second Lung Transplant

A Los Angeles County jury on Monday, October 26, 2026 returned a $67.7 million verdict for Dennys Rene Rivas Williams, a former countertop fabricator whose artificial stone silicosis forced a double-lung transplant at 37, and assigned 69.1% of the fault to Caesarstone Ltd. and Caesarstone USA, Inc. The Caesarstone silicosis verdict is the company's second loss in five days and the largest award yet in the California engineered stone litigation, and because California's Proposition 51 apportions noneconomic damages by fault, the share Caesarstone actually owes turns on how the court applies that statute after trial.

The case is Rivas-Williams v. A&A Granite Marble, et al., No. 23STCV08523, one of the cases in the Los Angeles coordinated silicosis proceeding, JCCP 5378. The plaintiff's lawyers at Brayton Purcell LLP announced the result on October 28; Caesarstone disclosed it to investors in a Form 6-K the same week, saying it "is evaluating its available options." Below: the damages, the liability findings, the exposure math under California law, the October 21 verdict that preceded it, the trial scorecard so far, Caesarstone's claim count and reserve, the pending Cal/OSHA ban, and what the result means for plaintiffs' firms, manufacturers and insurers.

How much was the Caesarstone silicosis verdict?

The jury awarded $67,716,000 in total, counting a stipulated sum the judge is to add. The award breaks down into $7,250,000 in economic damages, $466,000 in additional economic damages the parties stipulated to and the court will add after the verdict, and $60,000,000 in noneconomic damages for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life.

Component	Amount	Source
Economic damages (jury)	$7,250,000	Verdict, per plaintiff's counsel
Stipulated economic damages (to be added by the court)	$466,000	Verdict, per plaintiff's counsel
Noneconomic damages	$60,000,000	Verdict, per plaintiff's counsel and 6-K
Total, plaintiff's count	$67,716,000	Brayton Purcell release
Total, Caesarstone's count	about $67.3 million	Form 6-K
Caesarstone's 69.1% share, "if assessed without modification"	about $46.5 million	Form 6-K

The two totals reconcile once the stipulated sum is set aside. The jury's own findings, $7.25 million plus $60 million, come to $67.25 million, which rounds to the $67.3 million in Caesarstone's filing; the plaintiff's figure adds the $466,000 the court has yet to enter. Likewise, 69.1% of $67.25 million is about $46.47 million, the source of the company's "approximately $46.5 million" figure. No punitive damages were reported in either account.

Who is the plaintiff in the Caesarstone silicosis case?

Dennys Rene Rivas Williams worked as an artificial stone countertop fabricator from 2015 through 2022, cutting, grinding and polishing slabs for kitchen and bathroom installations. He was diagnosed with artificial stone silicosis in 2022, at 35. In 2024, at 37, he underwent a double-lung transplant. According to his counsel, the transplanted lungs are already failing and he is expected to need a second double-lung transplant in 2027.

That medical history explains the size of the noneconomic award. Accelerated silicosis from high-silica engineered stone typically strikes fabricators in their 20s and 30s, after years rather than decades of exposure, and it is progressive and incurable; transplant is the end-stage treatment. A plaintiff facing a second transplant within roughly three years of the first presents a jury with a short, painful and largely uncontested life-expectancy story, which is why the noneconomic line dwarfs the economic one by more than eight to one.

Why did the jury find Caesarstone liable?

The jury found both Caesarstone entities liable for a Design Defect under the risk-benefit test, one of the two routes California law allows to strict products liability for design. Under Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. (1978), once a plaintiff shows the product's design was a substantial factor in causing harm, the burden shifts to the manufacturer to prove that the benefits of the design outweigh its inherent risk of danger. In engineered stone cases, plaintiffs argue that slabs whose crystalline silica content commonly exceeds 90% are far more dangerous to cut than natural stone and that lower-silica formulations were feasible; manufacturers answer that the danger comes from dry cutting and missing ventilation, which the employer controls.

The jury also rejected Caesarstone's affirmative defense that the way its slabs were fabricated in the plaintiff's shops amounted to a highly unforeseeable misuse of the product. That finding matters beyond this case. The misuse defense is the industry's central theme: that its products are safe when fabricated with water suppression, ventilation and respirators, and that shops which skip those controls, not the slab, cause the disease. A jury that rejects misuse is saying dry fabrication in small shops was foreseeable to the manufacturer.

The fault allocation followed: 69.1% to the two Caesarstone entities combined, 30% to Primus Marble and 0.9% to other suppliers. The plaintiff's counsel describes the case as the seventh artificial stone silicosis trial involving a countertop fabrication worker that the firm has tried in the United States, and its sixth plaintiff's verdict.

How much will Caesarstone actually have to pay?

Almost certainly less than $67.7 million, and not necessarily the $46.5 million Caesarstone disclosed: the answer depends on how the court applies Proposition 51 and any settlement credits. California Civil Code § 1431.2, enacted by voters as Proposition 51 in 1986, provides that each defendant's liability for noneconomic damages "shall be several only and shall not be joint," allocated in direct proportion to that defendant's percentage of fault. Economic damages remain joint and several.

Applied to the Rivas-Williams numbers, the arithmetic looks like this:

Damages type	Total	Rule	Caesarstone exposure before credits
Noneconomic	$60,000,000	Several only (Civ. Code § 1431.2)	69.1% = about $41.5 million
Economic (jury plus stipulated)	$7,716,000	Joint and several	Up to $7.7 million, less settlement credits
Range			about $41.5 million to $49.2 million

These figures are arithmetic, not court findings. Two adjustments could move them. First, pretrial settlements with other defendants generally offset only the economic damages under California's settlement-credit rules, so any amounts already paid by settling fabricators, distributors or other manufacturers could reduce the $7.7 million joint portion. Second, post-trial motions for a new trial or remittitur, or an appeal, could cut or erase the noneconomic award. The company's "if assessed without modification" phrasing signals that it expects one or more of those to come into play.

Why the fault split is unusual

The 69.1% figure is striking next to earlier verdicts. In the August 2024 Gonzalez trial, jurors assigned Caesarstone USA only 15% and put 70% on "others," including the plaintiff's employers. In the October 21 verdict described below, the two Caesarstone entities drew 22% combined and the employer 70%. Under DaFonte v. Up-Right, Inc. (1992), a California jury may assign fault to an employer even though workers' compensation exclusivity bars suing it, and Proposition 51 then shields the manufacturer from paying the employer's share of noneconomic damages. That is why fault allocation, more than the headline number, decides the outcome in these cases. The Rivas-Williams allocation, as described by plaintiff's counsel, lists no separate employer share, though the release does not say whether Primus Marble, the 30% party, was a supplier or the shop where the plaintiff worked.

The second Caesarstone verdict in five days

On October 21, 2026, a separate California jury returned a $33 million verdict against Caesarstone Ltd. and Caesarstone USA in what Brayton Purcell called its sixth artificial stone fabrication silicosis trial and fifth plaintiff's verdict. The award was $25 million in noneconomic damages to the injured worker and $8 million for loss of consortium to his spouse. Jurors assigned each Caesarstone entity 11% of the fault, 70% to the employer and 8% combined to other manufacturers and distributors. The firm issued a corrected release on October 23 that changed how the plaintiffs are identified.

Because the entire $33 million is noneconomic, Proposition 51 would limit Caesarstone's share to its 22% of fault, about $7.3 million before post-trial rulings. The two verdicts together exceed $100 million, but Caesarstone's combined exposure on them is a fraction of that, which is the practical lesson of California's several-liability rule.

Engineered stone silicosis trials: the scorecard

Trial	Date	Forum	Result	Caesarstone fault
Reyes-Gonzalez v. Aaroha Radiant Marble & Granite Slabs	Aug. 2024	LA Superior Court	$52,437,366 for plaintiff ($8,257,366 economic; $44,180,000 noneconomic); on appeal	Caesarstone USA 15% (Cambria 10%, Color Marble 2.5%)
Torrance wrongful death trial	May 29, 2025	LA Superior Court (Torrance)	Defense verdict for Caesarstone and other manufacturers; on appeal	None
Jordan (Denver)	Apr. 30, 2026	Colorado state court	$17.45 million; Cambria liable for misrepresentation, Hyundai for negligence and misrepresentation	Caesarstone not liable
Sixth Brayton Purcell trial	Oct. 21, 2026	California state court	$33 million	22% combined
Rivas-Williams v. A&A Granite Marble	Oct. 26, 2026	LA Superior Court, JCCP 5378	$67,716,000	69.1% combined

The scorecard is not one-sided. Caesarstone won a complete defense verdict after a five-week trial in Torrance in May 2025, where the jury accepted that the disease came from how the material was handled, and it escaped liability in the Colorado trial that went against Cambria and Hyundai. Brayton Purcell's own count covers seven trials with six plaintiff wins; other firms' trials, including the Torrance case brought by Metzger Law Group, are not in that tally.

How many silicosis lawsuits does Caesarstone face?

As of March 31, 2026, Caesarstone reported about 711 individuals with silica-exposure claims against it worldwide: 509 in the United States, 156 in Australia and 36 in Israel. It carried a $48.8 million provision for pending claims and $11.6 million in related insurance receivables, and said the remaining US claims were either at an early stage or only reasonably possible losses, so no additional provision had been recorded. It also disclosed four California settlements in the first quarter of 2026.

Set against those figures, two October verdicts with a combined Caesarstone share in the range of roughly $49 million to $56 million, before post-trial rulings, would on their own approach the entire reserve. The broader docket is growing too: Brayton Purcell said in February 2026 that it represents more than 700 fabrication workers, and it has filed cases in Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Kentucky, Florida and Colorado as well as California. The California cases are coordinated in state court rather than in a federal Multidistrict Litigation (MDL), because most defendants and plaintiffs share California citizenship and the claims arise under state law.

Is Caesarstone appealing the silicosis verdict?

Caesarstone has not announced an appeal. Its 6-K says only that the company "is evaluating its available options," and secondary coverage of the filing lists post-trial remedies and an appeal among the possibilities. The usual sequence in California is a motion for new trial and a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, each with short statutory deadlines after notice of entry of judgment, followed by an appeal to the Second District Court of Appeal. Caesarstone is already appealing the 2024 adverse verdict, and the plaintiffs are appealing the 2025 defense verdict, so appellate courts may address the risk-benefit and misuse questions before the Rivas-Williams case reaches them.

Is engineered stone being banned in California?

Not yet, but the state is close. On May 21, 2026 the Cal/OSHA Standards Board voted 3-0 to grant Petition 609, filed by the Western Occupational and Environmental Medical Association, opening an expedited rulemaking that could bar fabrication and installation of engineered stone containing more than 1% crystalline silica. Cal/OSHA released a draft emergency regulation on September 16, 2026. Under the draft, fabricators could not acquire new high-silica slabs 60 days after the rule takes effect and could not fabricate them at all after 180 days. As of late September no ban had been adopted. Separately, Senate Bill 20, signed in October 2025, strengthened reporting and information-sharing on silicosis between Cal/OSHA and state public health officials.

A ban would not end the litigation. Silicosis has a latency of years, so workers exposed before any effective date will keep filing, and the plaintiffs' design defect theory gains force if regulators conclude that high-silica stone cannot be worked safely. Manufacturers argue the opposite: that a regulatory fix shows the problem was workplace controls, a point juries in Torrance and Colorado accepted.

Can countertop workers sue for silicosis from quartz?

Yes. Fabricators generally cannot sue their own employer because workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy, but they can bring product liability claims against slab manufacturers, distributors and suppliers on design defect, Failure to Warn and negligence theories, as the Rivas-Williams, Gonzalez and Jordan plaintiffs did. Claims are subject to a Statute of Limitations, which in California personal injury cases generally runs two years, with accrual typically tied to when the worker knew or should have known of the injury and its cause under the Discovery Rule. Wrongful death claims may be brought by family members. Product identification, proving which manufacturers' slabs the worker cut, is usually the first contested issue.

What it means for plaintiffs' firms, manufacturers and insurers

For plaintiffs' firms. The verdict validates a trial-first strategy in a docket with no Global Settlement and no federal MDL. The key variable is fault allocation: an employer-heavy split like October 21's caps a manufacturer's noneconomic share at a fraction of the award. Firms with cases against small shops that have closed or carry little insurance should expect defendants to push hard for employer allocation under DaFonte, and should build the evidentiary record on manufacturer knowledge, silica content and feasible alternatives that carried Rivas-Williams to 69.1%.

For manufacturers and distributors. Losing the misuse defense removes the industry's best liability argument, leaving fault allocation and damages as the defense. Caesarstone's reserve was set before two adverse verdicts in a week, and the company's disclosure language suggests a fight on post-trial motions. Settlement pressure on the remaining 509 US claims rises with each plaintiff's verdict, but so does the value of the Torrance and Colorado defense wins as counterweights.

For insurers. Coverage for engineered stone claims is already contested; Travelers is fighting a coverage suit by Bedrosians Tile & Stone over more than 450 silicosis cases on the basis of silica exclusions. A $60 million noneconomic award for a single fabricator will sharpen those disputes, and carriers writing products coverage for stone distributors and fabricators should expect exclusion litigation to expand alongside the tort docket.

FAQ

How much was the Caesarstone silicosis verdict?

$67,716,000, comprising $7,250,000 in economic damages, a stipulated $466,000 the court is to add, and $60,000,000 in noneconomic damages. Caesarstone's filing describes about $67.3 million because it omits the stipulated sum.

How much does Caesarstone owe?

The company puts its share at about $46.5 million if the verdict stands unmodified. Under Proposition 51, its noneconomic liability is several only, about $41.5 million at 69.1%, while it may be jointly liable for up to $7.7 million in economic damages, subject to settlement credits and post-trial rulings.

Why was Caesarstone found liable?

The jury found its engineered stone defectively designed under California's risk-benefit test and rejected the defense that fabrication conditions were an unforeseeable misuse of the product.

Is Caesarstone appealing?

It has not announced an appeal; its 6-K says it is evaluating its available options. It is already appealing the August 2024 Gonzalez verdict.

How many silicosis lawsuits does Caesarstone face?

About 509 US claims as of March 31, 2026, out of roughly 711 worldwide, against a $48.8 million provision for pending claims.

Is engineered stone banned in California?

No final ban has been adopted. Cal/OSHA released a draft emergency rule on September 16, 2026 that would prohibit fabricating engineered stone with more than 1% crystalline silica, and the Standards Board could act on it this fall.