## Facts

- Ronald Beauchamp worked as a research chemist for Dow Chemical Company.
- He alleged workplace exposure to chemicals including Tordon, 2,4-D, and 2,4,5-T caused physical and mental injuries and impaired bodily functions.
- Ronald and his wife, Karen Beauchamp, sued Dow, asserting intentional misrepresentation/fraudulent concealment, intentional assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of a contract to provide safe working conditions, and loss of consortium.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Dow on all claims, reasoning the Workers’ Disability Compensation Act (WDCA) provided the exclusive remedy.
- The court of appeals reversed in part, allowing trial on intentional infliction of emotional distress and breach of contract, and affirmed dismissal of other intentional tort theories.
- The Michigan Supreme Court granted review on whether WDCA exclusivity bars (1) intentional tort claims and (2) a contract claim for a safe workplace.

## Issues

1. Whether the WDCA’s exclusive-remedy provision bars an employee’s civil action against an employer for an intentional tort arising from workplace injury.
2. Whether the WDCA’s exclusive-remedy provision bars an employee’s civil action alleging breach of a contractual promise to provide safe working conditions.

## Decision

- The court held that WDCA exclusivity does not bar an employee’s suit against an employer for an intentional tort.
- The court adopted a “substantial certainty” standard for employer intent: the employer must have intended the act and known the injury was certain or substantially certain to occur.
- The court rejected the narrower test limiting intentional torts to situations where the employer intended both the act and the specific injury.
- The court held that a claim for breach of contract to provide a safe workplace is barred by WDCA exclusivity when the injury is within the Act’s coverage.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings applying the substantial-certainty standard to the pleaded intentional tort theories; the contract-based safe-workplace claim was foreclosed.

## Legal Principles

- Workers’ compensation exclusivity generally covers workplace injuries treated as accidental within the statutory scheme, but it does not displace common-law remedies for employer intentional torts.
- For WDCA purposes, an employer commits an intentional tort when it intends the act that causes injury and knows the injury is certain or substantially certain to result; substantial certainty is more than high probability.
- A plaintiff cannot avoid WDCA exclusivity by styling an unsafe-workplace claim as breach of a contract to provide safe working conditions; the statutory remedy remains exclusive for covered injuries.
- A spouse’s loss-of-consortium claim is derivative and depends on whether the injured employee has a viable underlying claim outside WDCA exclusivity.

## Conclusion

The Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the WDCA does not bar suits against employers for intentional torts defined by a substantial-certainty standard, but it does bar contract claims alleging a promise to provide a safe workplace when the injury falls within workers’ compensation coverage.


Beauchamp v. Dow Chem. Co., 427 Mich. 1, 398 N.W.2d 882 (Mich. 1986)