The Liability Case for Specifying Silica-Free: What Architects Need to Know

Two juries have now put nine figures on the table in artificial stone silicosis cases. Neither one sued an architect. That is the part worth paying attention to.

The legal standard of care moves with what the profession knows. Twenty years ago, specifying engineered quartz was ordinary practice. Today, with Australia's ban in force, California's permanent standard on the books and a prohibition in rulemaking, and two federal agencies publishing on the hazard, "we didn't know" is a harder position to hold than it was.

This guide covers what standard of care actually requires, what the case law does and does not establish, what your professional liability policy is likely to exclude, and the documentation that protects a firm that specifies — or refuses to specify — a high-silica material.

One thing to set straight at the top, because the trade coverage keeps getting it wrong. Departing from the standard of care does not automatically make an architect liable. The AIA states it plainly: failure to practice in accordance with the standard of care does not automatically result in liability. Architects are judged by negligence principles, not the warranty or strict-liability standards applied to manufacturers. A claimant still has to prove duty, breach, causation and damages — and in most states, prove the standard itself through expert testimony.

That is a meaningfully higher bar than "you specified quartz, you're liable." The exposure described below is real. It is not automatic.

Legal and regulatory status verified: August 8, 2026. Jurisdictions are flagged throughout — much of what follows applies in one country and not the other. Sources at the end.

The Short Version

Standard of care requires the skill and care ordinarily provided by architects practicing in the same or similar locality under the same or similar circumstances. It is measured at the time the work was done, and it moves as professional knowledge moves.

Three exposures are worth understanding, in descending order of how likely they are to reach you:

1. Negligent specification — relying on manufacturer literature without independent verification. There is direct case law on this.

2. Third-party tort — courts in several states now extend architect duty to people the architect never contracted with, including workers and future occupants.

3. Insurance gaps — pollution and hazardous-substance exclusions may remove coverage for exactly the claim this hazard produces.

What actually protects a firm is documentation: verified product data, a written informed-consent record, a substitution protocol, and a fabricator vetting step. All four are procedural. None require you to stop practising.

What "Standard of Care" Means — and What It Does Not

Under common law and the standard AIA agreements, a design professional must perform with the professional skill and care ordinarily provided by architects practising in the same or similar locality under the same or similar circumstances.

The law does not demand perfection. It does not guarantee outcomes. The principle that an architect does not warrant or guarantee perfection in plans and specifications is long established and still good law.

Three qualifications the trade press routinely drops:

Breach is not liability. Deviation from the standard of care is one element of a negligence claim. Causation and damages still have to be proved.

Negligence, not warranty. Architects and engineers are subject to general negligence principles. Unlike manufacturers, they do not guarantee that a specified product will perform — which is precisely why the product-liability verdicts discussed below landed on manufacturers rather than specifiers.

Expert testimony is usually required. In most states the standard of care must be established by expert testimony, and without it a claimant often fails to make a prima facie case. There are exceptions — Massachusetts held in LeBlanc that expert testimony is not always required where the failure is obvious enough for a lay jury — but the general rule is a real procedural hurdle for claimants.

What this means for architects: the risk is not that a court will find you liable the moment silica appears in a specification. It is that a well-documented file makes the negligence case hard to build, and an undocumented one makes it easier.

Why Silica Crossed the Line: The Asbestos Parallel

The closest historical analogue is asbestos, and the useful case is one the architect won.

In Privest Properties Ltd. v. Foundation Company of Canada, the asbestos-containing fireproofing Monokote MK-3 had been specified and installed at Harbour Centre in Vancouver between 1972 and 1975. The claim went against the architect in contract and tort. The British Columbia Supreme Court dismissed it, the BC Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, and the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal.

The reason the architect won is the whole point. Expert testimony established that in the early 1970s, on the specific health risks of that material, "the light had not yet come on" in the Canadian architectural community. Specifying it then met the prevailing standard of care.

(Canadian case. The reasoning — that the standard is measured against contemporaneous professional knowledge — is common to US law as well, but the decision itself is not binding on a US court.)

In practice: that defence has a shelf life. Australia banned engineered stone outright effective July 1, 2024. California's permanent silica standard has been in force since February 5, 2025, and its Standards Board voted on May 21, 2026 to begin rulemaking toward prohibiting artificial stone above 1% crystalline silica. OSHA and NIOSH issued an updated joint hazard alert in 2026. On crystalline silica in stone fabrication, the light is on.

The Cases That Define the Exposure

Relying on manufacturer literature

Brushton-Moira Central School District v. Fred H. Thomas Associates, P.C., 91 N.Y.2d 256 (1998). An architect specified insulated replacement panels for school windows that proved defective. At trial, the plaintiff's expert testified that the architect deviated from the standard of care by relying too heavily on the product literature and not on actual experience with the product. The Appellate Division's liability finding was affirmed; the Court of Appeals ruled separately on the measure of damages, holding they run from the date of breach.

The relevance to surfacing is direct. Engineered quartz has been marketed with safety claims that regulators have since contradicted. An architect who takes the brochure at face value, without an SDS or independent test data, is standing where that architect stood.

(New York. The reasoning is widely followed but the holding binds only NY courts.)

Duty to people you never contracted with

LeBlanc v. Logan Hilton Joint Venture, 463 Mass. 316 (2012). A maintenance electrician was killed by electrocution at the Logan Airport Hilton. The Supreme Judicial Court allowed third-party claims against the project's design professionals to proceed, on the basis that they failed to notify the owner that the electrical subcontractor had not installed specified warning signage.

Note what the duty was and was not. It was a duty to report up — to tell the owner what the design team knew. It was not a duty to police the contractor's installation work. That distinction matters, because the first is something an architect can actually discharge with an email.

Beacon Residential Community Assn. v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP (Cal. 2014). The California Supreme Court held that a principal architect owes a duty of care to future homeowners with whom it has no contract, under common law and the Right to Repair Act. The duty attaches to the architect who exercises design control, not to every consultant on the job.

(Massachusetts and California respectively. Both are influential; neither is nationally binding.)

What this means for architects: privity is no longer a reliable shield in these two states and several others. Where you hold design control and you know something the owner does not, the safe assumption is that the knowledge carries a duty.

What the Verdicts Actually Decided

Two artificial stone silicosis cases have reached juries in the United States. They are routinely cited together as proof that the "bad actor fabricator" defence is dead. Read together, they show something more complicated — and a specifier is better served by the complication.

Gustavo Reyes Gonzalez v. Caesarstone et al. — Los Angeles County Superior Court, August 2024, $52,437,366 against Caesarstone, Cambria and Color Marble. Of 34 manufacturers sued, 29 settled and two won summary judgment.

Jordan v. Cambria — Denver, April 30, 2026, $17,450,000. And here is the half that gets dropped:

The Jordan jury found Cambria not negligent and its products not defective. Liability rested on misrepresentation alone. And it assigned nearly two-thirds of fault to the fabrication shop.

The Jordan verdict is subject to post-trial motions and appeal. Fault allocation and net recovery are not final.

Worth noting: on the negligence and defect questions, that verdict substantially supports the fabricator-responsibility position. Anyone citing Jordan as proof that juries have rejected it has read half the verdict form.

What this means for architects: neither case named a design professional. The exposure discussed in this article is a reasoned extrapolation from architect duty cases, not a described outcome in a silicosis case. That is an honest characterisation of where the law sits, and a firm making decisions deserves it.

See also: The Cambria Silicosis Verdict — What a $17.45M Jury Ruling Means for Everyone in the Supply Chain

The Duty to Warn: What the Authority Actually Is

This is where a lot of trade writing overreaches, so here is the honest version.

The leading cases usually cited for an unqualified duty to warn — Lindenberg v Canning (1992) 62 BLR 147 and Plant Construction plc v Clive Adams Associates [2000] — are English decisions about contractors, not North American decisions about architects. Plant Construction held that whether an implied duty to warn existed depended on the facts of each case. Not absolute. Fact-dependent.

The Defective Premises Act 1972, sometimes cited alongside them, is English statute with no application in the United States or Canada.

In practice: North American architects do carry duties to disclose known hazards, but those duties arise from the negligence and third-party cases above and from contract, not from the English line. If a design professional specifies something with a known and obvious hazard and says nothing, the exposure is real. It just is not sourced to Plant Construction.

CERCLA: What the Environmental Exposure Actually Is

CERCLA Section 107 imposes strict, joint and several liability — genuinely independent of fault — on several categories of party. Design professionals should understand which category could reach them, because the trade coverage mislabels it constantly.

In Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. Catellus Development Corp. (9th Cir. 1992), a grading contractor moved contaminated soil from one part of a site to another. The Ninth Circuit held the contractor could be liable as an operator under §107(a)(2) and as a transporter under §107(a)(4).

Not as an arranger. Arranger liability under §107(a)(3) is a separate theory with different elements, and Kaiser is not an arranger case. If you have seen it cited that way — including in an earlier version of this guide — that citation was wrong.

The practical exposure for a design professional is narrower than "arranger" framing suggests, but it is not zero. Directive demolition or disposal specifications that dictate a contractor's means and methods move a design professional closer to operator-type involvement.

Risk controls that follow from that:

• Do not sign waste transportation manifests, soil disposal logs, or environmental documentation

• Bind demolition and hazardous remediation specifications separately from the primary drawings

• Write those specifications on performance and qualification criteria rather than directive instructions that dictate means and methods

(US federal statute. Applies nationwide.)

In Ontario, a separate and clearer obligation applies: under section 30 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the project owner must determine whether designated substances — silica among them, under O. Reg. 490/09 — are present, and must disclose that to prospective constructors at tender. Failure to do so carries strict liability for resulting losses. (Ontario only. There is no US federal equivalent.)

What Your Insurance Probably Excludes

Professional liability insurance for architects is written on a claims-made basis and commonly carries broad pollution and hazardous-substance exclusions. Crystalline silica dust falls readily within the standard "irritant or contaminant" definition of a pollutant.

A caution about clause numbers. Exclusion numbering is carrier-specific. The table below sets out the structure under Pro-Demnity, the mandatory professional liability insurer for Ontario architecture practices under Ontario legislation. It is a useful worked example because the policy is public and uniform across a whole province. It is not the American standard, and a US firm will not find "Exclusion 18" in its own policy.

Exclusion structure under Ontario's mandatory program (Pro-Demnity)

What a US firm should do instead of reading that table: pull your own policy, find the pollution exclusion, and read the definition of "pollutant." Ask your broker three questions — whether crystalline silica falls inside it, whether a defence obligation survives the exclusion, and whether a buy-back endorsement or contractors' pollution liability cover is available. Exclusion scope varies by carrier, and not every pollution exclusion is absolute.

The vicarious-liability trap

This one holds in both countries and is worth understanding regardless of policy form.

If you retain an environmental or hazardous-substances consultant directly, you take on contractual and vicarious liability for that consultant's errors. If the consultant misses a hazard, the owner sues you under the prime contract. And because retaining pollution specialists is commonly outside the customary-services scope, your own insurer may decline to defend the very claim your consultant caused.

The cleaner structure: the owner contracts directly with environmental, geotechnical and hazardous-substances specialists. You coordinate. It also preserves the owner's own direct claim against the specialist, which their counsel will appreciate later even if the client resists it now.

Why condominiums concentrate the risk

Condominium developers frequently build through single-purpose entities that dissolve shortly after completion. When defects surface years later, the HOA's counsel looks for a defendant that still exists and still carries insurance. That is often the design professional. A pollution exclusion or an unvetted subconsultant agreement at that moment is how a latent-defect claim becomes an uninsured one.

The Materials: Silica Content, Performance and Cost

Specifying low-silica or silica-free does not require giving up performance. It does require getting the numbers right — and the compliance column below is the one most comparison tables omit.

Performance and cost for the same materials:

Read the compliance column before the silica column. Cal/OSHA §5204 defines High-Exposure Trigger Tasks for artificial stone above 0.1% crystalline silica, and for natural stone and other products above 10%. Q10 at 10% is a hundred times above that line. Q-Zero at under 1% is ten times above it. No engineered surface exits §5204 by reformulating. Reduced silica lowers exposure; it does not exempt the material, the task, or the shop.

Two more things the table will not tell you on its own.

The hardness numbers cut against the recommendation. Our specification guide sets Mohs ≥ 6 as the benchmark for professional use in stone and stone-substitute surfaces. Soapstone (2.5–3), acrylic solid surface (3–4), paper composite (4–5) and recycled glass (5–6) all sit below it. That is not a reason to avoid them — it is a reason to place them where scratch resistance is not the governing criterion, and to say so to the client in writing before installation rather than after.

The thermal figures are manufacturer claims. The ~1000°F and ~800°F numbers come from vendor literature, not a test standard. Specify against the published technical datasheet.

See also: Silica Content by Countertop Brand — The Complete 2026 Guide

The Informed-Consent Protocol

Where a standard of care is still forming, documented client participation is the strongest position available. Three phases:

Substitutions are where the risk actually enters

Contractors propose high-silica substitutes to save money, generally without any view on where liability lands. An architect who approves an unvetted substitution has adopted it.

Contract language that helps:

• A mandatory Substitution Request Form, with performance documentation attached — Mohs, water absorption, and an SDS showing crystalline silica by polymorph below the project threshold

• Shop drawings are never a substitution vehicle. Any shop drawing carrying a material change gets rejected as non-compliant.

• Consider a provision allowing review time for non-compliant substitution submittals to be charged back. Whether that is enforceable against a contractor you have no privity with depends on the contract structure and the jurisdiction — have counsel draft it rather than lifting the clause from an article.

If the owner insists on high-silica material

Put the objection in writing — occupational, regulatory and supply-chain grounds. If overruled, seek a signed acknowledgment and consider an indemnity addendum.

Where this article stops and counsel starts: you will read advice elsewhere to refuse submittal review, refuse to sign pay applications, and immediately terminate for cause. Understand what that advice is asking. Wrongful termination is itself a significant source of architect liability, and AIA B101 termination provisions carry notice and cure requirements that a unilateral walk-off does not satisfy. Do not invoke termination for cause on the strength of a trade article. Get an opinion first.

The Risk-Mitigation Checklist

That last row has a date attached. Under California SB 20, fabrication shops must file annual attestations from July 1, 2026, must hold a three-year certification from January 1, 2027, and suppliers may not sell slabs to uncertified shops. On a long-lead California project, your fabricator's certification status is a schedule risk, not just a safety question.

See also: California's 2026 Silica Standard — What It Means for Architects and Distributors

Frequently Asked Questions

Can an architect be sued by a worker they never contracted with?

In several states, yes. Beacon Residential v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (Cal. 2014) established that a principal architect owes a duty of care to future homeowners with no contractual relationship, and LeBlanc v. Logan Hilton (Mass. 2012) allowed third-party claims against design professionals who failed to notify the owner of a known safety omission. Privity is not the shield it once was. That said, no reported artificial stone silicosis case has yet named a design professional as a defendant.

Does departing from the standard of care automatically make an architect liable?

No. The AIA states directly that failure to practice in accordance with the standard of care does not automatically result in liability. Breach is one element of a negligence claim; a claimant must also prove causation and damages, and in most states must establish the standard of care itself through expert testimony. Architects are held to negligence principles, not the warranty or strict-liability standards that apply to manufacturers.

What is negligent specification?

A negligence claim alleging the design professional selected a material or system that a reasonably competent architect would not have selected, or selected it without adequate investigation. Brushton-Moira Central School District v. Fred H. Thomas Associates (N.Y. 1998) is the standard illustration: expert testimony established the architect relied too heavily on product literature rather than actual experience with the product.

Does professional liability insurance cover silica claims?

Frequently not. PLI policies are claims-made and commonly carry pollution and hazardous-substance exclusions, and crystalline silica dust falls readily within the usual "irritant or contaminant" definition of a pollutant. Scope varies by carrier and some offer buy-back endorsements, so the answer for your firm is in your own policy. Ask your broker whether silica falls inside the pollution exclusion and whether any defence obligation survives it.

If the client insists on high-silica quartz, is the architect still exposed?

Potentially. Documenting the objection in writing and obtaining a signed acknowledgment, ideally with an indemnity addendum, is the standard protective step. Refusing to proceed or terminating for cause is a much more serious move — wrongful termination is itself a leading source of architect liability, and AIA agreements impose notice and cure requirements. That decision belongs with counsel.

Does low-silica quartz satisfy California's silica standard?

No. Cal/OSHA §5204 sets the High-Exposure Trigger Task threshold for artificial stone at more than 0.1% crystalline silica. Q10 products at up to 10% and Q-Zero products at under 1% are both above it. Reduced silica content lowers exposure but does not exempt the material or the fabrication shop from the standard.

Can an architect be liable under CERCLA for a demolition specification?

The exposure is narrower than commonly claimed but not zero. In Kaiser Aluminum v. Catellus (9th Cir. 1992) a grading contractor was held potentially liable as an operator and transporter — not as an arranger, contrary to how the case is often cited. Directive demolition and disposal specifications that dictate a contractor's means and methods move a design professional closer to that kind of involvement. Performance-based specifications, separate binding of remediation scopes, and never signing disposal documentation are the standard controls.

What documentation should a design firm keep?

SDS by SKU with crystalline silica reported by polymorph; independent test results on compliance-sensitive projects; minutes of the client risk discussion; the signed informed-consent record; substitution request forms with attachments; and the fabricator's Silica Exposure Control Plan and certification status. The file is the defence.

What This Means for Your Practice

The standard of care is not static, and on crystalline silica it has moved. Australia banned the category. California made its standard permanent and is now writing a ban. Two federal agencies have published updated hazard alerts. The Privest defence — that the light had not yet come on — is not available on this hazard in 2026.

But the exposure is negligence-based, not automatic, and it has never yet been tested against a design professional in a silicosis case. What that combination calls for is not alarm. It is a file: verified product data, a documented client conversation, a substitution protocol, and a vetted fabricator.

Firms that have those four things are in a defensible position whichever way the law develops. Firms relying on a manufacturer's brochure are in the position the architect in Brushton-Moira was in.

See also: What Architects and Interior Designers Need to Know When Specifying Silica-Free Countertops

See also: Q10 vs Q40: What the Ratings Mean When You're Recommending Countertops to Clients

Disclaimer: Silica Free News is an independent publication covering silica-free and low-silica surface materials for distributors, architects, interior designers, and other industry professionals in the United States and Canada. Our content is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, regulatory, technical, engineering, health and safety, or professional specification advice. Nothing in this article is legal advice. Case law summarised here is jurisdiction-specific and may not apply to your project or your practice. Consult counsel licensed in your jurisdiction before acting on any of it.

Although we make reasonable efforts to provide accurate and current information, product specifications, compositions, certifications, availability, and regulatory requirements may change. Readers should verify all material information directly with the manufacturer and consult the applicable legal, regulatory, or governmental authority before specifying, purchasing, fabricating, or installing any product.

Sources:

Standard of care

1. The standard of care: How is it applied? — American Institute of Architects, https://www.aia.org/resource-center/standard-care-how-it-applied

2. Standard of Care for Design Professionals (50-state survey) — Saul Ewing, https://www.saul.com/sites/default/files/documents/2021-04/Standard%20of%20Care%20for%20Design%20Professionals.pdf

3. Innovation and Exposure: Professional Liability Risks When Architects and Engineers Specify Emerging Building Materials — Wood Smith Henning & Berman, https://www.wshblaw.com/experience-innovation-and-exposure-professional-liability-risks-when-architects-and-engineers-specify-emerging-building-materials

4. Standard of Care: Evaluating Professional Conduct — Hoffmann Architects, http://www.hoffarch.com/wp-content/uploads/Vol-28-N2-Standard-of-Care.pdf

Case law

5. Brushton-Moira Central School District v. Fred H. Thomas Associates, P.C., 91 N.Y.2d 256 (1998), https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ny-court-of-appeals/1040913.html

6. LeBlanc v. Logan Hilton Joint Venture, 463 Mass. 316 (2012), https://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/2012/sjc-11008.html

7. Beacon Residential Community Assn. v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP (Cal. 2014), https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ca-supreme-court/1671856.html

8. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. Catellus Development Corp. (9th Cir. 1992) — operator and transporter liability, https://www.elr.info/sites/default/files/litigation/23.20020.htm

9. Privest Properties Ltd. v. Foundation Company of Canada — asbestos fireproofing, Harbour Centre Vancouver; SCC leave denied, https://prodemnity.com/architects-and-others-saved-from-asbestos-claims/

10. Plant Construction plc v Clive Adams Associates [2000] — English; duty to warn fact-dependent, https://www.isurv.com/directory_record/4404/plant_construction_plc_v_clive_adams_associates

Verdicts

11. $52.4M verdict, Gustavo Reyes Gonzalez v. Caesarstone et al., LA County Superior Court, August 2024 — Public Health Watch, https://publichealthwatch.org/2024/08/08/jury-awards-52-4m-in-case-against-artificial-stone-countertop-makers/

12. $52,437,366 verdict detail — Brayton Purcell LLP, https://www.braytonlaw.com/portfolio-item/52m-verdict-for-artificial-stone-fabricator-with-silicosis/

13. The Cambria Silicosis Verdict — Silica Free News, https://silicafreenews.com/p/cambria-silicosis-verdict-2026

Regulatory

14. Cal/OSHA Title 8 §5204 — permanent standard effective February 5, 2025; HETT thresholds 0.1% artificial stone / 10% other, https://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/5204.html

15. Standards Board Advances Efforts to Protect Workers from Silicosis (May 2026) — California DIR, https://www.dir.ca.gov/DIRNews/2026/2026-45.html

16. California SB 20 (Chapter 734, Statutes of 2025), https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB20

17. OSHA/NIOSH Hazard Alert, updated 2026 (NIOSH Pub. 2026-101 / OSHA 3768), https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OSHA3768.pdf

18. Safe Work Australia, engineered stone ban, https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/safety-topic/hazards/silica/engineered-stone-ban

19. Legal requirements — Silica on construction projects, Ontario OHSA s.30, https://www.ontario.ca/document/silica-construction-projects/legal-requirements

20. O. Reg. 490/09 Designated Substances (Ontario) — silica, https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/090490

21. Architects/Engineers and Environmental Liability (CERCLA) — FindLaw, https://corporate.findlaw.com/law-library/architects-engineers-and-environmental-liability.html

Insurance

22. Retaining Surveyors, Geotechnical and Hazardous Substances Specialists is Dangerous! — Pro-Demnity (Ontario), https://prodemnity.com/retaining-surveyors-geotechnical-and-hazardous-substances-specialists-is-dangerous/

23. Professional Liability Insurance — Ontario Association of Architects, https://oaa.on.ca/registration-licensing/practices/professional-liability-insurance

24. Common Exclusions on the Architects/Engineers Professional Liability Policy, https://www.profunderwriters.com/common-exclusions-on-the-architectsengineers-professional-liability-policy/

25. Chapter 3.8: Risk Management and Professional Liability — Canadian Handbook of Practice for Architects, https://chop.raic.ca/chapter-3.8

Materials

26. Cosentino, Dekton Safety Data Sheet — quartz 5–11% plus cristobalite 5–11%, https://www.cosentino.com/usa/dekton/

27. Caesarstone ICON — under 1% crystalline silica, XRD-verified, https://www.caesarstone.com/icon/

28. Cosentino — Silestone XM, maximum 10% crystalline silica, https://www.cosentino.com/usa/news/five-things-to-know-about-silestones-evolution-to-become-a-low-silica-mineral-surface/

29. IceStone Health Product Declaration and fabrication guidelines — up to 0.2% within the cement constituent, https://icestoneusa.com/technical-resources/

30. OSHA 3768, Worker Exposure to Silica during Countertop Manufacturing — granite 10–50%, quartzite ≥95%, https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OSHA3768.pdf

Corrections — August 8, 2026. An earlier version of this guide contained the following errors, all now corrected.

Insurance. Table 1 was presented as "Standard Professional Liability Insurance Exclusions." The clause numbering is specific to Pro-Demnity, the mandatory insurer for Ontario architecture practices, and does not appear in US policies.

CERCLA. The grading contractor in Kaiser Aluminum v. Catellus was described as liable as an "arranger." The Ninth Circuit held the contractor liable as an operator and transporter.

The verdicts. Jordan v. Cambria was cited as evidence that juries have rejected the fabricator-responsibility defense. That omitted the jury's assignment of 63% of fault to the plaintiff's employer, and its findings that Cambria was not negligent and its product not defective.

Duty to warn. The duty was described as "absolute" on the authority of Lindenberg v Canning and Plant Construction v Clive Adams Associates. Both are English decisions about contractors, and the latter holds the duty to be fact-dependent.

Case detail. Brushton-Moira was misspelled, and a finding that was expert testimony at trial was attributed to the New York Court of Appeals. The duty in LeBlanc was described as ensuring installation rather than notifying the owner. Beacon was described as concerning purely economic damages. The asbestos precedent was located in Ontario; Privest Properties Ltd. v. Foundation Company of Canada was a British Columbia proceeding. Hohensee v. Bergeron could not be verified in any case-law database and has been removed.

Regulatory and materials. California's emergency temporary standard was described as current; the permanent standard took effect February 5, 2025. Sintered stone was given as 0–11% (approximately 5–22% including cristobalite), porcelain as under 1% (approximately 5–11%), IceStone as 0% (its HPD discloses up to 0.2%), and soapstone as completely silica-free (negligible, varies by quarry). The OSHA/NIOSH alert update was dated 2025 (2026).

Subscribe to Silica Free News for continued coverage of silica-free surface specification — silicafreenews.com/subscribe