In Ibarra v. C.H. Murphy/Clark-Ullman, Inc., a wife sued her late husband’s employer for loss of consortium arising from her husband’s exposure to asbestos while working in California in the 1970s. As the injury occurred on the job, the employer argued it was immune based on the exclusive remedy rule in California’s workers’ compensation laws, which generally provides that workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy against an employer for an employee's injury or death that arises during the course and scope of employment. The trial court disagreed and instead entered summary judgment against the employer, concluding it had the burden to prove immunity and it had not met that burden. The case was tried and resulted in a $10 million verdict.

Oregon’s Court of Appeals reversed the judgment: First, the trial court erred because California law creates a presumption that the exclusive remedy rule applies in this type of situation, and the burden is on the employee to prove that it does not. Second, once the burden was placed on the employee, it was clear the employee could not overcome the presumption. The available evidence that the employee cited indicated that the employer had provided workers’ compensation insurance. Thus, the $10 million verdict was vacated.