California Court of Appeal: Asbestos Cases

Our case-law library holds 269 asbestos decisions from the California Court of Appeal (1976–2024). Each links to our summary and the full opinion.

• State: California
• Kind of court: State appeals court

Decisions

• Brooks v. Mission Stucco Company (2nd Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2024). The Court of Appeal affirmed the order granting plaintiffs a new trial against Mission Stucco because the verdict was inconsistent, and modified it to require retrial of Mission Stucco's design defect liability as well as allocation of fault, while keeping the $5 million damages total.
• Perez v. Century Indemnity Co. (1st Appellate District, 2nd Division, 2024). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for Century Indemnity and Ace Property & Casualty, holding that the assigned bad faith claims were time-barred and that the policy product and vehicle exclusions barred the direct claims by the Perez family.
• Watts v. Pneumo Abex, LLC (1st Appellate District, 2nd Division, 2024). The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment, the order on settlement offsets and the amended judgment for plaintiffs against Pneumo Abex and remanded for a new trial, holding that the directed verdict on the sophisticated user defense was error.
• Williams v. JM Manufacturing Company, Inc. (1st Appellate District, 2nd Division, 2024). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for Cornelius Williams (substituted by his brother Nathan as successor-in-interest) against J-M Manufacturing Company, rejecting its arguments for a defense judgment or new trial.
• Ramirez v. Avon Prods. (Laosd Asbestos Cases) (2nd Appellate District, 8th Division, 2023). The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment for Avon Products, Inc. and remanded, ruling for the Ramirezes, because Avon's only burden-shifting evidence, the Gallo Declaration, was inadmissible.
• Ochoa v. Spx Cooling Technologies, Inc. (1st Appellate District, 1st Division, 2023). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for cooling tower makers BAC and SPX (Marley's successor) and against plaintiffs Jo Ann Ochoa and Arianna Huerta, finding no triable issue that Ochoa was exposed to asbestos from their towers.
• Wilgenbusch v. Metalclad Insulation LLC (1st Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2023). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for Ronald and Judith Wilgenbusch, rejecting Metalclad Insulation's argument that its noneconomic damages should be limited to its own 7 percent share of fault under Proposition 51.
• Bader v. Johnson & Johnson (1st Appellate District, 4th Division, 2022). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for plaintiff (the personal representative of Patricia Schmitz) against Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc., and Colgate-Palmolive, rejecting all of the defendants' claims of error.
• Beierschmitt v. Grobet File Company OF America, LLC (2nd Appellate District, 5th Division, 2022). The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order granting Grobet's motion to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction, ruling for the Beierschmitt plaintiffs, and remanded for further proceedings.
• Hahn v. New York Air Brake LLC (1st Appellate District, 5th Division, 2022). The Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment for New York Air Brake, holding the plaintiffs (Hahn's heirs) could substitute Air Brake for a Doe defendant, and awarded plaintiffs their costs on appeal.
• Ann Strobel v. Johnson & Johnson (1st Appellate District, 4th Division, 2021). The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment for Johnson & Johnson and remanded the case, finding the Strobels had raised a triable issue on whether the baby powder Douglas Strobel used contained asbestos.
• Benavidez v. Fluor Corp. (2nd Appellate District, 7th Division, 2021). The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment for Fluor Corporation and directed the trial court to deny Fluor's motion, so plaintiff Michael Benavidez won.
• Cahill Construction Company v. Superior Court of Alameda County (1st Appellate District, 5th Division, 2021). The Court of Appeal denied the writ petition by Cahill Construction and other defendants, holding the trial court correctly refused to allow more than 14 hours of defense deposition of mesothelioma plaintiff Edward Richards, and rejecting the due process challenge; plaintiffs prevailed.
• Harris v. Thomas Dee Engineering Co., Inc. (1st Appellate District, 5th Division, 2021). The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment that had favored Thomas Dee Engineering and sent the case back, so Harris's wife and children may continue their claims against Thomas Dee.
• Harris v. Thomas Dee Engineering Co., Inc. (1st Appellate District, 5th Division, 2021). The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment for Thomas Dee Engineering, holding the plaintiffs' expert declaration raised a triable issue on whether Thomas Dee's work exposed Michael Harris to asbestos.
• Putt v. Ford Motor Co. (In re Laosd Asbestos Cases) (2nd Appellate District, 2nd Division, 2021). The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment against Ford in part, upholding Ford's liability, the compensatory award and the punitive-damages eligibility finding, but ordering a new trial on apportionment of fault among Ford, other automakers and brake pad makers/suppliers and on the amount of punitive damages.
• Irani v. Exxon Mobil Corporation (2nd Appellate District, 7th Division, 2021). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for the Chevron and Exxon defendants, holding they owed no duty of care to Ali Irani, so the Irani plaintiffs lost.
• Khosravan v. Chevron Corporation (2nd Appellate District, 7th Division, 2021). The Court of Appeal reversed the order denying the Khosravans' motion to strike or tax costs, holding the Chevron defendants' section 998 offers invalid, and remanded for the trial court to recalculate costs owed to the Chevron defendants.
• Khosravan v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2nd Appellate District, 7th Division, 2021). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for the Chevron and Exxon defendants, holding they owed no duty of care to Khosravan, and awarded respondents their costs on appeal.
• Krueger v. Csaa Insurance Services, Inc. (5th Appellate District, 2021). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for CSAA Insurance Services because Krueger's suit on her homeowner's policy was filed after the one-year limitation period, and it treated her own summary judgment motion as moot.
• Leavitt v. Johnson & Johnson (1st Appellate District, 5th Division, 2021). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for plaintiffs Leavitt and McElroy against Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., finding no prejudicial error and substantial evidence of causation.
• Morgan v. JM Manufacturing Co., Inc. (2nd Appellate District, 1st Division, 2021). The Court of Appeal affirmed the compensatory judgment for the Morgans against J-M Manufacturing but reversed the $15,000,000 punitive damages award for lack of evidence about officers, directors or managing agents.
• Phipps v. Copeland Corporation LLC (2nd Appellate District, 7th Division, 2021). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for William and Linda Phipps against Copeland Corporation, upholding the 60 percent fault allocation, the denial of Copeland's new trial/remittitur motion, and the $25 million noneconomic damages award.
• Sabetian v. Fluor Enterprises, Inc. (2nd Appellate District, 7th Division, 2021). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for plaintiff Soraya Sabetian (substituted for her late husband) against the Fluor defendants, upholding the denial of their motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial.
• Swanson v. The Marley-Wylain Co. (2nd Appellate District, 1st Division, 2021). The Court of Appeal reversed the $5,489,688.68 judgment for Swanson against The Marley-Wylain Co. and remanded for a new trial, because the jury was instructed on California rather than Michigan causation law.
• Sweikhart v. Akebono Brake Industry Co. (2nd Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2021). The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order granting Akebono Brake Industry Co.'s motion to quash service, holding the Sweikharts validly served the Japanese parent by serving its American subsidiary's agent.
• Vanni v. Honeywell International, Inc. (2nd Appellate District, 8th Division, 2021). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of $1,970,716 that the jury's verdict produced for Barbara Vanni and her sons against Honeywell International, finding substantial evidence of exposure and causation.
• Webb v. General Cable Corp. (1st Appellate District, 1st Division, 2021). The Court of Appeal reversed the jury verdict for plaintiffs Amos and Jeannie Webb against General Cable and directed the trial court to enter judgment for General Cable, because the evidence did not show Webb was exposed to asbestos in General Cable's products.
• Bader v. Avon Products, Inc. (1st Appellate District, 4th Division, 2020). The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order granting Avon's motion to quash service of summons for lack of specific personal jurisdiction, and reversed the costs award to Avon, so plaintiff Bader prevailed.
• Barr v. Parker-Hannifin Corp. (1st Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2020). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for Barr's successor against Parker-Hannifin and Standard Motor Products, rejecting Standard's evidentiary challenges and Parker's challenges to the punitive damages award.
• Booker v. Imerys Talc America, Inc. (1st Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2020). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for the Booker plaintiffs against Imerys Talc America, rejecting Imerys's challenges to the exposure evidence, the special verdict form and the finding that it had assumed Cyprus's pre-1992 liabilities.
• Booker v. Imerys Talc America, Inc. (1st Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2020). The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's postjudgment order that largely denied Imerys's motion to tax costs, so the Booker plaintiffs kept their costs for claims against other defendants.
• Collantes v. Elementis Chemicals, Inc. (2nd Appellate District, 7th Division, 2020). The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgments for Union Carbide and Elementis, holding they had not shown that Collantes lacked sufficient evidence of exposure, and directed the trial court to deny their motions.
• Estes v. Eaton Corporation (1st Appellate District, 2nd Division, 2020). The Court of Appeal reversed the order granting plaintiff Norman Estes a new trial, rejected his cross-appeal challenging the jury's verdict, and reinstated and affirmed the judgment for defendant Eaton Corporation.
• Hart v. Keenan Properties, Inc. (1st Appellate District, 5th Division, 2020). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for Cynthia Hart (successor to Frank Hart), rejecting Keenan Properties' challenges to the medical-expense testimony and to the allocation of prior settlements to future wrongful death claims.
• Kramer v. Amcord Inc. (1st Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2020). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for plaintiff Kramer against Amcord, rejecting Amcord's claims that cross-examination of Kramer's experts was improperly limited and that the economic damages award lacked substantial evidence.
• Gibbons v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer (Laosd Asbestos Cases) (2nd District, Division 4, 2020). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. against Ann Patrice Gibbons and James Randall Gibbons, holding they had not raised a triable issue that her talc products contained asbestos.
• Mata v. Liberty Utilities (park Water) Corp. (2nd Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2020). The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's JNOV vacating the $5 million punitive damages award against Park Water, ruling for Park Water and against plaintiffs Alfred and Leticia Mata.
• Sabetian v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2nd Appellate District, 7th Division, 2020). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for the Chevron and Exxon defendants, holding they owed no duty of care to Sabetian, and upheld discovery sanctions against Sabetian and his counsel in favor of the Exxon defendants.
• Textron, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company (2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2020). The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment for Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. on Textron's declaratory relief complaint and both cross-complaints, and remanded with directions to deny Travelers' motions.
• Berg v. Colgate-Palmolive Company (1st Appellate District, 1st Division, 2019). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for Colgate-Palmolive, holding that Berg and his wife failed to show a triable issue on whether the Mennen shave talc he used contained asbestos.
• Burch v. Certainteed Corporation (1st Appellate District, 4th Division, 2019). The Court of Appeal affirmed the order granting JNOV to CertainTeed on intentional misrepresentation and denying it on concealment, reversed the judgment and remanded for a new judgment making CertainTeed jointly and severally liable for all damages, and affirmed denial of CertainTeed's motion to compel acknowledgment of partial satisfaction.
• Harris v. Triple A Machine Shop, Inc. (1st Appellate District, 5th Division, 2019). The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment for Triple A Machine Shop, finding a triable issue on whether its ship repair work exposed Michael Harris to asbestos, and remanded for the trial court to address Triple A's alternative summary adjudication request; Harris's family won.
• Malek v. Chevron U.S.A. (In re Laosd Asbestos Cases) (2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2019). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for Chevron U.S.A., Texaco and ConocoPhillips, holding they owed no duty of care to Farid Malek or his spouse, so the Maleks lost.
• Linsowe v. Hennessy Indus. (In re Laosd Asbestos Cases) (2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2019). The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's orders granting the Linsowes a new trial and denying their motion for partial JNOV, finding the special verdict irreconcilably inconsistent, and remanded for a new trial; Hennessy's appeal failed and the Linsowes' cross-appeal was moot.
• Friedman v. American Biltrite (In re Laosd Asbestos Cases) (2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2019). The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment entered for American Biltrite after a directed verdict, holding plaintiffs Robert and Carole Friedman presented sufficient exposure and causation evidence, and remanded for further proceedings.
• Mettias v. The Pep Boys Manny, Moe & Jack of California (Laosd Asbestos Cases) (2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2019). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment entered on the jury's verdict for Pep Boys against the Mettias children, holding that the refusal to give general negligence instructions and the misstatements in reading the instructions caused no prejudicial error.
• Lopez v. the Hillshire Brands Company (1st Appellate District, 5th Division, 2019). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for the Lopez family against Hillshire Brands after jury trial, rejecting Hillshire's challenges and also rejecting the family's cross-appeal over summary adjudication of punitive damages.
• Rickert v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2019). The Court of Appeal affirmed the coordination judge's order staying the California wrongful death case on forum non conveniens grounds, so American Honda, Yamaha and Kawasaki prevailed over plaintiff Charlene Rickert.
• Schildknegt v. Air and Liquid Systems Corp. (2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2019). The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment for Air & Liquid Systems (as successor to Buffalo Pumps) and the nonsuit for Parsons, Fluor and Fluor Enterprises, and remanded for further proceedings, so the Schildknegt plaintiff prevailed on appeal.