Izell v. Union Carbide Corp.
231 Cal. App. 4th 962
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Union Carbide supplied asbestos to manufacturers of joint compound and gun-plastic cement; Mr. Bobbie Izell (builder) regularly inhaled dust from sanding premixed joint compound and cement on Southern California jobsites in the 1970s and was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2011.
- Plaintiffs sued numerous defendants; at trial five remained including Union Carbide, and the jury found all five liable on strict liability and negligence theories.
- Jury awarded $30 million compensatory damages and $18 million punitive damages; comparative fault was apportioned 65% to Union Carbide and smaller shares to others and nondefendants.
- Trial court conditionally granted a new trial on compensatory damages as excessive unless remitted; Plaintiffs accepted remittitur reducing compensatory damages to $6 million but the court left punitive damages ($18 million) intact; Union Carbide appealed.
- Court reviewed sufficiency of causation, apportionment, compensatory damages after remittitur, and constitutionality/excessiveness of punitive damages; it affirmed judgment in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of exposure causation (did Izell inhale Union Carbide asbestos?) | Plaintiffs: testimony and supplier records showed Union Carbide was exclusive supplier to Hamilton (Red Dot) and was a source for other brands, so exposure to Union Carbide asbestos was reasonably probable. | Union Carbide: multiple suppliers supplied the products; evidence at best shows mere possibility, requiring speculation. | Held: Substantial evidence supported exposure from Hamilton Red Dot (Hamilton testified Union Carbide was sole supplier) and thus causation. |
| Medical/legal causation (Rutherford two-step: exposure + substantial factor) | Plaintiffs: expert testimony (Dr. Mark) that respirable, inhaled asbestos exposures that are not trivial each contribute to mesothelioma risk satisfies Rutherford. | Union Carbide: expert conflated exposure and causation; mere exposure should not automatically satisfy substantial-factor requirement. | Held: Expert testimony properly bridged exposure and substantial-factor causation under Rutherford; evidence sufficient. |
| Remittitur and compensatory damages adequacy | Plaintiffs: original jury award reflected pain, suffering, and loss of consortium; they accepted remittitur to avoid new trial. | Union Carbide: remitted amount still excessive given plaintiffs’ age, comorbidities, and limited life expectancy. | Held: Trial court’s reasoned reduction to $6M was supported by the record and not an abuse of discretion. |
| Excessiveness/constitutional review of punitive damages | Plaintiffs: punitive award justified by reprehensibility, Union Carbide’s wealth, and multi-year course of conduct; ratio to remitted comp. damages (4.62:1 relative to UC share) acceptable. | Union Carbide: $18M punitive is grossly excessive compared to remitted compensatory share; remittitur required retrial of punitive damages under precedents. | Held: Punitive award upheld as not unconstitutionally excessive; State Farm guideposts (reprehensibility, disparity, comparable penalties) supported the award given Union Carbide’s conduct and net worth. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 16 Cal.4th 953 (Cal. 1997) (two-step causation in asbestos cases: exposure plus proof that exposure was a substantial factor increasing risk)
- McGonnell v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., 98 Cal.App.4th 1098 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (exposure proof must do more than show mere possibility; speculative chains are insufficient)
- Dumin v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 28 Cal.App.4th 650 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (directing verdict where defendant’s product was only one of many and exposure proof required speculation)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (U.S. 2003) (three guideposts for punitive-damages due-process review)
- Simon v. San Paolo U.S. Holding Co., Inc., 35 Cal.4th 1159 (Cal. 2005) (defendant’s wealth is a permissible factor and courts must identify an upper constitutional limit on punitive awards)
- Frommoethelydo v. Fire Ins. Exchange, 42 Cal.3d 208 (Cal. 1986) (when compensatory damages are greatly reduced, proportionality concerns can jeopardize punitive award)