Phillips v. Honeywell International Inc.
9 Cal. App. 5th 1061
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff James Phillips (deceased) developed mesothelioma; plaintiffs (wife and children) sued Honeywell as successor to Bendix for exposures to asbestos in Bendix brakes and other sources. Jury found Bendix negligent and strictly liable for failure to warn, allocating 30% fault to Bendix and awarding compensatory and $3.5M punitive damages; judgment ≈ $5.88M.
- Bendix used chrysotile asbestos in brakes; plaintiffs’ expert (Dr. Brodkin) testified identified exposures to Bendix brakes contributed to cumulative risk. Honeywell experts disputed that chrysotile in brakes causes mesothelioma.
- A 1966 internal Bendix letter (the “Martin letter”) sarcastically referenced asbestos-related death and was admitted with a limiting instruction as circumstantial evidence of notice.
- Trial court excluded an “every-exposure” causation theory but allowed expert testimony that each identified, significant exposure contributed to cumulative risk (an “every-identified-exposure” formulation).
- Honeywell appealed, arguing (inter alia) inconsistent special verdict answers, erroneous exclusion/refusal of proposed causation instruction, prejudicial admission of the Martin letter, insufficiency of evidence for failure-to-warn liability, and insufficiency of evidence for punitive damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Martin letter | Martin letter is circumstantial evidence that Bendix had industry notice of asbestos hazards and is admissible for notice/impeachment when limited. | Letter was irrelevant, unauthenticated and unduly prejudicial; inflamed jury. | Admissible with limiting instruction; probative of notice and not unduly prejudicial (distinguished from Guilder/Dukes where no limiting instruction). |
| Expert causation testimony (every-identified-exposure) | Dr. Brodkin’s testimony that each identified, significant exposure contributed to cumulative risk fits Rutherford’s rule and is reliable. | Testimony was effectively the forbidden every-exposure/any-exposure theory and speculative under Sargon; court should have excluded it. | Trial did not abuse discretion; distinguished every-identified-exposure from disfavored every-exposure theory and allowed under Rutherford and Sargon standards. |
| Jury instruction on causation (defendant’s proposed factors) | Rutherford requires plaintiffs to show exposure was a substantial factor contributing to risk; jury should get additional factors (type, frequency, duration, proximity) instruction. | Proposed instruction misstated Rutherford by replacing “contributing to risk” with “causing injury” language and was misleading. | Trial properly refused instruction because it was inaccurate/misleading and duplicated/contradicted Rutherford-based instruction given. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for punitive damages (malice) | Plaintiffs: Bendix knew of asbestos risks (industry literature, chest x‑rays program, Martin letter), failed to research or warn installers until years later → conscious disregard. | Honeywell: Scientific uncertainty about chrysotile brakes’ risk; absence of deliberate intent; reliance on limited internal testing. | Substantial evidence supports malice: awareness of probable danger by ~1968, delayed warnings until 1973 and lack of adequate investigation; punitive award affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 16 Cal.4th 953 (1997) (adopted special rule allowing proof that defendant’s exposure was a substantial factor by showing it substantially contributed to the plaintiff’s risk of developing asbestos-related cancer)
- Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California, 55 Cal.4th 747 (2012) (trial court gatekeeping requires expert opinion to have a reasonable basis and not be speculative)
- Davis v. Honeywell Internat. Inc., 245 Cal.App.4th 477 (2016) (discussed admissibility of every-exposure causation testimony in asbestos case)
- Webb v. Special Electric Co., Inc., 63 Cal.4th 167 (2016) (background on asbestos types, mesothelioma causation, and duties to warn)
- Kesner v. Superior Court, 1 Cal.5th 1132 (2016) (mesothelioma is closely associated with asbestos exposure)
- Pfeifer v. John Crane, Inc., 220 Cal.App.4th 1270 (2013) (upheld punitive damages where manufacturer knew users could generate dangerous asbestos dust but did not warn or investigate)
- Bankhead v. ArvinMeritor, Inc., 205 Cal.App.4th 68 (2012) (punitive damages supported by prolonged failure to protect users from known hazard)
- Izell v. Union Carbide Corp., 231 Cal.App.4th 962 (2014) (affirmed punitive damages where internal reports showed awareness of risk but company failed to warn)