64 Cal.App.5th 319
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- William Phipps, an HVAC technician and Navy veteran, was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2018 and sued Copeland and multiple others for asbestos exposure; Copeland was the only defendant at verdict.
- Evidence showed asbestos-containing gaskets were used in semi‑hermetic Copeland compressors; Phipps testified he worked on many Copeland compressors (25–35 per year from 1977–1991) and scraped gaskets, releasing dust.
- Expert testimony: any asbestos exposure increases mesothelioma risk; gasket‑removal generated acute, high fiber concentrations; Phipps’s chief exposure was to chrysotile (used in compressor gaskets) rather than amphibole insulation from Navy service.
- The jury found Copeland liable, apportioned 60% of fault to Copeland (other shares to Navy and various employers/manufacturers), and awarded $5M past and $20M future noneconomic damages to William (plus economic damages and consortium damages).
- Copeland moved for a new trial/remittitur, submitting a verdict‑survey spreadsheet of other mesothelioma awards; the trial court excluded that survey and denied the motion.
- On appeal the court considered three main issues: whether evidence compelled a different apportionment, whether the trial court erred in excluding the comparative‑verdict survey on a new‑trial motion, and whether the noneconomic damages were excessive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apportionment of fault (burden and sufficiency) | Phipps: evidence supports Copeland liability and 60% apportionment; jury may consider relative culpability. | Copeland: evidence compels a lower share for Copeland (argues other manufacturers/Navy caused more exposure); apportionment was illogical. | Court: Defendant bears burden to prove percentages attributable to others; Copeland did not show the evidence compelled a more favorable apportionment; substantial evidence supports 60%. |
| Use of comparative‑verdict survey on new‑trial/remittitur motion | Phipps: trial court correctly limited the court to the trial record and minutes; comparative surveys not admissible on §658 motion. | Copeland: trial court erred in categorically refusing to consider verdicts in similar cases (survey and published decisions) when assessing excessiveness. | Court: Trial court properly excluded counsel’s spreadsheet under CCP §§657–658 because new‑trial on excess damages must be on the minutes; exclusion did not amount to reversible error. |
| Use of relative culpability in apportionment | Phipps: juries may weigh relative blameworthiness when allocating comparative fault. | Copeland: using moral blameworthiness to increase share is tantamount to punitive liability. | Court: Jurors may consider relative culpability and conscious indifference when apportioning fault; doing so is consistent with comparative fault principles and not punitive absent punitive‑level conduct. |
| Excessiveness of noneconomic damages | Phipps: awards are supported by medical testimony of severe, painful, shortened life from mesothelioma; jury and trial court discretion should be respected. | Copeland: $25M noneconomic award is excessive compared with other verdicts and appellate reductions. | Court: Review is narrow; award was supported by substantial evidence (severity, prognosis, testimony); comparison to other verdicts insufficient to show passion or prejudice; award affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 16 Cal.4th 953 (explains substantial‑factor standard and proof by contribution to risk)
- Sparks v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 32 Cal.App.4th 461 (defendant’s burden to prove exposure by other companies and percentage attributable to them)
- Pfeifer v. John Crane, Inc., 220 Cal.App.4th 1270 (jury may consider relative culpability in apportioning comparative fault)
- Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc. v. County of Kern, 218 Cal.App.4th 828 (when appellant had burden and trier found burden unmet, review asks whether evidence compels a contrary result)
- Seffert v. Los Angeles Transit Lines, 56 Cal.2d 498 (standard for disturbing noneconomic damages for excessiveness)
- Beagle v. Vasold, 65 Cal.2d 166 (jury’s role and difficulty in monetizing pain and suffering)
- Rufo v. Simpson, 86 Cal.App.4th 573 (comparative verdicts generally insufficient to show excessive damages on appeal)
- Izell v. Union Carbide Corp., 231 Cal.App.4th 962 (reduction of noneconomic award in mesothelioma context cited by parties)