In March 2017, plaintiff Houshang Sabetian, 84, a retiree who previously worked for National Iranian Oil Co., was diagnosed with testicular mesothelioma, a cancer that forms on the membrane lining the testes. Sabetian worked in the Iranian oil industry from 1960 through 1979. His job duties included regularly visiting different refineries, including those designed and built by related entities Fluor Corp., Fluor Enterprises Inc., Fluor International Inc. and Fluor Middle East LLC. Parsons Government Services Inc. was also responsible for some of the construction work throughout Iranian’s refinery system, and Brand Insulation Inc. was a subcontractor responsible for the pipe insulation at one of the refineries Sabetian visited. Sabetian claimed that his illness resulted from exposure to asbestos within the refineries’ pipe insulation. Sabetian sued Fluor Corp., Fluor Enterprises, Fluor International, Fluor Middle East, Parsons Government Services, Brand Insulation and other companies that were believed to have manufactured, distributed and/or worked with asbestos-containing products to which Sabetian was allegedly exposed. He alleged that the defendants failed to warn of the potential risks of being exposed to asbestos. Sabetian’s complaint was coordinated with hundreds of other cases that were pending in different counties that shared common questions of fact or law regarding direct and indirect exposure, and involved many of the same defendants. The cases were joined in one court, the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Many of those cases were put on hold while awaiting a decision regarding an appellate case involving indirect exposure. Several companies were dismissed or settled their cases with Sabetian prior to trial. Sabetian’s case ultimately proceeded to trial against Fluor Corp., Fluor Enterprises, Fluor International, Fluor Middle East, Parsons Government Services and Brand Insulation. Sabetian alleged that the remaining defendants were aware of the dangers of asbestos, but continued to use it in their refineries. Sabetian’s counsel noted that California’s General Industrial Safety Orders issued asbestos guidelines back in the 1930s and that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration implemented asbestos exposure limits in the early 1970s. Counsel contended that since the defendant companies were based in the United States, they should have been aware of those standards. Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that the Fluor defendants, in particular, made a conscious effort to continue using asbestos, even after the Iranian government expressed reservations about the minerals. Counsel also presented testimony from former employees who claimed that in October 1976, the defendants lobbied the government to relax its demand that all National Iranian Oil Co. insulation be asbestos free. The employees also claimed that asbestos was present in the insulation into the late 1970s. Defense counsel called the defendants’ current employees and corporate witnesses to testify. They claimed that the companies stopped using asbestos in both the United States and Iran once the OSHA guidelines went into effect. Defense counsel also contended that the insulation used on jobs in Iran in the 1970s was asbestos free and that the defendants were not negligent. Parsons’ counsel further argued that Parsons Government Services did not perform construction work at the refineries Sabetian visited. Brand Insulation’s counsel argued that the company’s contract called for asbestos-free thermal insulation and that Brand Insulation had used that type of insulation in the refinery where Brand Insulation worked. In addition, counsel argued that Brand Insulation was not involved in the decision-making process regarding which type of insulation to use., Sabetian was diagnosed with testicular mesothelioma in his right testicle. In March 2017, he underwent an orchiectomy to surgically remove the testicle. He also underwent two rounds of chemotherapy. However, his prognosis remains poor. Sabetian claimed that he was quite active prior to his cancer diagnosis. He particularly enjoyed socializing and going on walks. He claimed that since his cancer diagnosis, he has suffered from constant pain and fatigue. He also claimed that he can no longer enjoy the rest of his life. Sabetian’s treating primary care doctor testified that Sabetian seemed borderline suicidal. Sabetian’s counsel retained an expert pathologist who opined that exposure to asbestos can increase an individual’s risk of mesothelioma, including testicular mesothelioma. In addition, Sabetian counsel retained an expert pulmonologist who opined that Sabetian’s asbestos exposure increased his risk of developing the disease. Sabetian sought recovery of noneconomic damages for his past and future physical and emotional pain and suffering. His wife, Soraya Sabetian, filed a derivative claim. She sought recovery of noneconomic damages for her past and future loss of love, comfort, companionship, society and moral support. Defense counsel disputed whether asbestos caused Mr. Sabetian’s illness. The defense’s retained pathology and epidemiology experts each opined that epidemiological studies did not support the theory that asbestos can cause testicular mesothelioma.