Plaintiff Harold Koepke operated a Shell service station in San Francisco from 1972 through 1980, and owned/operated an auto repair shop in San Mateo in the 1980s and 1990s. In July 2013, at age 74, Koepke was diagnosed with mesothelioma, which he claimed was the result of working with asbestos-containing friction products in his station and garage. Koepke and his wife, Nancy Karidis-Koepke, sued numerous entities, including vehicle and product manufacturers, retailers, and a premises owner. The couple resolved their disputes with 15 defendants confidentially, prior to trial. The plaintiffs proceeded to trial against seven defendants: Shell Oil Co., Volkswagen Group of America Inc., Toyota Motor Sales, USA Inc., American Honda Motor Co. Inc., ABC Mobile Systems, Belnortel Corp. and Hertz Corp. All the defendants except Belnortel and Hertz resolved their disputes confidentially with the plaintiffs prior to the verdict. Koepke and Karidis-Koepke sued Belnortel for negligence and for strict liability, asserting failure to warn and design defect/consumer expectations theories. They sued Hertz for negligence, asserting failure to warn and concealment theories. Koepke contended that he was exposed to asbestos from brake shoes that Belnortel supplied and arced at his San Francisco Shell station from 1972 through 1980. He claimed the brake shoes were defective in violation of the consumer expectations test, and alleged that Belnortel failed to warn about asbestos in its brakes. Belnortel contended that the arcing machine it used for the subject brake shoes had safety devices, including a vacuum and bag to collect dust, and that as a result, the asbestos exposure was de minimis and not a substantial factor in Koepke’s development of mesothelioma. Regarding the plaintiffs’ failure to warn claim, Belnortel argued that the product hazards were known and knowable by the community in general, and that the arcing machine used safety devices that lowered any fiber release to a number lower than the applicable regulations required in the 1970s. As to Hertz, Koepke contended the company was negligent in failing to warn about the health hazards of asbestos in brake shoes that it supplied to his San Mateo auto shop in the 1980s and 1990s, and that this failure to warn constituted fraudulent concealment. (Hertz was granted summary adjudication as to plaintiffs’ strict products liability claim, prior to trial.) Hertz contended that exposure to chrysotile asbestos in some of its brakes did not contribute to Koepke’s mesothelioma and that he was exposed to amphibole asbestos from alternative sources. In addition, Hertz argued that it was a customer of Koepke’s auto repair shop and, like other customers, relied on Koepke’s expertise regarding the products with which he worked. Hertz further argued that, as early as 1984, Koepke was in possession of repair manuals that contained asbestos warnings, and that he was aware of the alleged health hazards of asbestos prior to his selling the auto repair business in 2000, but that he took no action. , Koepke was diagnosed with mesothelioma in July 2013 and was receiving ongoing treatment. He argued that the condition is incurable and that his life expectancy had been significantly reduced. Koepke and his wife sought $475,000 for medical costs, and further sought damages for Mr. Koepke’s pain and suffering and Mrs. Koepke’s loss of consortium claim, in addition to punitive damages against Hertz. Both defendants argued that their respective products were not a substantial factor in causing Koepke’s mesothelioma, and that he was owed zero damages.