From 1964 to 1968, plaintiff Kurt Walter was in the U.S. Navy, from 1969 to 1982 he worked as a parts counter person at a JCPenney Auto Center in Sacramento, and in 1983 he worked as a parts man at the California Department of Transportation. During those times, Walter was exposure to various asbestos-containing products. On Nov. 14, 2011, Walter, age 64, was diagnosed with mesothelioma, which is an aggressive, incurable cancer that often stems from exposure to asbestos. He claimed that the disease was a result of his exposure to asbestos that was present in the joint compounds and various other products he handled while with the U.S. Navy, JCPenney Auto Center and CalTrans. Walter originally filed an action in Alameda, naming over 50 defendants, but the matter was transferred to Sacramento on a defense motion. At jury selection, only six defendants were left, but by opening statements, the only three defendants that were left in the action were Fraser-Edwards Co., Maremont Corp. and Honeywell International Inc. Walter brought causes of action for negligence, strict products liability — consumer expectations, and strict products liability — failure to warn as to Honeywell and Maremont. He also brought causes of action for intentional tort and contractor/premises liability as to Fraser-Edwards. Walter’s counsel alleged that Fraser-Edwards manufactured, removed and replaced an asbestos-containing magnesite flooring/decking product on the USS Halsey, upon which Walter served for a period of time. Counsel also alleged that Maremont and Honeywell manufactured automotive brake shoes and brake lining material, which Walter was exposed to at JCPenney Auto Center and while doing work on his own automobiles. Walter’s counsel argued that all forms of asbestos cause mesothelioma and that every exposure to asbestos increases the cumulative “dose” a person experiences, thereby increasing that person’s risk of contracting mesothelioma. Thus, counsel argued that each of Walter’s exposures to asbestos was a substantial factor in increasing his risk of developing mesothelioma. During trial, Fraser-Edwards’ motion for nonsuit was partially granted, eliminating the contractor/premises liability and intentional tort causes of action, as well as the claim for punitive damages against it. Fraser-Edwards’ counsel also succeeded in precluding testimony from the plaintiff’s industrial hygiene expert on Kennemur grounds. If he had been allowed, that expert would have allegedly offered testimony that exposure to dust from the flooring/decking material was a substantial cause of Walter’s mesothelioma. Maremont’s and Honeywell’s partial nonsuit motions were denied. Fraser-Edwards’ counsel contended that the flooring/decking product that had been used on the USS Halsey was not magnesite, which may contain asbestos, but was, in fact, terrazzo, which does not contain asbestos. Counsel based this theory on testimony by Walter and one of his shipmates, whom described the flooring/decking material, and by the Military Specifications for terrazzo. Fraser-Edwards’ counsel argued that Walter’s identification of Fraser-Edwards’ employees doing rip out and subsequent installation of the flooring/decking material was not credible. Counsel also argued that even if everything Walter claimed was true and to be accepted, any exposure attributable to Fraser-Edwards was insignificant and could not be found to be a substantial factor in increasing Walter’s risk of developing mesothelioma. Honeywell and Maremont’s counsel contended that 30 years of epidemiology studies showed that asbestos in brakes does not increase the risk of mesothelioma, even in career mechanics, and that Walter was a parts worker. Counsel also contended that chrysotile asbestos in brakes does not have the sufficient dose, dimension or durability to cause disease. In addition, Honeywell’s counsel argued that Walter was overstating his exposure to Honeywell’s products. While Maremont’s counsel argued that Walter was never exposed to Maremont’s products. Counsel for Fraser-Edwards, Honeywell and Maremont all argued at trial that the type of asbestos in the defendants’ products, chrysotile, does not cause mesothelioma and if it does, it would only be if there is a truly massive exposure. However, defense counsel argued that Walter was substantially exposed to amosite asbestos, as it was used in the thermal system insulation on Navy ships in the 1960s. Counsel noted that amosite asbestos does cause mesothelioma, even with modest exposures, as it is known to be the second most hazardous asbestos fiber. In response, Walter’s counsel admitted that the Navy should be found up to 50 percent responsible for Walter’s mesothelioma, and argued for apportionment of fault of 5 percent to Fraser-Edwards, 15 percent to Honeywell, and 30 percent to Maremont because JCPenney’s house brand of brakes were allegedly made by Maremont., On Nov. 14, 2011, Walter was diagnosed with mesothelioma. He was 64. Walter worked as an auto parts manager until he went on disability in 1999. He was retired at the time of his diagnosis. After his diagnosis, and before trial, Walter went through several rounds of chemotherapy. He claimed that future treatment is uncertain, but that it would include nursing and palliative care when he reaches the final stages of the disease. Walter sought recovery of damages, including $20,988 for the present value loss of his JCPenney pension, $557,442 for the present value loss of his California Public Employees’ Retirement System pension, $556,904 for the present value loss of his V.A. Disability benefits, and $401,570 for the present value loss of his Social Security income. He also sought $150,000 for his past medical expenses and $100,000 for his future medical expenses. Walter’s wife of over 40 years, Shirley Walter, sought recovery of $226,086 in damages for the present value loss of household services. She sought recovery of an unspecified amount of damages for her loss of consortium. Thus, plaintiffs’ counsel requested that the jury award Mr. Walters $7.81 million in total general damages and award Ms. Walter $3.9 million in total damages. Defense counsel contended that Mr. Walter had significant comorbidity factors, including a significant smoking history and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, for which he had been using supplemental oxygen for several years before his mesothelioma diagnosis. Thus, counsel argued that absent the mesothelioma, Mr. Walter’s life expectancy would have been approximately 10 years less than that shown by government-life-expectancy tables of general application. Defense counsel also argued that Mr. Walter was significantly limited in his activities of daily living and his ability to perform household services. However, plaintiffs’ counsel countered that with proper medical management, Mr. Walter’s other medical conditions would not have shortened his normal life expectancy. According to defense counsel, Mr. Walter’s testimony at trial differed substantially from his testimony during 14 days of deposition over a month’s time. Defense counsel claimed that Mr. Walter tried to explain the inconsistencies by saying, for allegedly the first time at trial, that he had been undergoing chemotherapy in the months before his deposition was taken and that he suffered from ‘chemo brain.” However, defense counsel pointed out that Mr. Walter had been asked about his ability to testify accurately on numerous occasions during his deposition, and that he always answered affirmatively and did not describe or indicate any difficulties testifying. Counsel also pointed out that Mr. Walter’s attorney was present throughout his deposition, that Mr. Walter had an opportunity to correct the transcript but did not do so, that Mr. Walter met with and gave information to some of his experts during this time period, and that these experts had relied on Mr. Walter’s deposition testimony and found no indications of impairment from his chemotherapy.