On Sept. 2, 2010, plaintiff Ruth Clark, 44, a culinary salesperson, and two of her daughters, plaintiffs Holland B., 12, and Heather Vitalec, 20, suffered smoke inhalation after a fire occurred in their two-story condominium unit in Ventura. It was alleged that the fire started in a defective exhaust fan in the upstairs bathroom of the townhome. In addition to the smoke inhalation, Clark claimed total disability due to agoraphobia with panic attacks and post-traumatic stress disorder. She also claimed she and her daughters were subsequently exposed to airborne asbestos during the cleanup from the fire. Clark, Vitalec and Holland sued the entities that manufactured the fan, Broan-Nutone LLC and Regal Beloit Corp.; the property manager of the condominium unit, Asset Property Management Ventura; the owner of Asset Property, Dennis Goldstein; the landlord, Martine White; and the company that cleaned and renovated the condominium unit post-fire, San Rafael Enterprises Inc., which was doing business as California Restoration Contractors (and which was originally erroneously sued as California Pro Restoration). Clark and her daughters alleged that Broan-Nutone and Regal Beloit were negligent in the manufacturing of the fan, creating a defective product. They also alleged that Asset Property and Goldstein were negligent for failing to repair and/or maintain the unit’s defective fan and for the hiring of an inappropriate company to perform the post-fire repairs. They further alleged that the actions of Asset Property and Goldstein constituted a nuisance and a breach of warranty of habitability. In addition, Clark and her daughters alleged that San Rafael Enterprises negligently performed the post-fire cleanup and renovations. Counsel for Broan-Nutone and Regal Beloit moved for summary judgment, arguing that there was no evidence of a defect in the fan, and the court granted the motion. Asset Property and Goldstein, as well as San Rafael Enterprises, settled with the plaintiffs before trial for confidential amounts. In addition, one of Clark’s daughters, Vitalec, settled out prior to trial for $2,500. Thus, the matter proceeded to trial with the claims of Clark and Holland against White only. Counsel for Clark and Holland contended that White failed to discover the exhaust fan defect and failed to timely replace the fan before the fire. Counsel further contended that White negligently allowed an uncertified restoration company to perform the repairs on the condominium unit after the fire, causing the unit to become contaminated with friable asbestos, which presents an inhalation risk when it is damaged or disturbed because the asbestos fibers are more easily released into the air. In addition, plaintiffs’ counsel argued that White’s insurance carrier and/or White herself, disposed of the defective fan before allowing them to inspect it. This disposal of the fan resulted in a “willful suppression of evidence” instruction per California Civil Jury Instructions 204. White’s counsel offered evidence that the subject fan had been checked out and reconnected by a licensed electrician before Clark and her daughters moved into the unit, approximately 2.5 years before the fire. White claimed that during the tenancy of Clark and her daughters, they never complained about the exhaust fan malfunctioning, even when it stopped working altogether two days before the fire. White also claimed that the plaintiffs’ failure to place her on notice of the malfunctioning fan was a breach of their lease agreement. She further claimed that one of the tenants left the fan switch in the “on” position on the night of the fire, even though it should have been left in the “off” position. Regarding the post-fire cleanup and renovation, White’s counsel contended that Clark decided to have the heating ducts cleaned after the fire without notifying either White or Goldstein. Counsel also contended that subsequent testing on the ducts showed that they contained 20 percent asbestos, but that it was all contained and nonfriable, in which the asbestos fibers are bound or locked into the product matrix so that the fibers are not readily released. However, White claimed the company she hired recommended a full “Procedure Five” asbestos decontamination, which was ultimately performed, and numerous items of the plaintiffs’ personal property were destroyed as a result. Thus, White claimed she was simply not negligent and that she had conducted herself as a reasonable landlord would., Clark claimed she has a fear of contracting an asbestos-related disease, such as asbestosis, lung cancer or mesothelioma. She also claimed that after the fire, she experienced a recurrence of pre-existing, but latent, post-traumatic stress disorder, as well as debilitating depression, anxiety and agoraphobia. Clark alleged that as a result of her condition, she lost earnings of $72,000 per year from the date of the fire and continuing at least two more years into the future. Thus, she sought recovery of damages for her lost earnings and pain and suffering. Holland claimed she was upset that she and her mother had to move away from Ventura to stay with their grandparents in Northern California and as a result, became depressed after the fire. Thus, she sought recovery of damages for her pain and suffering. White’s counsel argued that there was no evidence of Clark or Holland ever sustaining any harmful exposure to asbestos.