In October 2015, plaintiff Peter LaMonica, 71, a retired banker, was diagnosed with pleural mesothelioma, a fatal cancer caused by asbestos exposure. In the early 1970s, LaMonica began a side business of purchasing and renovating residential properties. In the early years, he did all the renovation work himself. He was unaware that the products he used in the 1960s and 1970s (joint compound, caulk, stucco, roof cement, and decking material) contained asbestos. LaMonica initially sued Colgate-Palmolive Co. and more than 20 other companies. LaMonica’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. These 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. However, since LaMonica’s complaint involved claims of direct exposure, it proceeded to trial. Pre-trial settlements were ultimately reached with a number of companies, leaving 14 companies as defendants when trial began on July 21, 2016. During the next 11 weeks, settlements were reached with all but four companies: Colgate-Palmolive Co., as successor-in-interest to Mennen (Mennen Shave Talc); Elementis Chemicals Inc., as successor-in-interest to Harrisons & Crosfield (Pacific) Inc., a fiber supplier; Rich-Tex Inc., a joint compound manufacturer; and Union Carbide Corp., a fiber supplier. LaMonica alleged claims under theories of negligence and strict product liability, including design defect and failure to warn. The suit also alleged concealment and negligent misrepresentation, and sought punitive damages against Colgate-Palmolive, Union Carbide, and Elementis Chemical. Colgate-Palmolive contended that Mennen Shave Talc never contained asbestos. Union Carbide, Elementis, and Rich-Tex claimed that they had warned customers of the hazards of asbestos as soon as they became aware of those hazards, and took all reasonable efforts to protect end-users. Rich Tex did not warn customers of the hazards of asbestos until 1975, and did not remove asbestos from its products until 1977. Union Carbide and Elementis provided warnings to customers as early as the late 1960s. Counsel for Elementis noted that LaMonica had stated he did not see any warnings on packages, even during periods when they had warnings., LaMonica experienced his first symptoms in September 2015 and was diagnosed with pleural mesothelioma in October 2015. The asbestos fibers had lodged in his respiratory system and started an inflammatory response which, over decades, resulted in a tumor engulfing his right lung. LaMonica was treated with Dr. Robert Cameron and the UCLA Comprehensive Mesothelioma Program in Los Angeles. He had a lung-sparing pleurectomy/decortication surgery, performed by Cameron on Nov. 5, 2015. He returned to Los Angeles for five weeks of radiation treatments, which were completed in February 2016. LaMonica has been married 50 years to his wife, plaintiff Exine LaMonica, who filed a derivative claim for loss of consortium. The couple has two adult children and three grandchildren. Before his mesothelioma diagnosis, LaMonica was athletic, enjoying skiing, bicycling, and playing tennis. He has had to give up his real estate hobby and his part-time management position at the tennis/swim club. LaMonica requested $2,269,528 in economic losses, and $29,503,864 in non-economic losses, for a total of just over $31 million, during closing arguments. Counsel also requested that the jury apportion fault with 40 percent each to Union Carbide and Colgate-Palmolive, 10 percent to Rich-Tex, 5 percent to Elementis, and 5 percent to “all others.” The defendants claimed that LaMonica’s illness was idiopathic, not caused by his limited asbestos exposure from remodeling work with chrysotile-containing products. The companies successfully motioned to limit the types of economic damages the LaMonicas could seek. The plaintiffs had sought damages including future loss of LaMonica’s household services, future loss of his social security and pension income, and future loss of income from rental properties. LaMonica was not permitted to seek damages for lost income from real estate investment business, lost income from management of the tennis/swim club, past medical costs, future costs medical costs, and past loss of household services.