In January 2016, plaintiff Joseph Houpt, 76, a former refractory contractor for the U.S. Navy, was diagnosed with mesothelioma, which is an aggressive, incurable cancer that often stems from exposure to asbestos. He alleged that he was exposed to asbestos-containing products while serving in the Navy aboard the ship USS Calvert, a San Diego-based ship, between 1963 and 1968. Houpt sued J.T. Thorpe & Son Inc. and various other companies that were believed to have manufactured, distributed, and/or worked with asbestos-containing products to which Houpt was allegedly exposed. Houpt’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. Houpt’s complaint ultimately proceeded to trial against J.T. Thorpe, as all of the defendants were dismissed, settled out for undisclosed amounts, or were otherwise let out of the case prior to trial. Houpt claimed that he performed work on refractory material located inside of a boiler aboard the USS Calvert during which time J.T. Thorpe conducted various ship-repairing overhaul work using asbestos-containing products beginning in 1967. However, Houpt alleged that J.T. Thorpe & Son failed to warn him of the asbestos and failed to properly maintain the worksite in a reasonably safe condition. The plaintiff’s medical experts opined that Houpt’s exposure to the asbestos-containing products used by J.T. Thorpe was a substantial, contributing factor in his disease. During trial, Houpt dropped his products liability claim against J.T. Thorpe & Son, and pursued his claim of negligence. Defense counsel argued that Houpt never worked around J.T. Thorpe’s workers on the ship and that even if he did, Houpt would have only been in the presence of J.T. Thorpe for seven days. Thus, counsel argued that seven days of work did not increase Houpt’s risk of developing mesothelioma. The defense’s industrial hygiene expert testified that the Houpt had very limited exposure, if any, to asbestos-containing products used by J.T. Thorpe. Thus, he opined that any alleged exposure would not have caused or contributed to Houpt developing mesothelioma. Defense counsel further argued that the U.S. Navy was solely responsible for Houpt’s asbestos exposure, as it was well established that the Navy was aware of the dangers of asbestos at that time and was in the best position to protect Houpt from various sources of exposure during his 5-year career in Navy. As a result, defense counsel added the Navy, as well as several of the originally named defendants, as non-party, Fabre defendants to offset any alleged liability finding., Houpt was diagnosed with mesothelioma in January 2016. He subsequently has been hospitalized several times since being diagnosed. (The issue of Houpt’s life expectancy was not addressed at trial, as the parties stipulated to the amount of his economic damages.) Thus, Houpt sought recovery of medical costs, lost income, loss of household services, and damages for his past and future pain and suffering. He also sought recovery of punitive damages against J.T. Thorpe. Houpt’s wife, plaintiff Kathryn Houpt, presented a derivative claim seeking recovery for her loss of consortium. Defense counsel argued that the Houpts were not owed any compensatory damages because J.T. Thorpe did not cause the disease. Counsel also moved for nonsuit in regard to the punitive-damages claim, and the motion was granted.