In August 2015, Roy Hopper, 77, a pipefitter and foreman, was diagnosed with mesothelioma, which is an aggressive, incurable cancer that often stems from exposure to asbestos. Hopper worked as a pipefitter and foreman on multiple pipeline projects in the Northern California area, including the Loch Lomond Dam and the California Aqueduct, which brought drinking water and irrigation to Central Valley and Southern California. He never smoked or drank, but was diagnosed with mesothelioma in August 2015 and died four months later, in December 2015. The decedent’s wife, Carolyn Hopper, and their two adult children, Kevin Hopper and Cynthea Harrod, sued the California Department of Water Resources, P.E. O’Hair & Co. (which was the predecessor to Westburne Supply Inc.), and various other companies that were believed to have manufactured, distributed and/or worked with asbestos-containing products to which the decedent was allegedly exposed. The California Department of Water Resources was dismissed from the case, and the matter ultimately continued against P.E. O’Hair only. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that Hopper was exposed to asbestos from cement pipes supplied by P.E. O’Hair and that P.E. O’Hair was negligent for failing to warn of the hazards of the asbestos in its pipes. The plaintiffs’ experts discussed state-of-the-art analysis of what was known over time about the potential environmental and occupational health hazards associated with the presence of asbestos in pipes. Defense counsel argued that the decedent was not exposed to asbestos by the cement pipe distributed by P.E. O’Hair., Roy Hopper was diagnosed with mesothelioma in August 2015 and he died four months later, in December 2015. He was survived by his wife of 50 years, Carolyn Hopper; their adult son, Kevin Hopper; and their adult daughter, Cynthea Harrod. The plaintiffs’ experts discussed the biological effects of asbestos on the body and forensic economics. The plaintiffs’ medical experts also discussed the decedent’s asbestos exposure and gave their opinion as to the specific causation of the decedent’s mesothelioma. The decedent’s family sought recovery of wrongful death damages. Defense counsel contended that, if the decedent was exposed to asbestos, the exposure was insignificant in causing his disease, as the decedent suffered from comorbidities that shortened his life expectancy, but for his mesothelioma. The defense’s medical experts discussed the decedent’s life expectancy, cardiology, radiology and forensic economics, as well as civil engineering and industrial hygiene.