In December 2007 and January 2008, plaintiff Jody Gutierres was working at AT&T’s central office building in Fresno while general contractor Roebbelen Contracting Inc. and subcontractor Balch Petroleum Contractors and Builders Inc. removed a 500-gallon underground storage tank outside of the building. Gutierres claimed that that the negligence of the contractors caused her to suffer carbon monoxide poisoning. Gutierres sued Balch Petroleum Contractors and Builders Inc. (which was erroneously sued and served as Balch Petroleum Builders and Contractors Inc.), Roebbelen Contracting Inc., and Hydrologue Inc. (Consulting Engineers & Geologists). Hydrologue was ultimately dismissed from the case prior to trial. Thus, the matter proceeded to trial against Balch Petroleum and Roebbelen Contracting. Gutierres claimed that the contractors negligently used a backhoe, which was operated by Balch Petroleum, near a ventilation intake vent outside of the AT&T building, causing diesel exhaust to enter the building. Thus, she contended that Balch Petroleum failed to follow written and oral instructions to cover the vent. In a subsequent letter to Gutierres’ employer, Roebbelen Contracting stated that it should have covered the vent, but both Balch Petroleum and Roebbelen Contracting denied Gutierres’ allegations of carbon monoxide poisoning. Defense counsel also asserted numerous theories on how any possible alleged negligence could have been assigned, as they claimed Gutierres’ employer knew of the contractors’ activities, and could have removed Gutierres and her coworkers from the building or from the particular part of the building that allegedly had carbon monoxide., Gutierres claimed she was exposed to carbon monoxide on three different work days in December 2007 and January 2008. She alleged that as a result, she suffered brain damage, including memory loss, cognitive loss and neurological defects. Gutierres claimed that as a result, she could no longer work or perform any of her daily functions. The plaintiffs’ experts testified that Gutierres’ brain damage is severe and permanent, and that she can no longer work or care for herself. Thus, Gutierres sought recovery of damages for her medical expenses, loss of earnings, and pain and suffering. Her husband, Daryl Gutierres, sought recovery of damages for his loss of consortium. Together, the plaintiffs sought recovery $10 million in total damages. Defense counsel contended that Ms. Gutierres was not exposed to a significant level of carbon monoxide, if any at all, to cause the alleged injury. Specifically, counsel contended that due to the large size of the building, Ms. Gutierres would not have suffered a significant level of exposure. Thus, defense counsel argued that not only were Gutierres’ conditions pre-existing, but that her alleged were a result of some type of somatoform disorder and that she essentially convinced herself that she was exposed and/or injured.