In 2020, plaintiff Christina Prudencio, 34, a schoolteacher, was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, which is an aggressive, incurable cancer that often stems from exposure to asbestos. Prudencio had used Johnson’s Baby Powder talc from the time she was born in 1986 until she was 16 years old. She claimed that even after the age of 16, she was still exposed to Johnson’s Baby Powder talc, as it was used on her two younger siblings. She claimed that the product contained asbestos, asbestiform fibers and/or asbestiform talc and that the product’s contents caused her cancer. Prudencio sued the manufacturers, suppliers and designers of Johnson’s Baby Powder, Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.; the retailers who sold Johnson’s Baby Powder, Albertsons Cos. Inc., Longs Drug Stores California LLC, Lucky Stores Inc. and Safeway Inc.; the supplier of the talc used in that product, Cyprus Mines Corp.; and other companies that were believed to have manufactured, supplied, designed and/or been otherwise involved in the chain of distribution of another brand of asbestos-containing products to which she believed she was exposed, including Longs Drug Stores California Inc., Perrigo Company of Tennessee, and Vi-Jon Inc. Prudencio alleged that the defendants were negligent in the defective design and/or failure to warn of the asbestos-containing products. She also alleged claims of strict products liability. Some defendants were dismissed or discontinued, and others negotiated settlements of the claims against them. The matter proceeded to a bifurcated trial against Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. knew that their Johnson’s Baby Powder talc product contained carcinogenic asbestos, asbestiform fibers and asbestiform talc decades before Prudencio was born in 1986. Counsel also contended that a good and reasonable company, after being warned that its product contained cancer-causing substances, would have taken the product off the marketplace, investigated the claims, and, if true, permanently kept the product off the shelves, but that Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. failed to do so. Defense counsel denied Prudencio’s allegations concerning asbestos in Johnson & Johnson’s products. In addition, defense counsel disputed the company’s knowledge about the alleged asbestos in the products or the need for a warning on the products, as the U.S. Food & Drug Administration determined, based on its historic analysis of the products, that no such warning was required for them., Prudencio was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in 2020. She underwent her second major surgery in June 2020. The procedure involved an exploratory laparotomy and a cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in an attempt to remove the cancer. Prudencio was hospitalized and bedridden for one week after the surgery. Prudencio claimed that she has experienced numerous complications since her surgery, including three emergency room admissions in August 2020. She also claimed that she was pursuing a master’s degree in education to further her career, but that after her diagnosis, she was no longer able to work or take classes. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the defendants’ conduct made Prudencio terminally ill because, in part, they failed to warn about their product’s hazards, chose not to replace talc with a known safer alternative, cornstarch, and created test protocols for their talc that they knew were inaccurate and unreliable. Counsel also contended that Prudencio’s mesothelioma resulted in numerous health complications, forced Prudencio to stop working, and rendered Prudencio infertile. During trial, the parties stipulated that the total amount of Prudencio’s past and future medical costs totaled $800,000. In addition to her past and future medical costs, Prudencio sought recovery for her past and future loss of income, past and future loss of household services, and past and future pain and suffering. She also sought recovery of punitive damages against Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. for their alleged malicious or oppressive conduct. Defense counsel contended that Prudencio’s malignant cancer was incredibly rare in young women and that, most likely than not, it was a result of a gene mutation.