Court: Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Civil Division

In this asbestos action, a California state court set aside a $107 million verdict against defendants Union Carbide Corp., Elementis Chemicals Inc. and E.F. Brady Inc. after findings of misconduct by jurors and plaintiff’s counsel. 

Plaintiff Joel Hernandezcueva filed suit against a number of defendants in 2011, alleging he was exposed to asbestos fibers while cleaning dust during renovations during his employment at a mixed-use development, and that this exposure caused his mesothelioma diagnosis. The matter eventually went to trial in 2013 after Hernandezcueva’s passing. The 2013 trial resulted in favorable decisions for the defendants, which Hernandezcueva’s family successfully appealed. As such, a two-phase trial was finally conducted during summer 2023, resulting in an award of $32 million in compensatory damages and $75 million in punitive damages to plaintiffs. Defendants subsequently filed a joint motion for a new trial and vacatur or, alternatively, remittitur of excessive damages.

Defendants’ motion cited testimony from two jurors who alleged that another juror told jury members to each propose an acceptable amount on a piece of paper, and that the sum of the figures was to be divided by 12 to produce without further deliberation a “quotient verdict” – something the jury inductions specifically prohibited.

The same jurors also attested that another juror withheld during voir dire that her father died when she was very young, and that her mother made no claim, which resulted in financial hardship. This juror further lamented to other jurors during deliberations that she “resented the trial defendants for having caused plaintiff’s decedent’s death and wanted them to pay for it.” Regarding this juror, defendants stated that “acting as plaintiffs’ advocate for punishing defendants based on wholly inflammatory, irrelevant and prejudicial, non-evidentiary information” is contrary to the court’s jury instructions. Moreover, defendants argued that “a juror who conceals information during voir dire commits misconduct and undermines the jury selection process.” In response, plaintiffs conceded to the jurors’ conduct; however, plaintiffs alleged that there was no prejudice, and that the verdict should stand.

Ultimately, the court determined that there was juror misconduct for the reasons described above. Furthermore, the court found that the jury also ignored undisputed liability evidence when it allocated fault, and that the jury failed to assign fault to nonparties. Notably, the court also found that plaintiff’s counsel similarly engaged in misconduct by eliciting causation testimony that had been blocked by pretrial rulings, and by arguing to the jury that it needed to send a message through its verdict in an appeal “to their passion and prejudice.”

In addition to the misconduct allegations, defendants’ motion further argued that plaintiffs failed to prove that Hernandezcueva was exposed to defendant’s products and that such products were a substantial factor in causing his mesothelioma. Specifically, defendants’ motion noted that Plaintiffs did not present testimony that an asbestos-containing compound was used, which left the jury to speculate about which products exposed Hernandezcueva to asbestos. Defendants’ motion further argued that the evidence at trial did not establish that the walls Hernandezcueva worked on contained asbestos, given that the building went through renovations between its initial construction and the renovations in which Hernandezcueva took part. Finally, defendants argued noted that the evidence and testimony at trial did not establish Hernandezcueva was exposed to asbestos-containing materials used by defendants, or that the companies’ officers were responsible for the policies that could have led to such exposure. Here too, the court agreed, finding that the evidence presented at trial was not sufficient to support the verdict.

Lastly, the court found that the damage awards, particularly the noneconomic damages, were excessive and “amounted to punitive damages in the guise of noneconomic damages,” noting that the survival claim belonged to Hernandezcueva’s wife and not his children. Regarding the punitive damages awarded, the court stated that the total awarded was “extraordinarily exaggerated and unconstitutional overkill.” According to the court, “there was no evidence that the conduct of defendant would warrant this punitive damage award which would permit decedent’s wife to live like royalty nor is there any substantial evidence to justify $75,000,000.” Similarly, the court found that the nearly $30 million awarded in wrongful death damages should have been reduced to $6.9 million and divided among the five members of Hernandezcueva’s family who served as plaintiffs.

For these reasons, the court determined that the “jury clearly should have reached a different verdict or decision” and granted defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict in its entirety. The Asbestos Case Tracker will continue to monitor this matter and will report should there be an appeal filed by plaintiffs to the California Court of Appeals.

Read the full decision here