{"id":80,"date":"2026-03-04T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-03-04T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=80"},"modified":"2026-03-04T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-03-04T12:00:00","slug":"chapman-avon-products-asbestos-talc-verdict-affirmed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=80","title":{"rendered":"LAOSD Asbestos Cases (Chapman v. Avon Products) \u2014 $51 million asbestos verdict against Avon affirmed; appellant’s failure to recite all evidence forfeits sufficiency challenge"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
LAOSD Asbestos Cases (Chapman v. Avon Products, Inc.)<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
2nd District Court of Appeal<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-03-04<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
B327749<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Asbestos, talcum powder, mesothelioma, products liability, expert testimony, evidentiary rulings, sufficiency of the evidence, appellate waiver<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Rita-Ann Chapman began using Avon talcum powder products in 1954 at age eight and continued using them several times a week until 1978. After a 17-year break, she resumed using them from 1995 to 2010. Decades later she was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of the lungs almost always caused by exposure to asbestos. Asbestos has been a known contaminant in some talc deposits because the two minerals can occur in the same geological formations.<\/p>\n

Mrs. Chapman and her husband, Gary, sued dozens of cosmetic and automotive defendants in Los Angeles County. By trial, only Avon Products, Inc. and one other defendant remained. The Chapmans alleged that Avon’s talc products contained asbestos, that asbestos exposure from the products caused Mrs. Chapman’s disease, and that Avon failed to warn of the risk. After a long trial, the jury returned a special verdict against Avon on theories of strict products liability for failure to warn and design defect, negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation, and fraudulent concealment, and found Avon’s conduct involved malice, oppression, or fraud.<\/p>\n

The jury awarded $40,831,453 in compensatory damages and $10.3 million in punitive damages, apportioning Avon 90 percent of the fault. Mrs. Chapman died during the post-trial proceedings, and her husband became her successor in interest. Avon appealed, raising three narrow evidentiary challenges and a broad attack on the sufficiency of the evidence.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The Second District Court of Appeal, Division Eight, affirmed the judgment. On the evidentiary issues, the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony from Dr. William Longo about specific asbestos minerals he found in archival Avon talc samples. His methodology, based on transmission electron microscopy and energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy, was within the mainstream of accepted scientific practice. The court also held that Dr. Steven Haber, a medical doctor, was properly allowed to testify about asbestos-testing methods and the meaning of Avon’s internal documents to the extent that testimony was within his expertise and connected to causation.<\/p>\n

The court further held that the trial court was within its discretion to exclude the testimony of an Avon witness, Lisa Gallo, who had not been timely disclosed under the case management orders. Avon failed to show that exclusion was an abuse of discretion or that the witness’s testimony would have changed the outcome.<\/p>\n

The most consequential ruling was on Avon’s sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge. Under settled appellate law, an appellant attacking a jury verdict for insufficient evidence must summarize all of the material evidence, both favorable and unfavorable, and explain why even the most favorable view to the respondent will not support the verdict. Avon’s briefs cherry-picked favorable testimony and largely omitted critical evidence supporting the verdict, including its own internal documents from the 1970s. The court held that this approach forfeited the challenge entirely. Even on the merits, the court explained, substantial evidence from period testing, modern testing of archival samples, expert testimony, and Avon’s own documents amply supported each finding.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n