Izell

Concurring and Dissenting. — I concur with my colleagues on all issues except the affirmance of the $18 million punitive damages award. On this issue, I respectfully dissent.

After determining “the jury clearly should have reached a different verdict or decision as to compensatory damages,” and reducing the award by 80 percent — from $30 million to $6 million — the trial court declined to disturb the jury’s $18 million punitive damages award, concluding a “3:1 ratio of punitive to compensatory damages is reasonable.” In my view, the significant reduction of the jury’s compensatory damages award requires a new trial on the amount of punitive damages.

“Although a trial court’s approval of the punitive damage award (by denial of a motion for new trial) is entitled to significant weight [citation], deference is not abdication. It is the duty and responsibility of an appellate court to intervene where the award is so grossly disproportionate or palpably excessive as to raise a presumption that it was the product of passion and prejudice.” (Dumas v. Stocker (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1262, 1266 [ 262 Cal.Rptr. 311 ]; see Neal v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1978) 21 Cal.3d 910, 928 [ 148…

INTRODUCTION

Union Carbide Corporation appeals from a judgment entered in favor of plaintiffs Bobbie Izell and Helen Izell (Plaintiffs) on claims for personal injuries and loss of consortium stemming from Mr. Izell’s exposure to Union Carbide asbestos and subsequent diagnosis with mesothelioma. After a four-week trial the jury returned special verdicts finding Union Carbide 65 percent comparatively at fault for Plaintiffs’ injuries and awarding Plaintiffs $30 million in compensatory damages plus $18 million in punitive damages against Union Carbide. By remittitur, which Plaintiffs accepted, the trial court reduced the compensatory damages award to $6 million, but declined to disturb the punitive damages.

On appeal, Union Carbide contends the evidence was insufficient to support the liability finding, apportionment of comparative fault, and the remitted compensatory damages award. Union Carbide also challenges the punitive damages award as excessive. We conclude the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, as well as the compensatory and punitive damages awards. Accordingly, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Union Carbide purchased an asbestos mine near…

INTRODUCTION

Union Carbide Corporation appeals from a judgment entered in favor of Plaintiffs Bobbie Izell and Helen Izell on claims for personal injuries and loss of consortium stemming from Mr. Izell’s alleged exposure to Union Carbide asbestos and subsequent diagnosis with mesothelioma. After a four-week trial the jury returned special verdicts finding Union Carbide 65 percent comparatively at fault for Plaintiffs’ injuries and awarding Plaintiffs $30 million in compensatory damages plus $18 million in punitive damages against Union Carbide. By remittitur, which Plaintiffs accepted, the trial court reduced the compensatory damage award to $6 million, but declined to disturb the punitive damages. On appeal, Union Carbide contends the evidence was insufficient to support the liability finding, apportionment of comparative fault, and the remitted compensatory damage award. Union Carbide also challenges the punitive damage award as excessive. We conclude the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, as well as the compensatory and punitive damage awards. Accordingly, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Union Carbide purchased an asbestos mine near Coalinga,…