Vanni

Vanni v. Honeywell Internat. CA2/8

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 13, 2021B299594California7,647 words

Opinion

Opinion

INTRODUCTION

Honeywell International, Inc. (Honeywell) asks us to reverse the jury verdict and judgment entered in favor of respondents Barbara Vanni and her two sons, Mark and Michael (the Vannis), in the amount of $ 1,970,716. Respondents are the wife and sons of Donald Vanni. Donald Vanni owned and operated a bowling alley for 30 years with his brother Fred. The jury was asked to decide whether Donald Vanni’s death by pericardial mesothelioma was caused by his exposure to asbestos from drilling bowling balls that contained asbestos filler manufactured and supplied by Honeywell’s predecessor, the Bendix Corporation (Bendix). The two issues on appeal are whether the verdict rests on unfounded speculation that Bendix exposed Vanni to asbestos and whether the verdict rests on unfounded expert opinions about causation. In other words, did respondents prove that Bendix exposed Donald Vanni to asbestos and, if so, was his pericardial mesothelioma caused by that exposure to asbestos? We conclude the evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s verdict on both issues and affirm.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Evidence Code Section 402 Hearing In 2012, Donald was diagnosed with…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.