Verdicts

Below are reports of verdicts obtained by our lawyers in cases that have gone all the way through trial. It may seem strange that there aren't very many, and most of them are quite old. Why do we say we are trial lawyers when we try so few cases to verdict? We accept a relatively small number of cases and prepare every one of them for trial. Over the years, defendants and their lawyers have learned that trying cases against us is rarely productive and almost always very expensive. As a result, they are anxious to settle cases with us.

Even when we start trial, we almost always resolve it by settlement before a verdict. Other lawyers report settlements on their web sites; we do not.

Our settlements are confidential for two reasons. First, our clients never want their personal financial information spread all over the Internet, and if we listed those settlements, everyone would know how much money that client received. Second, defendants who settle with us don't want other defense lawyers to know how much they have paid our clients. They certainly don't want other plaintiffs' lawyers to know, because if word got out, those lawyers would try to get the kind of settlements we get.

So, if we bragged about our settlements as others do, it would let people figure out which clients got how much, and it would hurt all our future clients because it would reduce the potential for getting them the kinds of settlements we have gotten others in the past. Since our primary responsibility is to do the very best we can for every client, the decision to forego "bragging rights" is an easy one. So, while this list might make it look as if we don't do much, it actually demonstrates how well we really do for our clients.

If you have a case, we would be pleased to evaluate it for you and give you our honest and well thought-out assessment of its potential on a private and confidential basis. You can be confident that unless we go to jury verdict, no one will ever know how much we recovered for you.

Karen Peterson and Jeffrey Peterson v. Hill Brothers Chemical Company (2002) Alameda County Superior Court 2001-031817
On June 4, 2002, an Alameda County Superior Court jury returned a verdict in excess of $20 million for Karen and Jeffrey Peterson. Total responsibility (100%) for plaintiff's mesothelioma cancer was assessed against Hill Brothers Chemical Company, a southern California chemical company that is based in Orange, California. The jury also found that defendant Hill Brothers Chemical's conduct was undertaken with malice, oppression or fraud, requiring an additional phase of the trial to determine an amount of punitive damages. The defendant avoided this phase by making an undisclosed settlement award.

Karen Peterson, age 42, was exposed to asbestos in her own family home from products manufactured by defendant Hill Brothers Chemical Company from the time of her birth until she left home at age 18 to attend college. The asbestos-containing cementitious magnesite floor which exposed plaintiff to asbestos is still in place in tens of thousands of homes today. Trial evidence included an estimate of 4 million square feet of the flooring still in place in family homes in Los Angeles and elsewhere in California. Although Hill Brothers Chemical Company's products sold today do not contain asbestos, the company makes an exclusive line of accessory products including sealers and repair products that are specifically marketed to be used on existing asbestos-containing magnesite floors installed from the 1920s through 1977. Plaintiffs and their attorneys consider both the current existence of these floors and the Hill Brothers Chemical's recommended restoration practice for these asbestos-containing floors (including sanding and wire brushing) to be a significant public health issue. If left unaddressed, in place magnesite flooring and refurbishing practices have the potential to expose an infinite number of persons to asbestos fibers now and put people at increased risk for serious and potentially fatal asbestos cancers many decades into the future.

Plaintiffs were represented at trial by Simona A. Farrise and Andrea C. Huston of the Oakland, California law firm of Kazan, McClain, Abrams, Fernandez, Lyons & Farrise who specialize in toxic torts including asbestos caused mesothelioma cancers.

Don Lee Henderson & Marlene Henderson v. Eternit, Inc. (2001) Alameda County Superior Court 843027-6
An Alameda County jury entered an $11,500,000 verdict for a Martinez, California former construction project estimator based on his career exposure to asbestos-containing products, particularly, cement-asbestos board. Eternit, Inc., the only remaining defendant at trial, was apportioned roughly $2,500,000 in liability based on the design defect, failure to warn and negligent supply of their enameled cement asbestos board, Glasweld and Flexweld.

Don Lee Henderson, the primary plaintiff, worked the majority of his career following his U.S. Navy service as an construction project estimator in both Northern and Southern California. The nature of his work as a project estimator required him to visit numerous construction sites where asbestos-containing materials were being fabricated and installed. In addition, he was continuously exposed to asbestos dust while on his own employers' premises, where multiple manufacturers' asbestos-containing products were stored and fabricated, including those of defendant Eternit, Inc.

The Kazan firm filed suit on behalf of Mr. Henderson in July 2001 and the unanimous verdict against Eternit came in mid-December: the defendant was found liable on three different theories of liability while simultaneously clearing Mr. Henderson of any negligence himself. Mr. Henderson was awarded over $500,000 in economic damages and $6,000,000 for pain, suffering and other non-economic damages. His wife and the second plaintiff in the case, Marlene Henderson, was awarded $5,000,000 for the loss of her husband's consortium and companionship caused by his mesothelioma.

The plaintiffs' case was tried by a team of Kazan attorneys that included principal Dianna Lyons and associates Karen Creech and Carlos Guzmán.

William Hardcastle and Vonda Hardcastle v. J-M A/C Pipe Corporation (2001) Alameda County Superior Court 830058-2.
On April 12, 2001, Bill and Vonda Hardcastle were awarded $20,500,000 by an Alameda County jury in California. Bill Hardcastle contracted a rare cancer which he alleged was caused by the asbestos released at his workplace by the manufacture of asbestos-cement pipe. The defendant was J-M A/C Pipe Co. of Stockton, California.

Bill Hardcastle worked from 1959 until his cancer diagnosis, at a pipe manufacturing plant in Stockton, California. His original employer was Johns-Manville Corporation. From 1959-1974 Bill Hardcastle was involved in the production of asbestos-containing pipe which at the time was primarily used for water transmission. In 1974, out of concern for his health, Bill Hardcastle transferred to the plastic pipe operations, with only partial walls separating the plastic pipe manufacturing operation from the asbestos cement pipe production in the rest of the facility.

Experts testified at trial that during the 1980's J-M A/C Pipe knew that there was no safe level of asbestos exposure and that even if they hadn't cheated on air quality testing with advance clean-up operations, their own standards were too lenient to protect workers' health.

The jury was unanimous in finding J-M A/C Pipe negligent and its actions malicious. They awarded Bill and Vonda Hardcastle $10,000,000 each as compensatory damages. After hearing financial information about the defendants net worth of $1.1 million the jury also awarded $500,000 in punitive damages (click for more on details on this case)

Firm principals Dianna Lyons and Frank Fernandez successfully tried the case against J-M A/C Pipe Corporation. The defendant claimed it had never been sued in an asbestos case before, but apparently forgot that our firm sued the company as successor to the old Johns-Manville Corporation in 1983 after it bought and continued to operate Johns Manville's asbestos cement pipe operation.

Jeanette Franklin v. USX Corporation (2000) Alameda County Superior Court 816407-0.
Attorneys at Kazan, McClain, Abrams, Lyons & Farrise made U.S. asbestos litigation history with a verdict of $6,500,000 in an asbestos cancer case that arose after childhood household exposure to asbestos.

Jeanette Franklin, the plaintiff, was a little girl in the 1940s when both of her parents worked at USX Corporation's Western Pipe & Steel shipyard in South San Francisco. Her father was a burner (welder) and her mother a ship's carpenter's assistant. Her parents unknowingly carried deadly asbestos fibers home on their clothing, and their young children were exposed.

In March 1999, Jeanette Franklin was diagnosed with mesothelioma, an asbestos-caused cancer, and on August 25, 1999, The Firm filed suit on her behalf. By February 2000, the case was settled with almost all of the defendants except USX Corporation. USX is the successor corporation to Western Pipe & Steel shipyard, and refused to offer even $1. The case was tried to an Alameda County, California, jury by Firm principal Simona Farrise and associate Andrea Huston. Click here for more information on this ruling.

Hamilton v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd. (5/15/00) 22 Cal. 4th 1127, 2000 WL 576190.
In an important victory for literally tens of thousands of asbestos disease victims, the California Supreme Court concluded that those who previously filed suit for non-fatal asbestos-related breathing disorders are not barred from filing a second lawsuit if and when they are diagnosed with mesothelioma or another asbestos-caused illness.

This decision reversed a lower court's judgment that prohibited former shipyard worker, Arthur Mitchell, from recovering damages for his mesothelioma - even though Mr. Mitchell filed his lawsuit within one month of being diagnosed with mesothelioma. The lower court argued that Mr. Mitchell's mesothelioma lawsuit was barred because he previously filed suit for non-terminal asbestosis with which he was diagnosed in 1979.

The California Supreme Court concluded that the relevant statute of limitations means what it says, so that asbestos disease claims are not time-barred unless they are filed more than one year after the victim is unable to work in his or her regular occupation because of the asbestos-caused illness.

Firm attorney James L. Oberman was responsible for the briefing in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court that resulted in this landmark decision. Click here for the full text of the ruling.

Wimberly v Yellow Cab (1997) Alameda County Superior Court 749417-2
A judge awarded damages of $25 million to The Firm's client, who had sustained severe closed head injuries following an automobile collision. At the time of the collision Mr. Wimberly was 21 years old. Simona Farrise, then an associate and now a principal at The Firm, tried this case.

Sullivan v Delta (1997) 15 Cal.App.4th 288
Firm principal, Dianna Lyons, handled this California Supreme Court appeal pro bono, upon learning in news reports about one of the most controversial opinions ever issued by the First District Court of Appeal. The opinion, in a case where the plaintiff was represented by a San Francisco attorney, effectively threw out any pain and suffering damages awarded to a plaintiff if he/she died during an appeal of the case. If this opinion had been upheld by the Supreme Court it would have meant, among other things, that defendants in California litigation would have no motivation to settle personal injury cases where the plaintiff suffered from a life-shortening illness. Rather, defendants would have forced every plaintiff to go through a trial and appellate process in the hope that the plaintiff would die during the appeal. This would have removed the obligation to pay the judgment for pain and suffering. The Firm voluntarily associated in as attorneys of record and successfully argued this case to the Supreme Court. The lower Court's opinion was overturned.

Morton v Owens Corning Fiberglas (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539
Mr. Morton, age 52, had worked for less than a year at the New York Shipbuilding Yard, New Jersey, during construction of USS Kitty Hawk. The jury returned a verdict in his favor in the amount of $3,484,170.00. The defendant, Owens Corning Fiberglas, appealed. The Court held that the "consumers expectation" test as presented by The Firm was sufficient to prove that OCF's asbestos was defective under strict liability theories and that "state-of-the-art" evidence was neither necessary nor relevant. The Court therefore agreed that it was proper to exclude such evidence.

Treadway v Owens Corning Fiberglas (1995) Alameda County Superior Court 738601-1
Mr. Treadway was exposed to Owens Corning Fiberglas' asbestos products while serving in the US Navy. The jury found that OCF's products were a cause of Mr. Treadway's mesothelioma, and they returned a verdict in the amount of $4,245,763.00.

Alfaro v Owens Corning Fiberglas (1994) Alameda County Superior Court 727494-4
Mr. Alfaro had been a US Navy boiler repairman and a process operator at the Tosco Oil refinery. Firm principal Dianna Lyons proved that Owens Corning Fiberglas' asbestos products (specifically, "Kaylo" insulation) were defective and a substantial factor in causing Mr. Alfaro's mesothelioma. The jury awarded $6,939,279.01, which included punitive damages in the amount of $4,500,000.01 to punish OCF.

Salazar, Francom, and Hockenhull v Owens Corning Fiberglas (1994) Alameda County Superior Court 645254-8 (consolidated)
The Firm consolidated these three wrongful death cases for trial. Plaintiffs were awarded damages of $6,665,500 in Salazar (Mr. Salazar was a laboratory technician at a uranium mill and suffered from peritoneal mesothelioma); $3,685,000 in Francom (Mr. Francom had pleural mesothelioma and was a career shipyard worker); and $5,245,000 in Hockenhull (Mr. Hockenhull was a laborer, who was diagnosed with pleural mesothelioma.) The award included punitive damages of $1 million per case, for a total of $16,595,500.00. The Firm's founder Steven Kazan tried the case.

Rosario v Diamond Shamrock Corporation (1992) Alameda County Superior Court 687219-1
Mr. Rosario, age 53, was exposed to BCME (bis-chloromethylether), causing terminal lung cancer. After a 16 week trial, the jury awarded $4,656,666. Thereafter, Mr. Rosario's case and the cases of nine of his co-workers from that plant, were resolved without further trial.

Cardia v Fibreboard Corporation (1991) Alameda County Superior Court 669982-2
The Firm proved that asbestos products caused Mr. Cardia's mesothelioma, and the jury returned a verdict for this 56 year old man in the amount of $5,093,351.00. Steven Kazan tried the case.

Force v Director, OWCP (1991) 938 F.2d 981
A workers' compensation carrier attempted to obtain credit for the benefits it paid to Mr. Force from the monies that Mrs. Force and other family members received in their third party case against various asbestos manufacturers and distributors. Victoria Edises obtained a ruling that limited insurance carriers' recovery of credit to those monies apportioned to the applicant alone. As a result, family members can keep significantly more of the money awarded them.

Steele v. Chevron, Inc. (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1265
Firm principal Victoria Edises obtained a court ruling that the same asbestos exposure can give rise to separate and different asbestos-related injuries and disabilities. This ruling is particularly important for asbestos disease victims because people with one asbestos disease (like pleural plaques or asbestosis) are at a greatly heightened risk of later developing another asbestos disease (like mesothelioma or lung cancer.) This decision acknowledged that even though Firm client Harvey Steele had previously filed a workers' compensation claim for one asbestos disease, he was nevertheless entitled to file another claim for the separate injury and disability he suffered when he was diagnosed with mesothelioma.

Jackson v Deft (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1305
The Firm's client developed severe, permanent asthma after occupational exposure to isocyanates. The Firm successfully argued to the California Court of Appeal that the military contractor defense did not apply; that 3rd party defendants were not shielded from liability; and that the "warnings" on defendants' paint products were not adequate as a matter of law. The case was therefore allowed to proceed, and was successfully resolved.

Coleman v Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust (1989) Alameda County Superior Court 650495-3
Firm principal Denise Abrams secured the first successful verdict against the Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust in California and the second verdict against it in the United States.

Paquin v Celotex Corporation (1989) Alameda County Superior Court 651932-8
The jury returned a verdict for Mr. Paquin, age 52, in the amount of $4,193,773.10. At that time, it was the highest verdict ever obtained in an asbestos case in California. David McClain tried the case.

Dickerson v. Southern Pacific (1985) San Francisco County Superior Court 822491
David McClain, a Firm principal, was victorious in this railroad case. It was the first successful trial in a mesothelioma case against a railroad company in the United States.

Bell v Fibreboard Corporation (1983)Alameda County Superior Court 509336-0
In this trial Steven Kazan obtained the first punitive damage award in the United States against Fibreboard, a large west coast asbestos product manufacturer which had employed the three plaintiffs.

North American Asbestos Corporation v Superior Court (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 138
The Firm successfully argued to the California Court of Appeal that service of process/ summons on a dissolved, out-of-country/state, corporation was valid. NAAC, an asbestos fiber supplier, was therefore held accountable in California courts.

Speake v Johns-Manville (1982) Superior Court of Contra Costa County 16099-3
Steven Kazan tried the first successful factory worker asbestos case in the United States against Johns-Manville, based in part on the exception to the workers' compensation exclusive remedy as provided under Rudkin.

JM Products Corporation v Superior Court of Contra Costa County (1980) 27 Cal.App.3d 465 (Rudkin)
A landmark California Supreme Court case for Steven Kazan's client, Reba Rudkin, a worker at Johns-Manville's asbestos manufacturing plant in Pittsburg, California. The Court held that a worker can sue his/her employer in a civil action (in addition to workers' compensation) if the employer aggravates an existing injury known to the employer. This established an exception to the "workers' compensation exclusive remedy" rule, later codified in Section 3602(b)(2) of the California Labor Code Section.

This list is a sampling of some of the trial verdicts and appellate decisions obtained by attorneys at The Firm. Of course, our principals and associates have also successfully tried and settled many other cases.