Rita-Ann Chapman began using Avon talcum powder products in 1954 at the age of eight, continuing multiple times per week until 1978, and then again from 1995 to 2010. She was eventually diagnosed with mesothelioma, a disease caused by asbestos exposure. The Chapmans sued dozens of defendants; by the time of trial, only Avon and Hyster-Yale Group, Inc. remained in the case. Mrs. Chapman died on March 16, 2025, and Gary Chapman continued the case as her successor-in-interest.
At trial, the Chapmans presented extensive evidence that Avon’s talc products contained asbestos. Internal Avon memos from the early 1970s acknowledged asbestos contamination – some showing tremolite asbestos levels as high as 20–25 percent in certain talc sources. The Chapmans’ expert, Dr. William Longo, tested vintage Avon products and found chrysotile asbestos using a refined sample preparation method originally developed at the Colorado School of Mines in 1973. Their medical expert, Dr. Steven Haber, opined to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that Mrs. Chapman’s decades of Avon talc use was a substantial factor in causing her mesothelioma. A biostatistics expert, Dr. David Madigan, testified that Mrs. Chapman’s odds of avoiding asbestos exposure across all the Italian-sourced talc products she used were astronomically low.
Avon countered with its own testing showing no asbestos and with expert testimony suggesting that many mesotheliomas are spontaneous or genetic, and that women’s mesothelioma rates had remained relatively flat regardless of asbestos usage trends.
The jury found Avon strictly liable for selling products with inadequate warnings and with manufacturing and design defects. It also found Avon liable for negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation, and fraudulent concealment, and determined that Avon acted with malice, oppression, or fraud. The jury awarded $40,831,453 in compensatory damages and $10.3 million in punitive damages, apportioning 90 percent fault to Avon.
The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight, affirmed the judgment in full in the published case of Chapman v. Avon Products, Inc.- Case Nos. B327749 & B330345 (March 2026)
Avon raised four claims of error on appeal: that the trial court improperly admitted Dr. Longo’s chrysotile testing testimony, improperly excluded corporate witness Lisa Gallo, improperly allowed Dr. Haber to testify on asbestos testing methods and Avon’s internal documents, and that insufficient evidence supported the verdict.
On Dr. Longo’s testimony, the court found that Avon had expressly conceded at trial that its challenge was based on reliability under the Sargon standard rather than novelty under Kelly, thereby waiving any Kelly challenge. See Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California (2012) 55 Cal.4th 747 and People v. Kelly (1976) 17 Cal.3d 24. The trial court properly exercised its gatekeeping role and reasonably concluded that Dr. Longo’s methods – which combined an established 1973 sample preparation technique with longstanding PLM analysis – were not clearly invalid or unreliable.
On Lisa Gallo’s exclusion, the court found no abuse of discretion. Avon listed Gallo only as a corporate representative and never disclosed her as a witness with personal knowledge of relevant facts, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.090, subdivision (a)(1)(A). Gallo herself had denied in deposition testimony that she worked with Avon’s talc products, and most of the testimony Avon proposed she give concerned events predating her 1994 employment. The court also rejected Avon’s misconduct argument regarding plaintiffs’ “corporate silence” closing argument, finding it was fair comment on the evidence. See LAOSD Asbestos Cases (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 939.
On Dr. Haber’s testimony, the court held that his extensive qualifications in occupational and environmental medicine – including decades of assessing environmental causes of pulmonary disease – provided a sufficient foundation for interpreting asbestos testing methods and Avon’s internal documents. Avon had failed to object to his qualification as an expert and forfeited several specific challenges by not raising them under proper headings or with timely objections. See United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 142.
On sufficiency of the evidence, the court found Avon waived this claim entirely by failing to set forth all material evidence – both favorable and unfavorable – as required under established appellate standards. Avon’s brief cherry-picked testimony favorable to its position while largely ignoring its own damaging 1970s memos and the Chapmans’ extensive expert testimony. See Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875; Huong Que, Inc. v. Luu (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 400.