California Appeals Court Upholds $51M Verdict vs Avon

A California appellate panel has affirmed a $51 million verdict against Avon Products Inc. in litigation alleging that asbestos-contaminated talc in Avon cosmetics caused a consumer to develop malignant mesothelioma. The decision leaves intact a Los Angeles Superior Court judgment obtained by Rita Chapman, who died after the 2022 verdict, with her husband Gary Chapman continuing the action as successor. On appeal, Avon challenged the admissibility of expert testimony, several evidentiary rulings, and the sufficiency of the trial record tying its talc to asbestos exposure and disease causation. The Second Appellate District rejected those arguments, emphasizing waiver and the deferential review applied to trial-court evidentiary decisions.

The Verdict and Allocation of Fault

A Los Angeles jury concluded that Avon’s negligence in manufacturing its cosmetics was a substantial factor in causing Chapman’s mesothelioma. The verdict also reflected product liability findings, including that an Avon product contained a manufacturing defect and did not perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect. The jury further found a failure to warn, determining that the absence of adequate warnings about potential risks contributed to Chapman’s harm.

Damages were substantial across phases of trial. The jury awarded $32.8 million in compensatory damages to Chapman and an additional $8 million to her husband. In a subsequent punitive-damages phase, the jury awarded $11.3 million, with Avon ordered to pay $10.3 million and a separate defendant—identified as the successor-in-interest to a forklift manufacturer—ordered to pay $1 million. The verdict also assigned comparative fault to a forklift operator, attributing 10% of the blame for Chapman’s cancer, reflecting the jury’s apportionment of responsibility among multiple sources of exposure.

Appellate Court’s Waiver Findings and Evidentiary Review

The Second Appellate District affirmed the judgment, concluding that Avon waived its sufficiency challenge and portions of its evidentiary objections through inadequate briefing and record presentation. The panel held that Avon did not satisfy the requirements for an appellant seeking reversal based on insufficient evidence, including the obligation to set out all material evidence unfavorable to its position and to frame the evidentiary record in the light most favorable to the prevailing party.

The panel also rejected claims of trial-court error in the admission or exclusion of evidence, finding no abuse of discretion. In doing so, the court underscored that an appellant bears the burden to show reversible error, and that conclusory or summary objections—without detailed analysis tethered to the record—can result in forfeiture. While the appellate opinion addressed multiple rulings, its central procedural theme was that Avon’s presentation did not preserve several issues for review, limiting the court’s willingness to revisit fact-bound determinations made at trial.

Expert Testimony and Corporate Witness Limitations

A key appellate issue involved expert testimony offered to prove asbestos presence in talc and causation. The panel upheld the admission of testimony from plaintiffs’ expert Dr. William Longo regarding asbestos in talc in Avon products. The court noted that Longo was qualified and that Avon did not pursue a challenge under People v. Kelly, the framework used in California to assess the reliability of new scientific techniques. The appellate court characterized the dispute as a battle of experts, stating that Avon offered different opinions that the jury did not accept, and found no showing that Longo’s methods were illogical or clearly unreliable.

The panel likewise found no basis to exclude testimony from another plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Steven Haber, concluding that Avon failed to develop a cogent argument aimed at specific testimony and why it was inadmissible. The court also upheld the trial court’s decision to bar Avon corporate witness Lisa Gallo as a “person most qualified,” agreeing that the proposed testimony would rely on hearsay and that she lacked personal knowledge regarding talc in Avon products. According to the opinion, Gallo’s own declarations disavowed work experience with Avon’s talc products, and Avon had not identified her pretrial as a witness with personal knowledge supporting its claims or defenses.

Case Details

Case Name: Gary Chapman v. Avon Products Inc.

Court Name: Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District

Case Number: B327749 and B330345

Plaintiff Attorney(s): Dean Omar Branham Shirley LLP

Defense Attorney(s): Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP and Foley Mansfield