California Mesothelioma Verdicts and Settlements
Two named California mesothelioma outcomes: the $33.4M Stephenson v. Mole-Richardson result and the $51M Chapman v. Avon judgment affirmed on appeal.
California is one of the most active mesothelioma litigation jurisdictions in the country. The state’s shipyards, refineries, and naturally occurring asbestos generated decades of occupational and environmental exposure, and California’s mesothelioma case totals reflect that history. This page tracks named verdicts and judgments confirmed by court records or contemporaneous reporting. Range-based estimates and unsourced industry averages have been removed.
Named California Outcomes
| Case | Amount | Court / Docket | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stephenson v. Mole-Richardson Co. | $33.4M (non-economic) | LA County Superior, Judge Stephen Czuleger | Settled before punitive phase |
| Chapman v. Avon Products, Inc. | $51M | LA County Superior; CA Court of Appeal 2d/Div 8 (JCCP 4674) | Affirmed on appeal Feb 12, 2026 |
Stephenson v. Mole-Richardson Co.
A Los Angeles County Superior Court jury returned a $33,384,400 non-economic damages verdict on February 27, 2026, in favor of George Stephenson, an Army veteran and longtime Hollywood cameraman with pleural mesothelioma. The award broke down to $3,640,000 in past pain and suffering and $29,744,400 in future pain and suffering. Judge Stephen Czuleger presided. The trial ran nine days, with closing arguments on February 26, 2026, and the jury deliberated approximately two and a half hours.
The jury found Mole-Richardson 100% liable and made a finding of malice, which set up a second phase on punitive damages. According to reporting on the case, the matter resolved before that phase completed, so the $33.4 million figure reflects the compensatory verdict rather than a fully litigated outcome including punitives. Plaintiff’s counsel was Weitz & Luxenberg.
Stephenson’s exposure traced to asbestos-insulated cables in Mole-Richardson studio lighting equipment that he handled across decades of film work. The case is a reminder that asbestos exposure in California reached far beyond shipyards and construction into film production and other entertainment-industry trades.
Chapman v. Avon Products, Inc.
The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, affirmed a $51 million judgment in Chapman v. Avon Products, Inc. in an opinion dated February 12, 2026. The trial verdict was returned in Los Angeles County Superior Court in 2022 under JCCP 4674, the consolidated California talc proceedings.
Plaintiff Rita-Ann Chapman alleged that Avon’s talc-based cosmetics were contaminated with asbestos and caused her mesothelioma. She died in March 2025. Her husband, Gary Chapman, served as successor in interest on appeal. The appellate decision affirms that talc-contaminated consumer products can support a mesothelioma verdict in California and keeps the Chapman judgment in place.
Chapman is part of the broader wave of talc litigation that has produced large outcomes in multiple states, including the Cherie Craft v. Johnson & Johnson verdict in Baltimore City, Maryland in December 2025.
Filing Deadlines: CCP § 340.2
California Code of Civil Procedure § 340.2 sets a one-year statute of limitations for asbestos-related personal injury and wrongful death claims. The trigger is not the date of diagnosis. Under § 340.2(a), a personal injury action must be filed within one year of the later of:
- The date the plaintiff first suffered “disability,” defined at § 340.2(b) as the loss of time from work due to asbestos exposure that is compensable under workers’ compensation, or
- The date the plaintiff knew, or with reasonable diligence should have known, that the disability was caused or contributed to by asbestos exposure.
For wrongful death claims under § 340.2(c), the period runs from the later of one year after the decedent’s death or one year after the plaintiff knew or should have known the death was caused or contributed to by asbestos exposure.
The “disability plus knowledge” structure means the clock can begin earlier or later than the diagnosis date, depending on the facts. People with a mesothelioma diagnosis in California should speak with an attorney promptly to evaluate when the limitations period began running on their specific claim.
Cross-State Context
Other large 2025 and 2026 verdicts referenced in California briefings and motions include the $117 million Durbec WTC construction verdict in New York County and the $1.56 billion Craft v. Johnson & Johnson talc verdict in Baltimore City. For state-by-state context, see the New York verdicts and settlements and Illinois verdicts and settlements pages. Treatment timelines that often run alongside litigation are covered in the 2026 mesothelioma treatment landscape.
This article reports only outcomes that are confirmed by primary court records or contemporaneous reporting. Prior versions included industry-wide range estimates that could not be traced to a primary source. Individual case results depend on specific facts, exposure history, medical documentation, and the defendants involved. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
References
Goldberg Segalla Asbestos Case Tracker. California Jury Awards Over $33 Million to Mesothelioma Claimant Against Hollywood Lighting Equipment Manufacturer.
https://www.goldbergsegalla.com/blog/asbestos-case-tracker/verdict/california-jury-awards-over-33-million-to-mesothelioma-claimant-against-hollywood-lighting-equipment-manufacturer/
Weitz & Luxenberg. $33 Million Verdict for Veteran in Asbestos Exposure Case.
https://www.weitzlux.com/firm-news/33-million-verdict-veteran-asbestos-exposure/
Daily Journal. Court Affirms $51M Talc-Asbestos Judgment Against Avon.
https://www.dailyjournal.com/article/389744-court-affirms-51m-talc-asbestos-judgment-against-avon
California Legislative Information. California Code of Civil Procedure § 340.2.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=340.2.&lawCode=CCP
Reader Q&A
Frequently Asked Questions
How many California mesothelioma verdicts are documented on this page?
Two: Stephenson v. Mole-Richardson Co. ($33.4 million non-economic, LA County, February 27, 2026) and Chapman v. Avon Products, Inc. ($51 million, affirmed by the California Court of Appeal on February 12, 2026). Other named California verdicts may exist but are not included here unless confirmed by primary sources.
When does the California asbestos statute of limitations begin?
Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 340.2, the one-year clock for personal injury claims runs from the later of (1) the date the plaintiff first suffered “disability” as defined by the statute, or (2) the date the plaintiff knew or should have known the disability was caused by asbestos exposure. It is not strictly tied to the date of diagnosis.
Why was Stephenson v. Mole-Richardson described as 'settled before punitive phase'?
The jury returned a $33.4 million compensatory verdict on February 27, 2026, and made a finding of malice that set up a second phase on punitive damages. Reporting on the case indicates that the matter resolved before that punitive phase completed. The compensatory amount reflects the jury’s award. The punitive figure was not litigated to verdict.
What was the docket and court for Chapman v. Avon?
Chapman v. Avon Products, Inc. was tried in Los Angeles County Superior Court under JCCP 4674, the consolidated California talc proceedings. The appeal was decided by the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, in an opinion dated February 12, 2026.
Do I need a California-based attorney?
Not necessarily. What matters is the attorney’s experience with asbestos litigation and familiarity with California products, exposure sites, and procedural rules. Cases can be filed in the most favorable jurisdiction supported by the facts.
What is a legal verdict?
A legal verdict is the formal decision by a judge or jury at the end of a trial, determining liability or guilt based on presented evidence. In civil cases like those involving people with mesothelioma, it rules if a defendant is liable and may specify damages. Verdicts differ from settlements, which are negotiated agreements outside court, and can lead to a judgment entered by the court.
What are the three types of verdicts?
Verdicts fall into general and special types in most U.S. civil and criminal trials. A general verdict declares the winner, such as “liable” or “not liable” in civil cases like asbestos litigation involving people with mesothelioma, or “guilty” or “not guilty” in criminal cases. A special verdict requires the jury to answer specific factual questions, with the judge applying the law to reach a final decision. Other forms, such as directed (judge-issued) or partial verdicts, occur less commonly. Scotland uniquely allows a third criminal verdict of “not proven,” equivalent to acquittal but distinct from “not guilty.”