Judge whittles $12M judgment in asbestos-in-talc case

An Alameda County judge refused to vacate a $12 million verdict against Johnson & Johnson Co. and Colgate-Palmolive Co. but reduced the award slightly after applying settlement credits.

Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch also denied Colgate's motion for a new trial Tuesday. Nationwide, Johnson & Johnson faces some 10,000 claims stemming from its talc products.

Representatives from Johnson & Johnson, its subsidiary Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. and Colgate-Palmolive could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

Roesch ruled that all three defendants are jointly and severally liable, but were entitled to settlement-related credits in the amount of $900,000.

Plaintiff Patricia Schmitz, who has died, was also entitled to costs of the suit in the amount of $380,755, Roesch ruled. Schmitz was represented by partners Joseph D. Satterley, Denyse F. Clancy and associates Ian A. Rivamonte, and Michael T. Stewart from Kazan McClain Satterley & Greenwood APLC.

The total plaintiff's recovery from Colgate, Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary is $11.4 million, Roesch said, entering the judgment nunc pro tunc from July 12.

Schmitz sued several industrial mining companies, specialty chemical distributors and companies that sold talc products with an alleged presence of asbestos, which is commonly linked to mesothelioma. Schmitz v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., RG18923615 (Alameda County Super. Ct., filed Oct. 5, 2018).

On June 12, the jury found that Colgate, Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary were initially jointly and severally liable for Schmitz's economic and non-economic damages in the amount of $12 million.

The jury hung on awarding punitive damages as to Johnson & Johnson, while Colgate prevailed.

Schmitz died shortly before the punitive damages retrial was to begin in July. Last month, Johnson & Johnson's attorney Alexander G. Calfo, partner at King & Spalding LLP and Colgate's lawyers Gary D. Sharp and Peter M. Mularczyk of Foley & Mansfield PLLP filed motions seeking to have the judgment set aside.

The defense argued they were entitled to settlement-related credits, which could include figures resulting from Schmitz's settlements with other defendants prior to trial. The defense also cited the Fair Responsibility Act of 1986, which eliminates joint liability for non-economic damages in any action for personal injury, property damage or wrongful death.

Because the judgment imposes joint liability on Johnson & Johnson for non-economic damages, it must be vacated, the defense argued.

Schmitz's lawyers contended the jury found substantial evidence as to defendants' actions, especially Colgate's fraudulent concealment in particular, to reach the verdict.

Substantial evidence was provided at trial that showed the defendants' products, which Schmitz said she used for years, contained asbestos, her attorneys argued.

Colgate hid from the public the health hazards related to its product and didn't employ a robust testing program, they added. Thus, Colgate's concealment was the legal cause of her cancer, the attorneys contended.