Court: Superior Court of California, County of Alameda
On June 15, 2023, plaintiffs Alvarino and Dianna J. DaSilva first filed an asbestos action in the Alameda County, Calif., Superior Court, alleging that Alvarino DaSilva developed epithelioid mesothelioma at age 61 after exposure to asbestos. Plaintiffs amended their operative complaint on September 15, 2023. The action was styled as Alvarino F. DaSilva and Dianna J. DaSilva v. ArvinMeritor, Inc. et al., Case No. 25CV036124.
Eventually, the case proceeded to trial against defendants Vanderbilt Minerals LLC and P.E. O’Hair & Co., sued as Westburne Supply Inc., on plaintiffs’ claims of strict liability failure-to-warn, strict liability design-defect, negligence, and negligence failure-to-warn.
The trial proceeded to verdict against P.E. O’Hair only. On June 20, 2025, the jury returned a defense verdict. It found Alvarino DaSilva did not live in the same household as his brother Joe DaSilva during the time Joe DaSilva encountered P.E. O’Hair’s asbestos pipe.
The jury also found that the pipe performed as an ordinary consumer would expect; that the asbestos-containing pipe contained risks known or knowable; that the risk posed a substantial danger to users, but that an ordinary consumer would have recognized those risks. The jury found that P.E. O’Hair was not negligent in supplying the pipe.
On the claim for failure to warn, the jury found that P.E. O’Hair knew or should have known that asbestos pipe was dangerous; that users would not realize the danger; that P.E. O’Hair failed to warn about the danger; and that a reasonable supplier would have issued a warning. But the jury concluded that the failure was not a substantial factor in Alvarino DaSilva’s development of mesothelioma.
Other notable trial issues: During trial on May 14, defendants moved in limine to preclude plaintiffs from alleging that Alvarino DaSilva’s development of renal cell carcinoma (kidney cancer) was related to his asbestos exposure, due to being time-barred and not properly disclosed. Defendants argued the applicable statute of limitations is one year, Alvarino DaSilva was diagnosed with kidney cancer more than a year ago, and the record clearly demonstrates that to date, plaintiffs have only alleged a claim for mesothelioma.
Plaintiffs opposed this motion in colorful language. Judge Mark Fickers ruled to bar plaintiffs from pursuing claims related to kidney cancer. In his ruling, Judge Fickers noted that plaintiffs contended that their expert, Dr. David Zhang, relied on medical records falling within the business records exemption to hearsay. But despite describing the records in general terms, neither party produced the records and the records are not before the court.
Judge Fickers said he would defer an ultimate ruling on the matter.
A copy of the verdict sheet can be found here.
Read the full decision here.
