In Scott v. Ford Motor Co., 169 Cal. Rptr. 3d 823 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (No. A137975), a California plaintiff sued a Michigan defendant in California, alleging injuries resulting from exposure to asbestos during his career as an auto mechanic and service station owner. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to apply Michigan law, which bars punitive damages. The trial court also rejected defendant’s motion arguing that, as a matter of law, plaintiff was a sophisticated user of asbestos-bearing auto parts. Instead, the court submitted plaintiff’s claims to the jury, which found for plaintiff. Both parties appealed. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s rejection of the defendant’s sophisticated user defense as a matter of law, and affirmed the decision to submit the sophisticated user defense to the jury, holding that this defense rested on disputed issues of fact. With respect to punitive damages, the court reversed. Applying a government interests analysis, the court of appeals concluded that, in California courts, California’s legislative decision to permit punitive awards to deter and punish misconduct outweighed Michigan’s prohibition on punitive damages, and it would be improper to permit the defendant to carry its home-state’s bar against punitive damages with it when it decides to do business in other jurisdictions that permit punitive damages.