In Lineaweaver v. Plant Insulation Co. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1409, the lead plaintiff worked at an oil refinery from 1950 to 1984, cleaning up asbestos debris, ripping out old insulation, and working near other tradespeople who produced asbestos dust. (Lineaweaver, supra, 31 Cal.App.4th at p. 1413.) After developing asbestosis, he sued numerous asbestos suppliers, ultimately proceeding to trial solely against Plant Insulation Company (Plant). (Ibid.) Plant was the "exclusive Northern California distributor of Fibreboard insulation products, marketed under the Pabco trademark," and a "significant supplier" of insulation products at the refinery, performing "about 50 percent of the insulation work done at the refinery in the 1960s." (Ibid.) The trial court concluded there was insufficient evidence the plaintiff's injuries were "caused by exposure to Plant distributed products," and granted a nonsuit. (Ibid.) The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the plaintiff had presented sufficient circumstantial evidence of exposure to Plant-supplied asbestos products. (Lineaweaver, supra, 31 Cal.App.4th at p. 1419-1420.) The court delineated this evidence as: "(1) Plant was the exclusive distributor in Northern California of Pabco asbestos insulation products beginning in 1948; (2) Lineaweaver worked at the Standard Oil refinery from 1950 to 1984, repeatedly working with and around asbestos insulation; (3) Lineaweaver worked throughout the sprawling refinery which has insulation over about two-thirds of its pipes and much of its equipment; (4) Lineaweaver saw boxes of Pabco products at the refinery; (5) Plant was a significant supplier of asbestos products, performing about 50 percent of the insulating work at the refinery in the 1960s; (6) another major insulation contractor used Pabco and another product as 'fill-in' supplies which constituted 10 to 15 percent of the refinery's insulation installed by that contractor." (Id. at pp. 1419-1420.) While the appellate court acknowledged there was no direct evidence Lineaweaver was exposed to Plant-supplied Pabco, it held the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support a reasonable inference of exposure because "plaintiff has established that defendant's product was definitely at his work site and that it was sufficiently prevalent to warrant an inference that plaintiff was exposed to it during his more than 30 years of working with and around asbestos throughout the refinery." (Lineaweaver, supra, 31 Cal.App.4th at p. 1420.) The court concluded there was insufficient evidence to permit the inference that one of the plaintiffs was exposed to the defendant's asbestos products when there was no evidence that the products were actually used or "or even probably used" on any of the ships on which he served. (Lineaweaver, supra, 31 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1420-1421.) As to another plaintiff, the court determined the evidence was lacking since the defendant's products were used only incidentally at the shipyards at which plaintiff worked. (Id. at p. 1421.)