On August 21, 2019 a
Answer
was filed
involving a dispute between
Maguire, Laura,
Moran, Theresa,
Sorenson, Jennifer,
Warren, Annie,
and
Abb Inc.,
Certainteed Corporation,
Crane Co.,
Does 1 Through 800, Inclusive,
Familian Corp,
Familian Corporation,
Foster Wheeler Llc,
Ingersoll-Rand Company,
Ingersollrand Company,
Keenan Properties, Inc.,
Metalclad Insulation Llc,
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,
Scott Co. Of California,
Southern California Edison Company,
Swinerton Builders,
Texaco Inc.,
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company,
Union Carbide Corporation,
for ASBESTOS
in the District Court of San Francisco County.
Preview
1 || RICHARD D. DUMONT (SBN 107967)
rdumont@selmanlaw.com
2 || SUZANNE E. RISCHMAN (SBN CA 124421) ELECTRONICALLY
srischman@selmanlaw.com FILED
3 SELMAN BREITMAN LLP Superior Court of California,
7 33 New Montgomery, Sixth Floor County of San Francisco.”
San Francisco, CA 94105-4537
Telephone: 415.979.0400 oei30/2019
5 || Facsimile: 415.979.2099 BY: MADONNA CARANTO
Deputy Clerk
6 || Attorneys for Defendant
SCOTT CO. OF CALIFORNIA
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO —- UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
10
a 11 || THERESA MORAN, as Successor-in-Interest_ | Case No, CGC-19-276794
n to and as Wrongful Death Heir of THOMAS
s 12 || MORAN, Deceased; and ANNIE WARREN, | SCOTT CO. OF CALIFORNIA'S
a2 JENNIFER SORENSON and LAURA ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS'
e- 13 || MAGUIRE, as wrongful Death Heirs of UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR
Ee THOMAS MORAN, Deceased,, SURVIVAL, WRONGFUL DEATH -
og 14 ASBESTOS; DEMAND FOR JURY
oe Plaintiffs, TRIAL
= 15
v.
Se 16
=£ CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, et al.,
oO 17
n Defendants.
18
19
20 Defendant SCOTT CO. OF CALIFORNIA (hereinafter "SCOTT CO.") answers the
21 || unverified Complaint ("Complaint") as alleged against SCOTT CO. and each and every cause of
22 || action set forth therein on its own behalf and on behalf of no other defendant or entity as follows:
23 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30(d), SCOTT CO. denies
24 || generally each and every allegation of the Complaint.
25 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26 Neither the Complaint nor any purported cause of action alleged by Plaintiffs therein
27 || states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against SCOTT CO.
28 || ///
1
SCOTT CO.'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR SURVIVAL, WD; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
405923.1 1076.45898Oo oe IY DH NH FW YN |
Selman Breitman LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Nn N N N Nn Nn Nn Nn — _ — _ - _ = —
~“ an nn - Ww Nn _ So Oo oo ~ n wn S Ww N Oo
N
oo
405923.1 1076.45898
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
To the extent the Complaint asserts SCOTT CO's alleged "market share" liability, or
“enterprise liability," the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action
against SCOTT CO.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SCOTT CO. alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims, or some of them, are barred by the provisions
of California Code of Civil Procedure §361.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SCOTT CO. had no property interest, ownership or control of any premises at any time
during which Plaintiffs allege Decedent was exposed to asbestos and/or sustained an injury or
damages due to asbestos dust inhalation.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for "Premises
Owner/Contractor Liability" against this SCOTT CO. pursuant to the ruling of the California
Supreme Court in Privette v, Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689; the ruling of the California
Court of Appeal in Smith v. ACandS, Inc. (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 77; the ruling of the California
Court of Appeal in Grahn v. Tosco Corporation (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1373; the ruling of the
California Supreme Court in Toland v. Sunland Housing Group, Inc. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 253; and
the ruling of the California Supreme Court in Kinsman y. Unocal Corporation (2006) 37 Cal.4th
659, et al.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SCOTT CO. alleges that at the time of the injuries alleged in the Complaint, Plaintiffs’
Decedent was employed and were entitled to receive Workers' Compensation benefits from his
employer's workers' compensation insurance carrier; that SCOTT CO. did not control Decedent's
work activities at his worksites; that all of Decedent's employers other than SCOTT CO., were
negligent in and about the matters referred to in said Complaint, that other parties over whom
SCOTT CO. had no control were negligent in and about the matters referred to in said
Complaint, and that such negligence on the part of said employers and other parties proximately
2
SCOTT CO.'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR SURVIVAL, WD; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
a i
Document Filed Date
September 30, 2019
Case Filing Date
August 21, 2019
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
1 || RICHARD D. DUMONT (SBN 107967) rdumont@selmanlaw.com 2 || SUZANNE E. RISCHMAN (SBN CA 124421) ELECTRONICALLY srischman@selmanlaw.com FILED 3 SELMAN BREITMAN LLP Superior Court of California, 7 33 New Montgomery, Sixth Floor County of San Francisco.” San Francisco, CA 94105-4537 Telephone: 415.979.0400 oei30/2019 5 || Facsimile: 415.979.2099 BY: MADONNA CARANTO Deputy Clerk 6 || Attorneys for Defendant SCOTT CO. OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO —- UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 10 a 11 || THERESA MORAN, as Successor-in-Interest_ | Case No, CGC-19-276794 n to and as Wrongful Death Heir of THOMAS s 12 || MORAN, Deceased; and ANNIE WARREN, | SCOTT CO. OF CALIFORNIA'S a2 JENNIFER SORENSON and LAURA ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' e- 13 || MAGUIRE, as wrongful Death Heirs of UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR Ee THOMAS MORAN, Deceased,, SURVIVAL, WRONGFUL DEATH - og 14 ASBESTOS; DEMAND FOR JURY oe Plaintiffs, TRIAL = 15 v. Se 16 =£ CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, et al., oO 17 n Defendants. 18 19 20 Defendant SCOTT CO. OF CALIFORNIA (hereinafter "SCOTT CO.") answers the 21 || unverified Complaint ("Complaint") as alleged against SCOTT CO. and each and every cause of 22 || action set forth therein on its own behalf and on behalf of no other defendant or entity as follows: 23 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30(d), SCOTT CO. denies 24 || generally each and every allegation of the Complaint. 25 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 26 Neither the Complaint nor any purported cause of action alleged by Plaintiffs therein 27 || states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against SCOTT CO. 28 || /// 1 SCOTT CO.'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR SURVIVAL, WD; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 405923.1 1076.45898Oo oe IY DH NH FW YN | Selman Breitman LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Nn N N N Nn Nn Nn Nn — _ — _ - _ = — ~“ an nn - Ww Nn _ So Oo oo ~ n wn S Ww N Oo N oo 405923.1 1076.45898 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE To the extent the Complaint asserts SCOTT CO's alleged "market share" liability, or “enterprise liability," the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against SCOTT CO. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE SCOTT CO. alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims, or some of them, are barred by the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure §361. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE SCOTT CO. had no property interest, ownership or control of any premises at any time during which Plaintiffs allege Decedent was exposed to asbestos and/or sustained an injury or damages due to asbestos dust inhalation. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for "Premises Owner/Contractor Liability" against this SCOTT CO. pursuant to the ruling of the California Supreme Court in Privette v, Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689; the ruling of the California Court of Appeal in Smith v. ACandS, Inc. (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 77; the ruling of the California Court of Appeal in Grahn v. Tosco Corporation (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1373; the ruling of the California Supreme Court in Toland v. Sunland Housing Group, Inc. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 253; and the ruling of the California Supreme Court in Kinsman y. Unocal Corporation (2006) 37 Cal.4th 659, et al. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE SCOTT CO. alleges that at the time of the injuries alleged in the Complaint, Plaintiffs’ Decedent was employed and were entitled to receive Workers' Compensation benefits from his employer's workers' compensation insurance carrier; that SCOTT CO. did not control Decedent's work activities at his worksites; that all of Decedent's employers other than SCOTT CO., were negligent in and about the matters referred to in said Complaint, that other parties over whom SCOTT CO. had no control were negligent in and about the matters referred to in said Complaint, and that such negligence on the part of said employers and other parties proximately 2 SCOTT CO.'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR SURVIVAL, WD; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 a i