Preview
Douglas G. Wah SBN 64692
Christine L. Hawkins SBN 233502
FOLEY & MANSFIELD, PLLP
2185 N. California Boulevard, Suite 575 FEES TRONIEAEEY,
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 FILED
Telephone: (510) 590-9500 Superior Court of California,
Facsimile: (510) 590-9595 eu OF er anetece
Email: chawkins@foleymansfield.com 03/08/2019
Clerk of the Court
BY: KALENE APOLONIO
Attorneys for Defendant Deputy Clerk
COLUMBIA MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
CAROL CHULICK, as Successor-in-Interest to | Case No. CGC-19-276757
and as Wrongful Death Heir of JOHN
CHULICK, Deceased; and DEBORAH “Asbestos-Related Case”
HAGEN and JOLEEN HAGLER, as Wrongful
Death Heirs of JOHN CHULICK, Deceased, DEFENDANT COLUMBIA MECHANICAL
CONTRACTORS, INC.’S ANSWER TO
Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR
SURVIVAL, WRONGFUL DEATH —
vs. ASBESTOS
RILEY POWER INC., et al.,
Complaint Filed: January 22, 2019
Defendants. Trial Date: Not Set
Defendant COLUMBIA MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC. (“Defendant”), in answer
to the Complaint of Survivorship and Wrongful Death of Decedent JOHN CHULICK, filed by
Plaintiffs CAROL CHULICK, Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to JOHN CHULICK,
Decedent (““Plaintiffs’ Decedent”); and DEBORAH HAGEN and JOLEEN HAGLER, as Wrongful
Death Heirs of JOHN CHULICK, deceased (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”), admits, denies and alleges as
follows:
Pursuant to the provisions of section 431.30(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, Defendant
denies each and every, all and singular, both generally and specifically, the allegations of Plaintiffs
unverified complaint, and further denies that Plaintiffs have been damaged as alleged, or at all, by
reason of any act or omission on the part of Defendant or its agents, servants or employees.
1
DEFENDANT COLUMBIA MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.’S
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR SURVIVAL, WRONGFUL DEATH — ASBESTOSFIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs complaint, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of
action against Defendant.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs have failed to join all persons and parties needed for a just
adjudication of this action.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs claim is barred by laches, waiver and/or estoppel.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this action or
alternatively that the Court lacks jurisdiction due to insufficiency of process or the service thereof
and/or improper venue.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs have failed to commence this action within the time required by the
applicable statute of limitations, including but not limited to California Code of Civil Procedure
sections 337.1, 337.15, 338(a), 338(d), 340(3), 340.2 and 343.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ Decedent was careless and negligent in and about the matters
alleged in the complaint and said carelessness and negligence of Plaintiffs’ Decedent proximately
contributed to the happening of the accident, incident and occurrence alleged in the complaint, and
to the injuries, losses and damages complained of therein, if any there were, and said contributory
negligence bars a recovery or proportionately reduces any potential verdict.
2
DEFENDANT COLUMBIA MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.’S
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR SURVIVAL, WRONGFUL DEATH — ASBESTOSSEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ Decedent failed to mitigate his/her alleged damages, if any there
were.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that if Plaintiffs’ Decedent was injured by products used or installed at
Defendant's premises, which is denied, such injury occurred after the expiration of the useful safe
life of such products.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that if Plaintiffs’ Decedent suffered any damages, which are denied, such damages
were the sole and proximate result of an unavoidable accident.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that if Plaintiffs’ Decedent suffered any damages, which are denied, such damages
were caused and/or contributed to by Plaintiffs’ Decedent’s misuse of the product or products and.
Plaintiffs recovery should be barred or reduced accordingly.
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that if Plaintiffs’ Decedent suffered any damages, which are denied, such damages
were solely and proximately caused by material modifications or alterations of the product or
products involved in this action after it or they left the custody and control of Defendant.
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that any asbestos-containing product or products alleged to have caused Plaintiffs’
Decedent’s injuries were manufactured, used, installed and/or distributed in mandatory compliance
with specifications promulgated by the United States government under its war powers, as set forth
3
DEFENDANT COLUMBIA MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.’S
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR SURVIVAL, WRONGFUL DEATH — ASBESTOSin the U. S. Constitution, and that any recovery by Plaintiffs is barred as a consequence of the
exercise of those sovereign powers.
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that any product or products alleged by Plaintiffs’ Decedent to have caused their
injuries were manufactured, installed, used or distributed in compliance with specifications provided
by third parties to Defendant and/or in compliance with all applicable health and safety statutes and
regulations.
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that if Plaintiffs’ Decedent suffered any damages, which are denied, the risk of
any such damages was not foreseeable to Defendant. Defendant at all times material hereto acted in
accordance with the industry custom and practice and the state of scientific knowledge available to
manufacturers, installers and/or users of asbestos-containing products.
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that it received no notice of any dangerous, hazardous or defective condition or
any breach of warranty, either expressed or implied.
SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ Decedent’s claim against Defendant is barred by the holding of
Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689.
SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant, alleges that Plaintiffs claim against Defendant is barred by the holding of Hooker v.
Dept. of Transportation, (2002) 24 Cal.4"" 198, in that Defendant, a general contractor, did not retain
control over any independent contractor sufficient to affirmatively contribute to Plaintiffs’
Decedent’s alleged injuries.
4
DEFENDANT COLUMBIA MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.’S
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR SURVIVAL, WRONGFUL DEATH — ASBESTOSEIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ Decedent’s exposure to any asbestos-containing product or
products allegedly used or installed at Defendant's premises was minimal and insufficient to
establish the probability that said product or products were a legal cause of Plaintiffs’ Decedent’s
alleged injuries.
NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that this action is barred by the applicable state and/or federal industrial insurance
and/or Workers' Compensation laws, including, but not limited to, California Labor Code sections
3601 and 3602, and 33 U.S.C. Section 905.
TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that at the time of the injuries alleged in Plaintiffs’ complaint, Plaintiffs’ Decedent
JOHN CHULICK was employed by persons other than Defendant; was entitled to receive and did
receive Workers' Compensation benefits from said employer(s) or their insurers; and that said
employer(s) were negligent and careless in and about the matters referred to in Plaintiff's complaint.
Defendant is. therefore, entitled to set-off any such benefits received by Plaintiffs against any
judgment rendered in Plaintiffs favor and said employer(s) are barred from any recovery by lien or
otherwise against Defendant in connection with this matter.
TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ Decedent voluntarily and knowingly assumed the alleged risks and
hazards incident to the alleged operations, acts and conduct at the times and places alleged in
Plaintiffs complaint and that Plaintiffs’ Decedent’s said acts proximately caused and contributed to
the alleged damages, if any there were.
TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
5
DEFENDANT COLUMBIA MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.’S
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR SURVIVAL, WRONGFUL DEATH — ASBESTOSDefendant alleges that at all times relevant to the matters alleged in Plaintiffs’ complaint, Plaintiffs’
Decedent’s employers were sophisticated users of asbestos-containing products and said employers’
negligence in providing said products to its employees was a superseding and/or intervening cause of
Plaintiffs’ Decedent’s injuries, if any there were.
TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that there was no concert of action among Defendant and other defendants to this
action and that any alleged liability or responsibility of Defendant, which is denied, is minimal in
proportion to the alleged liability and responsibility of this person and entities including the other
defendants herein. Plaintiffs should therefore be limited to seeking recovery from Defendant for a
proportion of the alleged injuries and damages for which Defendant is allegedly liable or
responsible, all such alleged liability and responsibility being denied.
TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, to
the extent the complaint alleges that Defendant has “market share” liability or “enterprise liability”,
the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant.
TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that it is entitled to set-off any settlement, judgments, or similar amounts received
by Plaintiffs, against any judgment rendered against it in Plaintiffs favor.
TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges, in accordance with section 1431.2 of the Civil Code, known as the Fair
Responsibility Act of 1986, that if Plaintiffs complaint states a cause of action, each defendant is
liable, if at all, only for those non-economic damages allocated to each defendant in direct
proportion to each defendant's percentage of fault, if any. Defendant requests a judicial
determination of the amount of non-economic damages, if any. Defendant also requests a judicial
determination of the amount of non-economic damages, if any, allocated to Defendant in direct
6
DEFENDANT COLUMBIA MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.’S
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR SURVIVAL, WRONGFUL DEATH — ASBESTOSproportion to Defendant's percentage of fault, if any, and a separate judgment in conformance
therewith.
TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that the damages and injuries, if any, were proximately caused or contributed to,
in whole or in part, by the negligence or fault or other acts and/or omissions of persons or entities
other than Defendant, for which Defendant is not responsible.
TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that neither the complaint nor any purported causes of action alleged therein state
facts sufficient to entitle Plaintiffs to an award of punitive damages against Defendant.
TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs instant action is barred or, alternatively, merged into a prior cause
of action for which Plaintiffs have previously sued upon, recovered, and dismissed with prejudice,
thereby requiring a complete extinguishment of the instant action due to the doctrines of res judicata
and collateral estoppel.
THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs instant action is barred and discharged, pursuant to Title 11 U.S.C.
section 1141(d), and that Plaintiffs action violates the pending injunction against such claims that
exists, by operation of law, pursuant to Title 11 U.S.C. section 524(a)(2).
THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that its products were manufactured, produced, supplied, sold and distributed
pursuant to contract with the United States government, and that any recovery by Plaintiffs is barred
by consequence of the judicially recognized doctrine of immunity conferred upon that contractual
relationship and any occurrences arising therefrom.
7
DEFENDANT COLUMBIA MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.’S
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR SURVIVAL, WRONGFUL DEATH — ASBESTOSTHIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that the allegations of the complaint are uncertain, vague and ambiguous.
THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that the allegations of the complaint should be dismissed pursuant to sections
583.210 through 583.250, and 583.410 through 583.430 of the California Code of Civil Procedure,
and other applicable code sections.
THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that it does not have and never has had a successor, successor-in-business,
successor-in-product line or portion thereof, successor-in-interest, assignee, predecessor,
predecessor-in-business, predecessor-in-product line or portion thereof, predecessor-in-interest,
partner, subsidiary, whole or partial or ownership or membership relationship with the entity upon
which Plaintiffs base their allegations of liability.
THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that it did not have a sufficient market share with respect to products and materials
which Plaintiffs allegedly caused the alleged injuries and damages. Defendant may not be held
liable to Plaintiffs for any alleged share of said market or upon any theory premised upon market-
share liability.
THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that if Plaintiffs’ Decedent sustained injuries or damages attributable to the use of
any product researched, tested, studied, manufactured, fabricated, inadequately researched, designed,
inadequately tested, labeled, assembled, distributed, leased, bought, offered for sale, sold, inspected,
serviced, installed, contracted for installation, repaired, marketed, warranted, arranged, rebranded,
manufactured for others, packaged, advertised and/or which contained or lacked warnings by
8
DEFENDANT COLUMBIA MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.’S
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR SURVIVAL, WRONGFUL DEATH — ASBESTOSDefendant, which allegations are expressly denied, the injuries or damages were proximately caused
by the unreasonable and unforeseeable misuse, abuse, alteration, or improper maintenance of the
product by Plaintiffs’ Decedent or by others.
THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that at all times mentioned, Plaintiffs’ Decedent consented to the alleged acts of
Defendant.
THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that all claims asserted by Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ Decedent were proximately
caused by a superseding, intervening cause.
THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that the entire complaint and each cause of action thereof, is barred on the grounds
that the products or materials referred to in the complaint, if any, were not a substantial factor in
bringing about the injuries and damages alleged by Plaintiffs.
FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to an award of punitive or exemplary damages in
this action. Such an award would be unconstitutional unless Defendant is accorded the safeguards
provided under the Constitution of the State of California and the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that to the extent Plaintiffs’ Decedent’s claims arise out of contract Plaintiffs
claims do not state facts sufficient to entitle Plaintiffs to an award of punitive or exemplary damages
against Defendant.
If
9
DEFENDANT COLUMBIA MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.’S
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR SURVIVAL, WRONGFUL DEATH — ASBESTOSFORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ Decedent, at all times mentioned, was not in privity of contract
with Defendant, and that said lack of privity bars any recovery by Plaintiffs against Defendant under
any theory of breach of warranty.
FORTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ Decedent failed to give adequate and timely notice of any alleged
breach of warranty.
FORTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs entire complaint, is barred by the Statute of Frauds to the extent that
any such causes of action are based on alleged oral agreements.
FORTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that all products and materials researched, tested, studied, manufactured,
fabricated, inadequately researched, designed, inadequately tested, labeled, assembled, distributed,
leased, bought, offered for sale, sold, inspected, serviced, installed, contracted for installation,
repaired, marketed, warranted, arranged, rebranded, manufactured for others, packaged, advertised
and/or which contained or lacked warnings by Defendant which allegations are expressly denied,
were not defective in any manner, as said products and materials conformed with the state-of-the-art
in existence at all times mentioned in the complaint.
FORTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that its alleged actions, which are the subject of the complaint, were lawful.
FORTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that its alleged actions, which are the subject of the complaint, were justified.
10
DEFENDANT COLUMBIA MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.’S
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR SURVIVAL, WRONGFUL DEATH — ASBESTOSFORTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs lack standing to sue Defendant.
FORTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that any danger or defect on the premises was obvious or could have been
observed by Plaintiffs’ Decedent’s exercise of reasonable care.
FIFTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that it warned Plaintiffs’ Decedent’s employers of all dangers on the premises
known to Defendant.
FIFTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs have improperly split their causes of action and seeks to maintain a
duplicative lawsuit based on the same facts and circumstances as a lawsuit previously filed.
FIFTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that it presently has insufficient knowledge or information on which to form a
belief as to whether it may have additional, as yet unstated, defenses available. Defendant reserves
the right to assert additional defenses in the event discovery indicates that they would be appropriate.
WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for judgment as follows:
1. That Plaintiff takes nothing by reason of their complaint herein;
2. That judgment is entered in favor of Defendant;
3. For costs of suit incurred herein;
4. For appropriate credits and set-offs arising out of any payment of Workers!
Compensation benefits as alleged above;
5. For a judicial determination of the amount of non-economic damages, if any,
allocated to Defendant in direct proportion the Defendant’s percentage of fault, if any, and a separate
11
DEFENDANT COLUMBIA MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.’S
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR SURVIVAL, WRONGFUL DEATH — ASBESTOSjudgment in conformance therewith; and
6. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 631, COLUMBIA MECHANICAL
CONTRACTORS, INC. hereby gives Notice of Its Request for Trial by Jury.
DATED: March 8, 2019
By:
FOLEY & MANSFIELD, PLLP
ChA—
Douglas G. Wah
Christine L. Hawkins
Attorneys for Defendant
COLUMBIA MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.
12
DEFENDANT COLUMBIA MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.’S
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR SURVIVAL, WRONGFUL DEATH — ASBESTOSCarol Chulick (WD John), et al. v_ Riley Power Inc., et al.
San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-19-276757
PROOF OF SERVICE
BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION
I am employed in the County of Contra Costa, State of California. I am over the age of 18
and not a party to the within action; my business address is 2185 North California Boulevard,
Suite 575, Walnut Creek, CA 94596.
On the date executed below, I served the foregoing document(s) on the interested parties in
this action as follows:
DEFENDANT COLUMBIA MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.’S
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR SURVIVAL, WRONGFUL
DEATH — ASBESTOS
& BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: Pursuant to San Francisco Court General
Order No. 158, CCP 1010.6 and CRC 2.251, or pursuant to the Stipulation and Order
Authorizing Electronic Service, or by an agreement of the parties, I electronically served
through File & ServeXpress and caused the document(s) to be sent to the person(s) at
the email addresses designated on the Transaction Receipt located on the File &
ServeXpress website. To the best of my knowledge, at the time of the transmission, the
transmission was reported as complete and without error.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is
true and correct.
Executed on March 8, 2019, at Walnut Creek, California.
“Pacuneale OSLO wee
Michelle C. Arslanian
PROOF OF SERVICE