Answer: CHARLES H. LARSON ET AL VS. ASBESTOS COMPANIES ET AL

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                1     Emily Bergstrom (SB # 191395)
                          ebergstrom@bhc.law
                    2     Kurt T. Putnam (SB # 224416)
                          kputnam@bhc.law                                                                        ELECTRONICALLY
                    3     BHC LAW GROUP LLP                                                                         F  I  L   E  D
                          5900 Hollis Street, Suite O                                                            Superior Court of California,
                    4     Emeryville, CA 94608                                                                    County of San Francisco
                          Telephone: (510) 658-3600                                                                  04/19/2021
                    5     Facsimile:    (510) 658-1151                                                           Clerk of the Court
                                                                                                                   BY: BOWMAN LIU
                    6     Attorneys for Defendant                                                                             Deputy Clerk

                          WEIR VALVES & CONTROLS USA, INC. fka
                    7     ATWOOD & MORRILL

                    8
                                               SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
                    9
                                                      FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
                  10

                  11      BARBARA LARSON MELTON,                                       Case No. CGC-17-276562
                          Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to
                  12      CHARLES H. LARSON, Decedent,                                 DEFENDANT WEIR VALVES &
                          and DAVID LARSON,                                            CONTROLS USA, INC.’S ANSWER TO
                  13                                                                   PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED
                                             Plaintiffs,                               COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
                  14
                                   vs.
                  15
                          ASBESTOS COMPANIES, et al,
                  16
                                             Defendants.
                  17

                  18

                  19               Defendant     WEIR     VALVES       &  CONTROLS         USA,    INC.   fka  ATWOOD         &   MORRILL,

                  20      named as DOE 2 (“WEIR” or “Defendant”) answers DOROTHY A. LARSON, Individually and

                  21      as  Successor-in-Interest      to   CHARLES        H.   LARSON,       Decedent,     PAUL      LARSON,       DAVID
     BHC
     LAW          22      LARSON,       and  BARBARA         CHARLENE         MELTON        (“plaintiffs”)  Second    Amended      Complaint
     GROUP LLP
     ________
                  23
     5900 Hollis Street
                          for Damages, herein, as amended, now or in the future, or otherwise admits, denies, and alleges as
     Suite O
                  24
     Emeryville, CA
     94608
                          follows.
                       5
     510-658-3600
                  25                                                       DEFINITIONS

                  26               The   word   “plaintiffs,”  as  used  herein,  shall  include   the  plural  (e.g., plaintiffs)  as well  as

                  27      the singular (e.g.,   plaintiff)  and the feminine as      well as the masculine, as       may be appropriate       to

                  28      the particular context in which the word appears. Whenever “plaintiff” “or plaintiffs” are used in
                                                                                   -1-
                          DEFENDANT WEIR VALVES & CONTROLS USA, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED
                                                                    COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
                    1     this answer, it embraces each plaintiff named in any complaint in response to which some, or all,

                    2     of  this Answer     has  been   adopted,    individually   and   collectively,   plus  the  words,    “and   each  of

                    3     them,”    as well   as  decedent,    and   all other   family   members      upon   whose    alleged   exposure     to

                    4     asbestos plaintiffs base their claim decedent’s exposure.

                    5              Whenever      “decedent”    is  used   in this  answer,    it refers  to  the  deceased    CHARLES        H.

                    6     LARSON.

                    7              When    the  context   so  requires,  references    to the  masculine    gender   includes   the  feminine

                    8     and   neuter,  the  feminine    gender    includes   the  masculine     and  neuter,   the  singular   includes   the

                    9     pleural, and the pleural includes the singular.

                  10                                                   GENERAL DENIAL

                  11               Pursuant    to  California   Code    of  Civil  Procedure     (“CCP”)    §  431.30,    Defendant     hereby

                  12      denies, generally and specifically, each and every allegation contained in the Complaint, and each

                  13      and every alleged cause of action thereof and denies that plaintiff and/or decedent were injured or

                  14      damaged in any manner by the acts or omissions of Defendant, if any, and denies that Defendant

                  15      is legally responsible for any injuries or damages that may have been suffered by plaintiffs and/or

                  16      decedent.

                  17                                              AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

                  18               As affirmative defenses to each cause of action:

                  19               1.       This  answering     Defendant    alleges   that the  Complaint,    and   each  and   every cause

                  20      of  action  therein,  fails  to state  facts  sufficient  to  constitute  a  cause   of action,  or  any   cause  of
                  21      action, against Defendant.
     BHC
     LAW          22               2.       This answering Defendant alleges that plaintiffs were negligent and unreasonable
     GROUP LLP
     ________
                  23
     5900 Hollis Street
                          in or about the matters alleged in the complaint, and that such matters actually and proximately
     Suite O
                  24
     Emeryville, CA
     94608                caused    all or  part  of  plaintiffs  and/or   decedent’    claimed    injuries   and  damages,     if any.   Any
                       5
     510-658-3600
                  25      damages    which    plaintiffs  seek  to recover   from   Defendant     must   be reduced    in proportion    to the

                  26      extent   that  plaintiff  and/or   decedent’    own    negligence    contributed    to  the  claimed    injuries  or
                  27      damages.

                  28
                                                                                   -2-
                          DEFENDANT WEIR VALVES & CONTROLS USA, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED
                                                                    COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
                    1              3.       This   answering    Defendant     alleges   that  the  injuries,  losses,  or  damages,    if  any

                    2     there were, to plaintiff and/or decedent were aggravated due to plaintiff and/or decedent’s failure

                    3     to use reasonable diligence to mitigate them.

                    4              4.       This answering Defendant alleges that defect in the product, if any, alleged in the

                    5     Complaint, was known to plaintiffs, who used said product after full knowledge of said alleged

                    6     defect,   if any;  that,  as  a  result,  plaintiffs  and/or   decedent    are  barred   from    recovery    herein,

                    7     proportionately or     totally,  in that decedent    voluntarily   exposed    himself   to  a known    danger    and

                    8     thereby assumed the risk of any injury or damage resulting from that injury.

                    9              5.       This answering Defendant alleges           that plaintiffs  and/or decedent     knew, or in the

                  10      exercise    of  ordinary    care   should   have    known,     of  the  risks   and   hazards    involved    in  the

                  11      undertaking in which he was engaged, but nevertheless, and knowing these things, did freely and

                  12      voluntarily consent to assume the risks and hazards incident to said operations, acts, and conduct

                  13      at the time and place alleged in the Complaint.

                  14               6.       This   answering     Defendant     alleges   that  the  damages     and   injuries  of  plaintiffs

                  15      and/or   decedent,   if any,  were   proximately     caused   or contributed    to, in  whole   or in  part, by the

                  16      negligence or fault or other acts and/or omissions of persons or entities other than Defendant, for

                  17      which Defendant is not responsible.

                  18               7.       This  answering     Defendant     alleges   that if  plaintiffs  and/or   decedent   suffered   or

                  19      sustained   any loss,   injury,  damage    or  detriment,   the  same   was   directly and   proximately caused

                  20      and   contributed   to  by  the  conduct,   acts,  omissions,    activities,  carelessness,   negligence,    and/or
                  21      intentional   misconduct      of  plaintiff  and/or   decedent,    thereby    completely     or  partially  barring
     BHC
     LAW          22      plaintiff’s and/or decedent’s recovery herein.
     GROUP LLP
     ________
                  23
     5900 Hollis Street
                                   8.       This answering Defendant alleges that other parties and third persons not parties
     Suite O
                  24
     Emeryville, CA
     94608                to this action were negligent or legally responsible or otherwise at fault for the damages alleged
                       5
     510-658-3600
                  25      in  plaintiffs’  Complaint.      Defendant    therefore    requests   that, in  the  event   of a  finding   of  any

                  26      liability in favor of plaintiff, or settlement or judgment against this Defendant, an apportionment
                  27      of fault be made among all parties as permitted by Li v. Yellow Cab Company (1975) 13 Cal.3d

                  28      804   and  American     Motorcycle     Assn.  v.  Superior   Court   (1978)    20  Cal.3d   578,  by  the  court  or
                                                                                   -3-
                          DEFENDANT WEIR VALVES & CONTROLS USA, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED
                                                                    COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
                    1     jury.  Defendant     further   requests   a  judgment     and   declaration    of  partial  indemnification      and

                    2     contribution against all other parties or persons in accordance with the apportionment of fault.

                    3              9.       This answering Defendant alleges that plaintiffs failed to file the complaint during

                    4     the  applicable   period   of  limitations   so  that  the complaint     is barred   by  the  provisions   of  CCP

                    5     §§ 335.1, 340.2, 340.8, 343, 377.10, 377.11, 583.110, 583.210, 583.310 et seq., 583.410 et seq.,

                    6     and Commercial Code § 2725.

                    7              10.      This   answering     Defendant      alleges   that   the  alleged    injuries   or  damages     of

                    8     plaintiffs  and/or   decedent,    if any,  were   solely  attributable   to  the  unreasonable,     unforeseeable,

                    9     inappropriate and unintended use to which the product(s) in the Complaint were subjected.

                  10               11.      This   answering     Defendant      alleges   that  any   product    or  products     alleged   by

                  11      plaintiff  to have   caused   decedent’s    injuries  were   misused,    abused    or altered  by   plaintiff or  by

                  12      others, which misuse, abuse or altercation was not reasonably foreseeable to Defendant, and such

                  13      misuse,    abuse    or  altercation    proximately     caused    plaintiffs’   and/or    decedent’s     injuries   or

                  14      damages, if any.

                  15               12.      This   answering     Defendant     alleges  that  that  the  products    alleged   in  plaintiffs’

                  16      Complaint     were   materially    altered  or  changed    by   a party   other  than   Defendant,    and   without

                  17      permission of Defendant, such alteration or change creating the alleged defect, if any, which was

                  18      the proximate or legal cause of plaintiff’s and/or decedent’s injuries or damages, if any.

                  19               13.      This answering Defendant alleges that the provisions of Civil Code § 1431.2 are

                  20      applicable to the Complaint and each cause of action therein.
                  21               14.      This answering Defendant alleges           that plaintiffs’ claims are estopped and        barred
     BHC
     LAW          22      by res judicata, collateral estoppel, issue preclusion, and/or release.
     GROUP LLP
     ________
                  23
     5900 Hollis Street
                                   15.      This answering Defendant alleges that, as a result of the matters alleged, plaintiffs
     Suite O
                  24
     Emeryville, CA
     94608                and/or   decedent    received   Workers’     Compensation      benefits   from   an  employer     or its insurance
                       5
     510-658-3600
                  25      carrier, or both, in an amount not yet definitely ascertained and determined; that the total amount

                  26      of these payments is not yet known to this Defendant and leave of court will be sought to amend
                  27      this answer when the amount is determined; that by virtue of Labor Code §§ 3850 and 3852, and

                  28      related sections, the    employer     and its insurance    carrier are subrogated to the rights of plaintiffs
                                                                                   -4-
                          DEFENDANT WEIR VALVES & CONTROLS USA, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED
                                                                    COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
                    1     for  any  and   all monies    plaintiffs  may    receive   from   this Defendant     up  to  the  amount    paid   to

                    2     plaintiffs;  that  the  plaintiffs’   and/or   decedent’s    injuries   and   damages     arose  as  a  direct   and

                    3     proximate    result  of  the  negligence    and   carelessness    of  decedent’s    employers,    and   decedent’s

                    4     employers     and  its insurance   carrier  are  not  entitled  to reimbursement       for monies    paid  or  to be

                    5     paid to plaintiffs and/or decedent; and in the event of any judgment in favor of plaintiffs against

                    6     this  Defendant,    it should    be  reduced    by  the  amounts     paid  or  to  be  paid  to  plaintiffs  and/or

                    7     decedent by decedent’s employers or their insurance carriers.

                    8              16.      This answering Defendant alleges that plaintiffs and/or decedent consented to the

                    9     acts and events set forth in plaintiffs’ Complaint.

                  10               17.      This   answering     Defendant      alleges   that  the   injuries   and   damages     of   which

                  11      plaintiffs’  complain    were   solely the   responsibility of    intervening causes     and/or   the  superseding

                  12      acts of others and that this Defendant’s conduct, if any, was not the proximate or legal cause of

                  13      the injuries or damages alleged.

                  14               18.      This answering Defendant alleges that the State of California’s judicially created

                  15      definitions   of  manufacturing      defect  and   design   defect   and  standards    for  determining    whether

                  16      there has been an actionable failure to warn are unconstitutional in that, among other things, they

                  17      are  void    for  vagueness     and   an   undue    burden     upon   interstate   commerce,      as   well   as  an

                  18      impermissible     effort  to  regulate  in  an  area  that  has  previously    been   preempted     by  the  federal

                  19      government.

                  20               19.      This answering Defendant alleges that the products complained of were as safe as
                  21      could be designed under the state of technology and medical and scientific knowledge existing at
     BHC
     LAW          22      the  time   the  products    were   manufactured      and   were   not   defective   in  any   legally   actionable
     GROUP LLP
     ________
                  23
     5900 Hollis Street
                          manner.
     Suite O
                  24
     Emeryville, CA
     94608                         20.      This answering Defendant alleges that that at all times relevant, Defendant’s acts
                       5
     510-658-3600
                  25      and  omissions,    if any,  were   in conformity     with  all government      statutes  and  regulations    and  all

                  26      industry   standards    based    upon   the   state  of  knowledge      existing   at  the  time   of  the  acts  or
                  27      omissions.

                  28
                                                                                   -5-
                          DEFENDANT WEIR VALVES & CONTROLS USA, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED
                                                                    COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
                    1              21.      This  answering     Defendant     alleges  that  plaintiffs  are  barred   and  precluded    from

                    2     any   recovery    in  this  action   because    Defendant,     at all  times,   complied    with   the   applicable

                    3     standard of care.

                    4              22.      This   answering    Defendant     alleges   that  this  action  is barred   by   the  exclusivity

                    5     provisions     of   the  applicable     state   and/or    federal   industrial    insurance     and/or    Workers’

                    6     Compensation laws, including, but not limited to, Labor Code §§ 3600, 3602, 4401-4418.

                    7              23.      This answering Defendant alleges that the complaint and each and every cause of

                    8     action   therein   arose   in another    state  and   by  the   laws   thereof   an  action   thereon    cannot   be

                    9     maintained against this answering Defendant within said state by reason of the lapse of time, and

                  10      therefore an action thereon cannot be maintained against this answering Defendant in the State of

                  11      California pursuant to CCP § 361.

                  12               24.      This   answering     Defendant     alleges   that  plaintiffs  unreasonably      delayed   in  the

                  13      commencement        of  this action   to the  prejudice   of  Defendant,    whereby     the  complaint    and  each

                  14      cause of action therein are barred by the doctrine of laches.

                  15               25.      This   answering     Defendant     alleges    that  plaintiffs’  claims    are  barred    because

                  16      decedent    was    a sophisticated     user  who    knew    or  should    have   known     of  the  potential    risk

                  17      associated with using products containing asbestos, if any.             Defendant did not have an obligation

                  18      to warn   a  sophisticated    user, if any   such  warning    was   warranted,    about   the alleged   dangers   of

                  19      which decedent already knew or should have known.

                  20               26.      This   answering     Defendant     alleges    that  plaintiffs’  claims    are  barred    because
                  21      decedent’s    employers,     unions,   or certain   third  parties  yet  to  be  identified,  were   sophisticated
     BHC
     LAW          22      users   and/or   learned   intermediaries     and   were   in  a  better  position    to  warn   decedent    of  the
     GROUP LLP
     ________
                  23
     5900 Hollis Street
                          potential   risk associated   with   using  products    containing   asbestos    and,  assuming    a warning    was
     Suite O
                  24
     Emeryville, CA
     94608                required,   it was   the   failure  of  such   persons   or  entities  to  give   such   warnings    that  was   the
                       5
     510-658-3600
                  25      proximate    and   superseding    cause   of plaintiff’s  and/or   decedent’s    injuries  and   damages,    if any.

                  26      (Restatement     (Third)   of Torts   Products   Liability,  §  2; Webb    v.  Special  Electric   Company,     Inc.
                  27      (2016) 63 Cal.4th 167.)

                  28
                                                                                   -6-
                          DEFENDANT WEIR VALVES & CONTROLS USA, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED
                                                                    COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
                    1              27.      This answering Defendant alleges that pursuant to the equitable doctrine of forum

                    2     non conveniens and CCP § 410.30, California is an improper forum of this action because in the

                    3     interests  of  fairness  and   convenience,     this action   should   be  appropriately    and   justly tried  in  a

                    4     forum outside California.

                    5              28.      This  answering     Defendant     alleges  that  decedent’s    employers     were   obligated   by

                    6     OSHA regulations, Cal-OSHA regulations and/or other applicable legal requirements in place at

                    7     the time of the alleged exposure, to provide a safe working environment for plaintiffs, and their

                    8     failure   to  do   so  directly   and   proximately      caused    and/or   contributed    to   plaintiffs’  and/or

                    9     decedent’s injuries and damages alleged herein.

                  10               29.      This   answering    Defendant     alleges   that  plaintiffs  have   failed   to join  necessary

                  11      and/or indispensable parties to this action, and/or misjoined parties.

                  12               30.      This   answering     Defendant     alleges   that   exposure    to  Defendant’s     products    or

                  13      materials,   if  any,  was   so  minimal     as  to  be  insufficient   to  establish   a  reasonable    degree   of

                  14      probability    that any   such   product    or material    caused   any   alleged   injury,  damage,     or  loss  to

                  15      plaintiff and/or decedent.

                  16               31.      This  answering     Defendant    alleges   that  neither  the  Complaint     nor  any  purported

                  17      causes of action alleged therein state facts sufficient to entitle           plaintiffs to an award of punitive

                  18      damages against Defendant.

                  19               32.      This   answering     Defendant     alleges   that  any   claim    for  punitive   or  exemplary

                  20      damages     is barred    by  the  United    States  Constitution,    including    the  First,  Fifth,  Eighth    and
                  21      Fourteenth Amendments, and by the California Constitution, including Article I,                     and California
     BHC
     LAW          22      Civil Code § 3294 is invalid on its face or as applied in this action.
     GROUP LLP
     ________
                  23
     5900 Hollis Street
                                   33.      This answering Defendant alleges           that it presently has insufficient knowledge or
     Suite O
                  24
     Emeryville, CA
     94608                information    on  which    to form   a  belief as  to  whether   it may   have   additional,   as  yet unasserted
                       5
     510-658-3600
                  25      defense available, and, therefore, Defendant reserves the right to assert additional defenses in the

                  26      event discovery indicates that they would be appropriate.
                  27               34.      This  answering     Defendant    alleges   as  to each   and  every   cause   of action,   that the

                  28      equipment it sold was manufactured in strict compliance with detailed government specifications
                                                                                   -7-
                          DEFENDANT WEIR VALVES & CONTROLS USA, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED
                                                                    COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
                    1     and  that  the  hazards   associated   with   the use   of its products,   if any,  were   known    equally,   if not

                    2     more, by the government than by Weir. Weir is immune from suit for any acts and/or omissions

                    3     performed under the direction of federal officers, including the manufacture of products pursuant

                    4     to  the   direction   and   specification    of   federal   officers,  in   accordance     with   the   government

                    5     contractor doctrine set forth in Boyle v. United Tech. Corp. (1988) 487 U.S. 500, and Sundstrom

                    6     v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (N.D. Cal. 1993) 816 F.Supp. 587.

                    7

                    8              WHEREFORE, this answering Defendant prays as follows:

                    9              1.       That plaintiffs take nothing by reason of the complaint on file herein;

                  10               2.       That WEIR VALVES & CONTROLS USA, INC., be dismissed with an award of

                  11                        its costs of suit incurred herein;

                  12               3.       For   appropriate    credits   and   set-offs  arising   out  of   any  payment     of   Workers’

                  13                        Compensation benefits, or otherwise, as alleged above;

                  14               4.       For  appropriate    credits   and  set-offs   arising  from   allocation    of liability  to  other

                  15                        named and unnamed tortfeasors; and

                  16               5.       For such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper.

                  17

                  18
                          Dated: April 19, 2021                                       BHC LAW GROUP LLP
                  19

                  20                                                           By:
                                                                                      Emily D. Bergstrom
                  21                                                                  Kurt T. Putnam
     BHC                                                                              Attorneys for Defendant
     LAW          22                                                                  WEIR VALVES & CONTROLS USA, INC.
     GROUP LLP
     ________                                                                         fka ATWOOD & MORRILL
                  23
     5900 Hollis Street
     Suite O
                  24
     Emeryville, CA
     94608
                       5
     510-658-3600
                  25

                  26
                  27

                  28
                                                                                   -8-
                          DEFENDANT WEIR VALVES & CONTROLS USA, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED
                                                                    COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
                    1
                                             PROOF OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION
                    2                               Dorothy A. Larson, et al. v. Asbestos Companies, et al.
                                              San Francisco County Superior Court Case No. CGC-17-276562
                    3
                                   I, Jerry M. Dumlao, declare that I am, and was at the time of service of the documents
                    4     herein referred to, over the age of 18 years, and not a party to the action; and I am employed in
                    5     the County of Alameda, State of California.           My business address is 5900 Hollis Street, Suite O,
                          Emeryville, California 94608.
                    6
                                   On April 19, 2021, I electronically transmitting the document(s) listed below to File &
                    7     ServeXpress, an electronic filing service provider at www.fileandservexpress.com on the
                          recipients designated on the Transmission Receipt located on File & Serve’s website.                    To my
                    8     knowledge, the transmission was reported as complete and without error.                  See Cal. R. Ct. R. 2053,
                    9     2055, 2060.

                  10               DEFENDANT WEIR VALVES & CONTROLS USA, INC.’S ANSWER TO
                                   PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
                  11
                          I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
                  12      is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on April 19, 2021, at Emeryville,
                  13      California.

                  14
                                                                                         __________________
                  15                                                                     Jerry M. Dumlao
                  16

                  17

                  18

                  19

                  20
                  21
   BHC
   LAW            22
   GROUP LLP
   ________
                  23
   5900 Hollis Street
   Suite O
   Emeryville, CA
   94608
                  24
   510-658-3600

                  25

                  26
                  27

                  28


                                                                         PROOF OF SERVICE