Preview
SPENCER Y. KOOK (SBN 205304)
skook@hinshawlaw.com
~ ELECTRONICALLY
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
633 West Sth Street, 47th Floor FILED
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2043 Supertor Court of Caltfornta,
Telephone: 213-680-2800 04/18/2017
Facsimile: 213-614-7399 Clerk of the Court
BY:EDWARD SANTOS
TRAVIS WALL (SBN 191662) Deputy Clerk
twall@hinshawlaw.com
JARED W. MATHESON (SBN 275459)
jmatheson@hinshawlaw.com
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
One California Street, 18th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: 415-362-6000
Facsimile: 415-834-9070
Attorneys for Defendants APPLIED UNDERWRITERS, INC., APPLIED UNDERWRITERS
CAPTIVE RISK ASSURANCE COMPANY, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY,
CONTINENTAL INDEMNITY COMPANY and APPLIED RISK SERVICES, INC.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
WARWICK AMUSEMENTS CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation, WARWICK CALIFORNIA
CORPORATION, a California corporation,
WARWICK DENVER CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation, WSF BEVERAGE
CORPORATION, a California corporation,
WARWICK MELROSE DALLAS
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation,
SILVER AUTUMN HOTEL (N.Y.)
CORPORATION, LTD., a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. CGC-16-551614
)
)
)
) DEFENDANTS APPLIED
) UNDERWRITERS, INC., APPLIED
) UNDERWRITERS CAPTIVE RISK
) ASSURANCE COMPANY, INC.,
) CALIFORNIA INSURANCE
) COMPANY, CONTINENTAL
) INDEMNITY COMPANY AND
) APPLIED RISK SERVICES, INC.’S
) ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST
i ) (AMENDED COMPLAINT
APPLIED UNDERWRITERS, INC., a Nebraska )
corporation, APPLIED UNDERWRITERS ;
CAPTIVE RISK ASSURANCE COMPANY, J
INC., an Iowa corporation, CALIFORNIA )
INSURANCE COMPANY, a California )
corporation, CONTINENTAL INDEMNITY )
COMPANY, an Iowa corporation, APPLIED RISK )
SERVICES, INC., a New York corporation, and
DOES | through 50, inclusive , }
)
)
Defendants.
First Amended Complaint Filed:
May 19, 2016
APPLIED DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case No. CGC-16-551614Defendants Applied Underwriters, Inc., Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance
Company, Inc., California Insurance Company, Continental Indemnity Company and Applied Risk
Services, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”), answer the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) of
Plaintiffs Warwick California Corporation and WSF Beverage Corporation (“Plaintiffs”) as
follows: !
GENERAL DENIAL
Defendants, in answer to Plaintiffs’ FAC and, by virtue of California Code of Civil
Procedure section 431.30(d), hereby deny generally and specifically each and every allegation
contained in the FAC. Defendants further deny generally and specifically that Plaintiffs are entitled
to any relief requested in the FAC or to an award of costs or any other recovery by reason of any
action, conduct, and/or omission by Defendants.
In addition to their answer, Defendants allege the following affirmative defenses:
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to State a Cause of Action)
The FAC, and each and every purported cause of action set forth therein, fails to set forth
facts sufficient to constitute any cause of action against Defendants.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Statute of Limitations — California)
The FAC, and each and every purported cause of action set forth therein, is barred in whole
or in part by the applicable statute of limitations, including without limitation California Code of
Civil Procedure sections 337(1), 337(3), 338(d), 339(1), 339(3), and 343.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Statute of Limitations — Nebraska)
The FAC, and each and every purported cause of action set forth therein, is barred in whole
or in part by the applicable statute of limitation, including without limitation Nebraska Revised
' Defendants are not answering as to the causes of action asserted by the other named Plaintiffs since
this action has been stayed as to them. Nothing in this Answer should be construed as a waiver of
any rights or defenses as to the other named Plaintiffs.
1
APPLIED DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case No. CGC-16-551614Statute sections 25-205(1), 25-206, 25-207(3), 25-207(4), § 25-211, and 25-212.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Laches)
Plaintiffs unreasonably delayed in providing notice and in commencing and prosecuting this
action which caused unfair prejudice to Defendants barring any recovery against Defendants under
the equitable doctrine of laches.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to Mitigate Damages)
To the extent that Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate, minimize, or avoid any damages they
allegedly sustained, recovery against Defendants, if any, must be reduced by that amount.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Plaintiffs’ Failure to Perform Obligations)
To the extent that Plaintiffs failed to perform all of their obligations under their agreements
with Defendants, Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Waiver)
Through their actions and omissions, Plaintiffs have waived their claims set forth in the FAC
and the action is thereby barred in whole or in part.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Estoppel)
Plaintiffs are estopped to assert the claims set forth in the FAC, and the action is thereby
barred in whole or in part.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Unclean Hands)
Plaintiffs have unclean hands with regard to the transactions and matters referred to in the
FAC, and as a result Plaintiffs’ claims in the FAC are barred in whole or in part.
2
APPLIED DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case No. CGC-16-551614TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Wrongdoing of Plaintiffs)
If Plaintiffs are entitled to any recovery against Defendants, which Defendants deny, then the
alleged damages sought by Plaintiffs, if any, were caused by their own acts or omissions, not
Defendants’, and Plaintiffs are responsible, in whole or in part, for any damages or other relief
purportedly sought by Plaintiffs as a result of the matters referred to in the FAC.
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Third Parties’ Acts/Omissions)
Plaintiffs’ alleged damages were proximately caused or contributed to by the acts or
omissions of Plaintiffs and/or of other persons or entities, and not by Defendants.
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Setoff)
To the extent Plaintiffs incurred any damages, that damages amount should be reduced or
eliminated under the setoff doctrine.
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Consent and Ratification)
Plaintiffs were fully advised concerning the conduct, events and matters alleged in the FAC.
Plaintiffs consented to and ratified the actions of Defendants concerning the conduct, events and
matters alleged. As a result, Plaintiffs are barred from recovering damages, if any.
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Violation of Due Process)
The claim for punitive damages against Defendants in the FAC violates Defendants’ right to
due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and
under the California Constitution, and therefore any claim for punitive or exemplary damages
against Defendants fails to state any cause of action for which either punitive or exemplary damages
may be awarded.
3
APPLIED DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case No. CGC-16-551614FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Excessive Fines; Violation of Substantive Due Process)
The claim for punitive or exemplary damages against Defendants in the FAC violates their
right to protection from excessive fines as provided by the Eighth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, and Article I, Section 18, of the California Constitution, and therefore each and every
cause of action that seeks punitive or exemplary damages violates Defendants’ rights to substantive
due process as provided by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution
and the California Constitution and therefore fails to state any cause of action for which either
punitive or exemplary damages may be awarded.
SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Punitive Damages Impermissible Vague)
The allegations of a claim for punitive or exemplary damages against Defendants made in the
FAC are impermissibly vague, ambiguous, imprecise and inconsistent with the constitutional rights
of Defendants and therefore each such claim or cause of action which seeks the imposition of
punitive or exemplary damages fails to state a cause of action upon which either punitive or
exemplary damages may be awarded.
SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Additional Defenses)
Plaintiffs have failed to allege and describe the claims made against Defendants with
sufficient particularity to enable Defendants to determine each and every defense they may have
against Plaintiffs. Defendants therefore reserve the right to assert all defenses, including affirmative
defenses, which may be discovered or become relevant once the precise nature of Plaintiffs’ claims
is ascertained.
WHEREFORE, Defendants pray:
1. That Plaintiffs take nothing by reason of the FAC herein;
2. That Defendants be granted judgment against Plaintiffs;
3. That Defendants recover costs of suit including attorney fees incurred herein; and
4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.
4
APPLIED DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case No. CGC-16-551614Dated: April 18, 2017
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
By:
SPENCER Y. KOOK
TRAVIS WALL
JARED W. MATHESON
Attorneys for Defendants APPLIED
UNDERWRITERS, INC., APPLIED
UNDERWRITERS CAPTIVE RISK
ASSURANCE COMPANY, INC.,
CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY,
CONTINENTAL INDEMNITY COMPANY
and APPLIED RISK SERVICES, INC.
5
APPLIED DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case No. CGC-16-551614CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
WARWICK AMUSEMENTS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, WARWICK
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, a California corporation, WARWICK DENVER
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, WSF BEVERAGE CORPORATION, a California
corporation, WARWICK MELROSE DALLAS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation,
SILVER AUTUMN HOTEL (N.Y.) CORPORATION, LTD., a Delaware corporation v.
APPLIED UNDERWRITERS, INC., a Nebraska corporation, APPLIED UNDERWRITERS
CAPTIVE RISK ASSURANCE COMPANY, INC., an Iowa corporation, CALIFORNIA
INSURANCE COMPANY, a California corporation, CONTINENTAL INDEMNITY
COMPANY, an Iowa corporation, APPLIED RISK SERVICES, INC., a New York
corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive
CGC-16-551614
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO:
Iam a citizen of the United States and employed in San Francisco, California, at the office of
a member of the bar of this Court at whose direction this service was made. I am over the age of 18
and not a party to the within actions; my business address is One California Street, 18th Floor, San
Francisco, California 94111.
On April 18, 2017, I served the following document(s), on the interested parties in this action
as stated below:
© DEFENDANTS APPLIED UNDERWRITERS, INC., APPLIED
UNDERWRITERS CAPTIVE RISK ASSURANCE COMPANY, INC.,
CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY, CONTINENTAL INDEMNITY
COMPANY AND APPLIED RISK SERVICES, INC.’°S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Nicholas P. Roxborough, Esq.
Joseph C. Gjonola, Esq.
Ryan R. Salsig, Esq.
Roxborough, Pomerance, Nye & Adreani, LLP
5820 Canoga Avenue, Suite 250
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (818) 626-2801
Facsimile: (818) 886-1639
Larry J. Lichtenegger, Esq.
The Lichtenegger Law Office
3850 Rio Road, #58
Carmel, CA 93923
Telephone: (831) 626-2801
Facsimile: (831) 886-1639
Email: lawyer@mbay.net
Jodi S. Cohen, Esq.
Jennifer Porter, Esq.
Keesal, Young & Logan
400 Oceangate
Long Beach, CA 90801
Telephone: (562) 436-2000
Facsimile: (562) 436-7416
6
APPLIED DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case No. CGC-16-551614Email: jodi.cohen@kyl.com; jennifer.porter@kyl.com
Attorneys for Defendant Willis of New York, Inc.
X (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE-FILE&SERVE): — Pursuant to SFSC Local Rule 2.10(Q),
California Rule of Court §2.253(b)(2) and CCP §1010.6, I caused the documents to be served by
electronic transmission via File & ServeXpress, deemed to be served on this day if e-served by the
close of business day for this Court on the party indicated above.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the above is true
and correct and was executed on April 18, 2017, at San Francisco, California.
one
Sherie McLean
7
APPLIED DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case No. CGC-16-551614
Preview
SPENCER Y. KOOK (SBN 205304) skook@hinshawlaw.com ~ ELECTRONICALLY HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 633 West Sth Street, 47th Floor FILED Los Angeles, CA 90071-2043 Supertor Court of Caltfornta, Telephone: 213-680-2800 04/18/2017 Facsimile: 213-614-7399 Clerk of the Court BY:EDWARD SANTOS TRAVIS WALL (SBN 191662) Deputy Clerk twall@hinshawlaw.com JARED W. MATHESON (SBN 275459) jmatheson@hinshawlaw.com HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP One California Street, 18th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415-362-6000 Facsimile: 415-834-9070 Attorneys for Defendants APPLIED UNDERWRITERS, INC., APPLIED UNDERWRITERS CAPTIVE RISK ASSURANCE COMPANY, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY, CONTINENTAL INDEMNITY COMPANY and APPLIED RISK SERVICES, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNLIMITED JURISDICTION WARWICK AMUSEMENTS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, WARWICK CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, a California corporation, WARWICK DENVER CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, WSF BEVERAGE CORPORATION, a California corporation, WARWICK MELROSE DALLAS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, SILVER AUTUMN HOTEL (N.Y.) CORPORATION, LTD., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiffs, Case No. CGC-16-551614 ) ) ) ) DEFENDANTS APPLIED ) UNDERWRITERS, INC., APPLIED ) UNDERWRITERS CAPTIVE RISK ) ASSURANCE COMPANY, INC., ) CALIFORNIA INSURANCE ) COMPANY, CONTINENTAL ) INDEMNITY COMPANY AND ) APPLIED RISK SERVICES, INC.’S ) ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST i ) (AMENDED COMPLAINT APPLIED UNDERWRITERS, INC., a Nebraska ) corporation, APPLIED UNDERWRITERS ; CAPTIVE RISK ASSURANCE COMPANY, J INC., an Iowa corporation, CALIFORNIA ) INSURANCE COMPANY, a California ) corporation, CONTINENTAL INDEMNITY ) COMPANY, an Iowa corporation, APPLIED RISK ) SERVICES, INC., a New York corporation, and DOES | through 50, inclusive , } ) ) Defendants. First Amended Complaint Filed: May 19, 2016 APPLIED DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. CGC-16-551614Defendants Applied Underwriters, Inc., Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc., California Insurance Company, Continental Indemnity Company and Applied Risk Services, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”), answer the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) of Plaintiffs Warwick California Corporation and WSF Beverage Corporation (“Plaintiffs”) as follows: ! GENERAL DENIAL Defendants, in answer to Plaintiffs’ FAC and, by virtue of California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30(d), hereby deny generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in the FAC. Defendants further deny generally and specifically that Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief requested in the FAC or to an award of costs or any other recovery by reason of any action, conduct, and/or omission by Defendants. In addition to their answer, Defendants allege the following affirmative defenses: FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to State a Cause of Action) The FAC, and each and every purported cause of action set forth therein, fails to set forth facts sufficient to constitute any cause of action against Defendants. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Statute of Limitations — California) The FAC, and each and every purported cause of action set forth therein, is barred in whole or in part by the applicable statute of limitations, including without limitation California Code of Civil Procedure sections 337(1), 337(3), 338(d), 339(1), 339(3), and 343. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Statute of Limitations — Nebraska) The FAC, and each and every purported cause of action set forth therein, is barred in whole or in part by the applicable statute of limitation, including without limitation Nebraska Revised ' Defendants are not answering as to the causes of action asserted by the other named Plaintiffs since this action has been stayed as to them. Nothing in this Answer should be construed as a waiver of any rights or defenses as to the other named Plaintiffs. 1 APPLIED DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. CGC-16-551614Statute sections 25-205(1), 25-206, 25-207(3), 25-207(4), § 25-211, and 25-212. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Laches) Plaintiffs unreasonably delayed in providing notice and in commencing and prosecuting this action which caused unfair prejudice to Defendants barring any recovery against Defendants under the equitable doctrine of laches. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Mitigate Damages) To the extent that Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate, minimize, or avoid any damages they allegedly sustained, recovery against Defendants, if any, must be reduced by that amount. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Plaintiffs’ Failure to Perform Obligations) To the extent that Plaintiffs failed to perform all of their obligations under their agreements with Defendants, Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Waiver) Through their actions and omissions, Plaintiffs have waived their claims set forth in the FAC and the action is thereby barred in whole or in part. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Estoppel) Plaintiffs are estopped to assert the claims set forth in the FAC, and the action is thereby barred in whole or in part. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unclean Hands) Plaintiffs have unclean hands with regard to the transactions and matters referred to in the FAC, and as a result Plaintiffs’ claims in the FAC are barred in whole or in part. 2 APPLIED DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. CGC-16-551614TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Wrongdoing of Plaintiffs) If Plaintiffs are entitled to any recovery against Defendants, which Defendants deny, then the alleged damages sought by Plaintiffs, if any, were caused by their own acts or omissions, not Defendants’, and Plaintiffs are responsible, in whole or in part, for any damages or other relief purportedly sought by Plaintiffs as a result of the matters referred to in the FAC. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Third Parties’ Acts/Omissions) Plaintiffs’ alleged damages were proximately caused or contributed to by the acts or omissions of Plaintiffs and/or of other persons or entities, and not by Defendants. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Setoff) To the extent Plaintiffs incurred any damages, that damages amount should be reduced or eliminated under the setoff doctrine. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Consent and Ratification) Plaintiffs were fully advised concerning the conduct, events and matters alleged in the FAC. Plaintiffs consented to and ratified the actions of Defendants concerning the conduct, events and matters alleged. As a result, Plaintiffs are barred from recovering damages, if any. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Violation of Due Process) The claim for punitive damages against Defendants in the FAC violates Defendants’ right to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and under the California Constitution, and therefore any claim for punitive or exemplary damages against Defendants fails to state any cause of action for which either punitive or exemplary damages may be awarded. 3 APPLIED DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. CGC-16-551614FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Excessive Fines; Violation of Substantive Due Process) The claim for punitive or exemplary damages against Defendants in the FAC violates their right to protection from excessive fines as provided by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article I, Section 18, of the California Constitution, and therefore each and every cause of action that seeks punitive or exemplary damages violates Defendants’ rights to substantive due process as provided by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the California Constitution and therefore fails to state any cause of action for which either punitive or exemplary damages may be awarded. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Punitive Damages Impermissible Vague) The allegations of a claim for punitive or exemplary damages against Defendants made in the FAC are impermissibly vague, ambiguous, imprecise and inconsistent with the constitutional rights of Defendants and therefore each such claim or cause of action which seeks the imposition of punitive or exemplary damages fails to state a cause of action upon which either punitive or exemplary damages may be awarded. SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Additional Defenses) Plaintiffs have failed to allege and describe the claims made against Defendants with sufficient particularity to enable Defendants to determine each and every defense they may have against Plaintiffs. Defendants therefore reserve the right to assert all defenses, including affirmative defenses, which may be discovered or become relevant once the precise nature of Plaintiffs’ claims is ascertained. WHEREFORE, Defendants pray: 1. That Plaintiffs take nothing by reason of the FAC herein; 2. That Defendants be granted judgment against Plaintiffs; 3. That Defendants recover costs of suit including attorney fees incurred herein; and 4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper. 4 APPLIED DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. CGC-16-551614Dated: April 18, 2017 HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP By: SPENCER Y. KOOK TRAVIS WALL JARED W. MATHESON Attorneys for Defendants APPLIED UNDERWRITERS, INC., APPLIED UNDERWRITERS CAPTIVE RISK ASSURANCE COMPANY, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY, CONTINENTAL INDEMNITY COMPANY and APPLIED RISK SERVICES, INC. 5 APPLIED DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. CGC-16-551614CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE WARWICK AMUSEMENTS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, WARWICK CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, a California corporation, WARWICK DENVER CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, WSF BEVERAGE CORPORATION, a California corporation, WARWICK MELROSE DALLAS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, SILVER AUTUMN HOTEL (N.Y.) CORPORATION, LTD., a Delaware corporation v. APPLIED UNDERWRITERS, INC., a Nebraska corporation, APPLIED UNDERWRITERS CAPTIVE RISK ASSURANCE COMPANY, INC., an Iowa corporation, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY, a California corporation, CONTINENTAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, an Iowa corporation, APPLIED RISK SERVICES, INC., a New York corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive CGC-16-551614 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO: Iam a citizen of the United States and employed in San Francisco, California, at the office of a member of the bar of this Court at whose direction this service was made. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within actions; my business address is One California Street, 18th Floor, San Francisco, California 94111. On April 18, 2017, I served the following document(s), on the interested parties in this action as stated below: © DEFENDANTS APPLIED UNDERWRITERS, INC., APPLIED UNDERWRITERS CAPTIVE RISK ASSURANCE COMPANY, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY, CONTINENTAL INDEMNITY COMPANY AND APPLIED RISK SERVICES, INC.’°S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Nicholas P. Roxborough, Esq. Joseph C. Gjonola, Esq. Ryan R. Salsig, Esq. Roxborough, Pomerance, Nye & Adreani, LLP 5820 Canoga Avenue, Suite 250 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 626-2801 Facsimile: (818) 886-1639 Larry J. Lichtenegger, Esq. The Lichtenegger Law Office 3850 Rio Road, #58 Carmel, CA 93923 Telephone: (831) 626-2801 Facsimile: (831) 886-1639 Email: lawyer@mbay.net Jodi S. Cohen, Esq. Jennifer Porter, Esq. Keesal, Young & Logan 400 Oceangate Long Beach, CA 90801 Telephone: (562) 436-2000 Facsimile: (562) 436-7416 6 APPLIED DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. CGC-16-551614Email: jodi.cohen@kyl.com; jennifer.porter@kyl.com Attorneys for Defendant Willis of New York, Inc. X (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE-FILE&SERVE): — Pursuant to SFSC Local Rule 2.10(Q), California Rule of Court §2.253(b)(2) and CCP §1010.6, I caused the documents to be served by electronic transmission via File & ServeXpress, deemed to be served on this day if e-served by the close of business day for this Court on the party indicated above. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the above is true and correct and was executed on April 18, 2017, at San Francisco, California. one Sherie McLean 7 APPLIED DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. CGC-16-551614