Exhibit,Appendix: LOUIS CASTAGNA VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                0 ON DR A BR WN

RP NM BY YR MR ND WD RD ee at
oy A RW BF YH EF SBS Oo wm tr DA wR BW HY = S

Joanne Rosendin, Esq., SBN: 121025
Christopher J, Dyas, Esq., SBN: 104384
SACK ROSENDIN, LLP

One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 340

Oakland, California 94612

Telephone: (510) 286-2200

Attorneys for Defendant,
CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY,
an Illinois corporation

ELECTRONICALLY
FILED

Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco

JUN 22 2010

Clerk of the Court
BY: WILLIAM TRUPEK
Deputy Clerk

SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

LOUIS CASTAGNA,
Plaintiff,
v.
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP), et al.,

Defendants.

NO. CGC - 07 - 274230

EXHIBIT B-4 (PAGES 151-171) TO
DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER
J. DYAS IN SUPPORT OF CHICAGO
BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

Date: September 9, 2010
Time: 9:30 a.m,

Dept: 220, Judge Kahn
Action Filed: June 6, 2007
Trial Date: October 12, 2010Noe

Oo 8 NH A Pp w

ee

= 5

false statements and misrepresented the information with the intent to deceive; plaintiff and

others relied both directly and indirectly on the foregoing false statements and their lack of

knowledge resulting from their intentional misrepresentation, resulting in and causing asbestos- :

related injuries and damages as more fully set forth herein.

200, The asbestos-containing products that INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION,
DEFENDANTS manufactured, marketed, distributed, sold, and otherwise supplied were
defective; plaintiff was exposed to asbestos from the INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION
DEFENDANTS’ products, which caused his asbestos-related injuries as more fully set forth in
the foregoing paragraphs.

"201, Additionally and alternatively, as a direct result of INTENTIONAL
MISREPRESENTATION DEFENDANTS MET LIFE's actions and omissions, plaintiff was
caused to remain ignorant of al! the dangers of asbestos resulting in plaintiff, his agents,
employers and the general public to be aware of the true and full dangers of asbestos, deprive
plaintiff of the opportunity to decide for himself whether he wanted to take the risk of being
exposed to asbestos, denied plaintiff the opportunity to take precautions against the dangers of
asbestos and caused plaintiff's damages herein.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment against defendants, their ALTERNATE
ENTITIES, and each of them, as hereinafter set forth.

T SE
(Fraud and Deceit)

AS AND FOR A FURTHER, TWENTIETH, SEPARATE, AND DISTINCT CAUSE
OF ACTION FOR FRAUD AND DECEIT, PLAINTIFF COMPLAINS OF DEFENDANT :
LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY, ITS ALTERNATE ENTITIES (LORILLARD, INC.
and HOLLINGSWORTH & VOSE COMPANY), DEFENDANTS ON EXHIBIT K, DOES
8001-8500, AND EACH OF THEM (hereinafter KENT DEFENDANTS), AND ALLEGES:

2 FRA GLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION

202. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference, as though fully set forth hereat, each
and every allegation contained in the First through Third Causes of Action.

© Copyright 2 ton “Purcell
 BRAYTON® PURCELL MASTER COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY [AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM] - ASBESTOS

1we
o

Oo OB I DA WH Bw
Se

me ~
GQ aan G ES
se

BR me
Soa a

21
22
23

i
- “|
25
26

28

. 203, At all times pertinent hereto, the KENT DEFENDANTS, and each of them, owed
plaintiff a duty, as provided for in Section 1708 through 1710 of the Civil Code of the State of
California, to abstain from injuring the person, property, or rights of the plaintiff, When a duty
to act was imposed, as set forth herein, the KENT DEFENDANTS, and each of them, did do the |
acts and omissions in violation of that duty, thereby causing injury to the plaintiff as is more
fully set forth herein. Such acts and omissions consisted of acts falling within Section 1709
(Fraudulent Deceit) and Section 1710 (Deceit), and more specifically, included representations
and suggestions of fact which were not true, and which KENT DEFENDANTS, and each of
them, did not believe to be true; representations and assertions of fact which were not tre and
which KENT DEFENDANTS, and each of them, had no reasonable ground for believing to be
true, and the suppression of fact when a duty existed to disclose it, all as are more fully set forth
herein; the violation of any one such duty gave rise to a cause of action for violation of the rights
of the plaintiff as provided for in the aforementioned Civil Code sections.

204, With intent to deceive plaintiff, and others in plaintiff's position, and with intent
that plaintiff and such others should rely on the misrepresentation and remain ignorant of the
health hazard posed by its asbestos-containing product and with intent to induce plaintiff and
such others to alter his and their positions to his and their injury and/or risk and in order to gain
advantages, the following acts occurred:

(a) From approximately March, 1952 to approximately May, 1956, KENT
DEFENDANTS, manufactured, marketed, sold and/or distributed filter cigarettes known as
"Kent" to the public, including plaintiff. During the aforementioned period, the filter material in|
the "Micronite" filter on Kent cigarettes contained crocidolite asbestos as one of its components.
Asbestos was intentionally and knowingly included as an ingredient of the asbestos-containing
Micronite filter for "Kent" cigarettes by KENT DEFENDANTS, During the aforementioned
period, KENT DEFENDANTS manufactured, marketed, sold, and/or distributed between 10-13
billion asbestos-containing Kent filtered cigarettes.

(b) Between March, 1952 and approximately May, 1956, KENT DEFENDANTS
engaged the services of a public relations firm(s) to advertise and promote the sale of the Kent

ight 2003 Brayton %+Purcell
© BRAYTON® PURCELL MASTER COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY [AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM] - ASBESTOSa

cigarette brand, KENT DEFENDANTS designed, ratified, approved, and funded the Kent
advertising campaign, which promoted the alleged “health” benefits of smoking Kent cigarettes
in print, radio, and television, The purpose of said campaign was to convey “facts”, which
KENT DEFENDANTS knew to be false or which were intended to mislead the public, including
plaintiff, into believing that Kent cigarettes were a “safer” cigarette than other brands.
Throughout the aforementioned period, KENT DEFENDANTS advertised Kent brand cigarettes
and the Micronite filter in a national campaign claiming that Kent cigarettes provided “More
health protection...". KENT DEFENDANTS boasted that “No other cigarette approaches such a
degree of health protection” and “you'll get the health protection you definitely need”. KENT
DEFENDANTS went so far as to state that “you’ll be enjoying the greatest health Protection in
cigarette history!”. /

(c) | KENT DEFENDANTS engaged in the aforementioned advertising campaign,
despite its actual and/or constructive knowledge that asbestos inhalation was harmful to human
health, and in the face of independent testing, conducted at the request of and funded by KENT
DEFENDANTS, which demonstrated that asbestos fibers were released from the Micronite filter
when Kent cigarettes were smoked. Said KENT DEFENDANTS willfully withheld such
information from consumers, including plaintiff, and knowingly and intentionally provided
information which was misleading as to the potential health hazard posed by smoking Kent
cigarettes with the asbestos Micronite filter. KENT DEFENDANTS suppressed the “fact” that
the. Micronite filter contained asbestos by purposely omitting the word asbestos from any of the
aforementioned advertising and from its packaging. Despite being either actually and/or
constructively aware that asbestos inhalation could be hazardous to its consumers, including
plaintiff, KENT DEFENDANTS failed to place a warning of any kind regarding said health
hazards in any of its advertising or on any of its packaging and did not recall a single asbestos-
containing Kent filtered cigarette from the market throughout the period. of their manufacture.

205, By virtue of smoking “Kent” cigarettts, and exposure to other asbestos products’
made by defendants, and each of them, plaintiff inhaled asbestos into plaintiff's lungs.

“i

153 ight 2003 B: wPurcell
© BRAYTON® PURCELL MASTER COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY [AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM] - ASBESTOS1 | 206. / Asbestos is known to cause benign pleural disease and asbestosis, lung cancer,
and a cancer of the lining of the lung known as mesothelioma.

207. KENT DEFENDANTS having such aforementioned knowledge, and the duty to
inform plaintiff about the true facts, and knowing the plaintiff did not possess such knowledge

a

and would breathe asbestos from its Kent cigarettes innocently, acted falsely, and fraudulently

and with full intent to cause plaintiff to remain unaware of the true facts and to induce plaintiff to

smoke its asbestos filtered cigarettes, all in violation of Sections 1708, 1709, and 1710 of the

Civil Code of the State of California.

Hi: FRAUD SE PROMISE
208. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference, as though fully set forth hereat, each |

Oo ON AH ep Nn

°
oer

and every allegation contained in the First through Nineteenth Causes of Action.
209. Atall times pertinent hereto, the KENT DEFENDANTS, and each of them, owed

ome
Nee

uw

plaintiff a duty, as provided for in Section 1708 through 1710 of the Civil Code of the State of
California, to abstain from injuring the person, property, or rights of the plaintiff. When a duty
to act was imposed, as set forth herein, the KENT DEFENDANTS, and each of them, did do the

acts, omissions, and false promise in violation of that duty, thereby causing injury to the plaintiff

a GR

as is more fully set forth herein, Such acts and omissions consisted of acts falling within Section

a

1709 (Fraudulent Deceit) and Section 1710 (Deceit), and more specifically, included false

ne
0

promise and suggestions of fact which were not true, and which KENT DEFENDANTS, and

~~

each of them, did not believe to be true; false promise and assertions of fact which were not true

y
5

and which KENT DEFENDANTS, and each of them, had no reasonable ground for believing to

8

22 | be true, and the suppression of fact when a duty existed to disclose it, all as are more fully set
23 || forth herein; the violation of any one such duty gave rise to a cause of action for violation of the

24 || rights of the plaintiff as provided for in the aforementioned Civil Code sections.

25" 210. - With intent to deceive plaintiff, and-others in plaintiff's position, and-with intent: {- --

26 || that plaintiff and such others should be and remain ignorant of the health hazard posed by its
_ 27}! asbestos-containing product and with intent to induce plaintiff and such others to alter his and
28 | their positions to his and their injury and/or risk and in order to. gain advantages, the following

4 Copyright 200: Purcell
© BRAYTON® PURCELL MASTER COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY [AND LOSS CF CONSORTIUM} - ASBESTOS.Oo OMY Hn Bw wD

acts oveured: plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth hereat, the facts as alleged
in Count I for Fraud and Deceit/Negligent Misrepresentation,

211. - By virtue of smoking “Kent” cigarettes, and exposure to other asbestos products
made by defendants, and each of them, plaintiff inhaled asbestos into plaintiff's lungs.

212. Asbestos is known to cause benign pleural disease and asbestosis, Jung cancer,
and a cancer of the lining of the lung known as mesothelioma. .

213. KENT DEFENDANTS having such aforementioned knowledge, and the duty to
inform plaintiff about the true facts, and knowing the plaintiff did not possess such knowledge
and would breathe asbestos from its Kent cigarettes innocently, acted falsely, and fraudulently, .1.
and with full intent to cause plaintiff to remain unaware of the true facts, and to induce plaintiff
to smoke its asbestos filtered cigarettes, all in violation of Sections 1708, 1709, and 1710 of the

Civil Code of the State of California.

COUNT Ul; FRAUD AND DECEIT/CONCEALMENT

214. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference, as though fully set forth hereat, each
and every allegation contained in the First through Nineteenth Causes of Action.

215, Atall times pertinent hereto, the KENT DEFENDANTS, and each of them, owed
plaintiff a duty, as provided for in Section 1708 through 1710 of the Civil Code of the State of
California, to abstain from injuring the person, property, or rights of the plaintiff. When a duty
to act was imposed, as set forth herein, the KENT DEFENDANTS, and each of them, did do the
acts and omissions in violation of that duty, thereby causing injury to the plaintiff as is more
fully set forth herein. Such acts and omissions consisted of acts falling within Section 1709
(Fraudulent Deceit) and Section 1710 (Deceit), and more specifically, included concealment and
suggestions of fact which were not true, and which KENT DEFENDANTS, and each of them,
did not believe to be true; concealment and assertions of fact which were not true and which
KENT DEFENDANTS, and each of them, had no reasonable ground for believing to be true, andj -
the suppression of fact when a duty existed to disclose it, all as are more fully set forth herein;
the violation of any one such duty gave rise to a cause of action for violation of the rights of the

plaintiff as provided for in the aforementioned Civil Code sections.

155 © Copyright 2003 Br Purcell
© BRAYTON*® PURCELL MASTER COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL {NJURY [AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM] - ASBESTOS0 eo ND bP ww

10

21 6. With intent to deceive plaintiff, and others in plaintiff's position, and with intent
that plainuff and such others should be and remain ignorant of the health hazard posed by its
asbestos-containing product and with intent to induce plaintiff and such others to alter his and
their positions to his and their injury and/or risk and in order to gain advantages, the following
acts occured: plaintiff incorporates herein by reference as if fully set forth hereat the facts as
alleged in Count I for Fraud and Deceit/Negligent Misrepresentation.

217. By virtue of smoking “Kent” cigarettes, and exposure to other asbestos products
made by defendants, and each of them, plaintiff inhaled asbestos into plaintiff's lungs.

218. Asbestos is known to cause benign pleural disease and asbestosis, lung cancer,
and a cancer of the lining of the lung known as mesothelioma.

219. KENT DEFENDANTS having such aforementioned knowledge, and the duty to
inform plaintiff about the true facts, and knowing the plaintiff did not possess such knowledge

and would breathe asbestos from its Kent cigarettes innocently, acted falsely, and fraudulently

vl

and with full intent to cause plaintiff to remain unaware of the true facts and to induce plaintiff to}
smoke its asbestos filtered cigarettes, al! in violation of Sections 1708, 1709, and 1710 of the

Civil Code of the State of California.
‘Ol [V: FRAUD TIONA: S ION

220, Plaintiff hereby incorporates herein by reference, as though fully set forth hereat,
each and every allegation contained in the First through Nineteenth Causes of Action.

221. Atal times pertinent hereto, the KENT DEFENDANTS, and each of them, owed
plaintiff a duty, as provided for in Section 1708 through 1710 of the Civil Code of the State of
Califomia, to abstain from injuring the person, property, or rights of the plaintiff. When a duty
to act was imposed, as set forth herein, the KENT DEFENDANTS, and each of them, did do the
acts and omissions in violation of that duty, thereby causing injury to the plaintiff as is more
fully set-forth herein. Such acts and omissions consisted of acts falling within Section 1709.
(Fraudulent Deceit) and Section 1710 (Deceit) and, more specifically, included representations
and suggestions of fact which were not true and which KENT DEFENDANTS, and each of
them, did not believe to be true; representations and assertions of fact which were not true and

156 © Copyri “Purcell
G BRAYTON PURCELL MASTER COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY [AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM] - ASBESTOSOo CO SN th pow oN

ma
Oo

Bon
a

which KENT DEFENDANTS, and each of them, had no reasonable ground for believing to be
true, and the suppression of fact when a duty existed to disclose it, all as are more fully set forth
herein; the violation of any one such duty gave rise to a cause of action for violation of the rights
of the plaintiff as provided for in the aforementioned Civil Code sections.

222. With intent to deceive plaintiff, and others in plaintiff's position, and with intent
that plaintiff and such others should be and remain ignorant of the health hazard posed by its
asbestos-containing product and with intent to induce plaintiff and such others to alter his and
their positions to his and their injury and/or risk and in order to gain advantages, the following
acts occurred: plaintiff incorporates herein by reference, as if fully set forth hereat, the facts as
alleged in Count ! for Fraud and Decei/Negligent Misrepresentation.

223. By virtue of smoking “Kent” cigarettes, and exposure to other asbestos products
made by defendants, and each of them, plaintiff inhaled asbestos into plaintiff's lungs.

224, Asbestos is known to cause benign pleural disease and asbestosis, lung cancer,
and a cancer of the lining of the lung known as mesothelioma.

225, KENT DEFENDANTS having such aforementioned knowledge, and the duty to
inform plaintiff about the true facts, and knowing the plaintiff did not possess such knowledge
and would breathe asbestos from its Kent cigarettes innocently, acted falsely, and fraudulently,
and with full intent to cause plaintiff to remain unaware of the true facts, and to induce plaintiff
to smoke its asbestos filtered cigarettes, all in violation of Sections 1708, 1709, and 1710 of the
Civil Code of the State of California.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment against defendants, their ALTERNATE
ENTITIES, and each of them, in an amount according to proof at trial in each individual case, as
follows:

Plaintiff: . . .

(a) For plaintiff's general damages according to proof and applicable law at trial;

{>} For plaintiff's loss of income, ‘wages, and earning potential according to proof and

applicable law at trial;

157. © ight 2003 Brayton Purcell
‘© BRAYTON® PURCELL. MASTER COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY [AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM] - ASBESTOSoF YA WA Bw DH

_€) For plaintiff's medical and related expenses according to proof and applicable law
at trial; .
Oe (d) For plaintiff's loss of reasonable value of home services and home hospice care
according to proof and applicable law at trial;
Plaintiff-2:
. (e) For plaintiff's damages for loss of consortium according to proof and applicable
Jaw at trial;
Plaintiff-1 intiff-2:
(i) For plaintiffs’ cost of suit herein;
(g) For exemplary or punitive damages according to proof and applicable law at trial;
(h) For damages for fraud according to proof and applicable law at trial; and
(i) For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper, including
costs and prejudgment interest as provided in California Code of Civil Procedure § 998, § 1033,

§ 3295, and related provisions of law.

Dated: 1 | aos BRAYTON*PURCELL
By. 2G?

David R. Donadio
Attomeys for Plaintiffs

158 © Copyright 2003 Brayton Pu
GBRAYTON® PURCELL MASTER COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY [AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM) - ASBESTOS2
3
4

5
6
T
8

9
10
u
2
13
14
15
16
17

18
19

C. EXHIBIT A
Plaintiff's exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products occurred at

various locations [inside][both inside and outside] the State of California, including but not

limited to:

LOCATION TITLE YEARS WORKED
| (Plaintiff's asbestos-related injury}

(Date of diagnosis)

{Plaintiff's employment status)

EXHIBIT A

2 “Purcell
© BRAYTON® PURCELL MASTER COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY [AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM] - ASBESTOS| EXHIBIT B

DEFENDANTS WHO WERE:

4

5 | - Manufacturers
- Distributors

6 jj - Suppliers

- Sellers

7

8

9] EXHBIT B-1
10 DEFENDANTS WHO WERE:
“12

13

14
“AS

16

17

18

19

20

21
"22

2B

24

25

26

27
. EXHIBIT Bi
28

,
© Copyright 2003 Brayton Purcell
© BRAYTON® PURCELL MASTER COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY [AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM] - ASBESTOS:1 . EXHIBIT C

"3 PREMISES OWNER/CONTRACTOR LIABILITY DEFENDANTS, JOBSITES, YEARS.

EXHIBIT q

161 © Copyright 2003 Brayton “Purcell
BRAYTON PURCELL MASTER COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY (AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM] - ASBESTOSYN ep we Ny NN oN het
eu Ah F ORRR Seok ee oe et

A Bob =
= nn SO BN AH ew

JONES ACT DEFENDANTS

EXHIBIT D

162

‘© BRAYTON® PURCELL MASTER COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY [AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM} - ASBESTOS

EXHIBIT D

© Copyright 2003 Brayton *}PurceltOW ITA A hm Ww NR

RON ee ont ts
So So VP oan Aad aHE S

2B

. EXHIBIT E

LHWCA DEFENDANTS

EXHIBIT 8

Purcell
© BRAYTON® PURCELL MASTER COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY {AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM] - ASBESTOS.oO YR mw

o

~

“12

EXHIBIT F
F.E.L.A. DEFENDANTS

EXHIBIT FY

. 164 4 Purcell
© BRAYTON PURCELL MASTER COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INIURY [AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM] - ASBESTOSEXHIBIT G

RESPIRATORY SAFETY DEVICE DEFENDANTS
BRAKE SHOE GRINDING MACHINE DEFENDANTS

ALL OTHER DEFENDANTS

OWN DN HW Rw

10
u
2
3
14
15
16
7
B
“49
20
21
2
23
24
25
26
27 .
28 EXHIBIT G

65 “ © Copyright 200: Purcell
© BRAYTON® PURCELL MASTER COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY [AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM] - ASBESTOSHIB.

CONCERT OF ACTION DEFENDANTS

soo

seme:

CO 8 AN hw ow

oe
—

eee
Nn hm le
=e:

27 .
EXHIBIT H

n “>Purcell
TOS.

© BRAYTON PURCELL MASTER COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL TNURY {AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM} - ASBES'EXHIBIT I

FRAUD DEFENDANTS

OO aD Aw Be wD

28 : :
EXHIBIT |

67 ight 2003 Brayton “Purcell
‘© BRAYTON® PURCELL MASTER COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY [AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM] - ASBESTOSEXHIBIT J

INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION DEFENDANTS

— ee 168 © Copyright 2003 Brayton Purcell

O BRAYTON® PURCELL MASTER COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY [AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM] - ASBESTOS

EXHIBIT JEXHIBIT K
KENT DEFENDANTS

EXHIBIT Kj

169 ight 2¢ rayton “Purcell
© BRAYTON® PURCELL MASTER COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY IAND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM] - ASBESTOS.GRINDING WHEEL DEFENDANTS

© BRAYTON PURCELL MASTER COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY [AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM] - ASBESTOS.

EXHIBIT L

17

EXHIBIT U
on StPurcellEXHIBIT M
BOILER INSURANCE INSPECTION DEFENDANTS

eK Bw

EXHIBIT M

171 © Copyright 2003 Brayton Purcell,
© BRAYTON®S PURCELL MASTER COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY [AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM] - ASBESTOS