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

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                [DAVID T. BIDERMAN (State Bar No. 101577)

|BRIEN F. MCMAHON (Slate Bar No. 66809) ELECTRONICALLY
[PERKINS COIE LLP FILED
Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 2400 ‘Superior Court of California,
San Francisco, CA 94111 County of San Francisco
Telephone: (415) 344-7000 OCT 09 2007
Facsimile: (415) 344-7288 GORDON PARK-LI, Clerk
BY: EDNALEEN JAVIER-LACSY
|Attomeys for Defendant Deputy Clerk
Honeywell International Ine.,
|#k/a AlliedSignal, Inc., Successor-in-Intorest to
The Bendix Corporation
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
LOUIS CASTAGNA, Case No, 274230
Plaintiff, ANSWER OF DEFENDANT
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.
v TO COMPLAINT

ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B¢P),

Defendants.

Defendant Honeywell International Inc., fk/a AlliedSignal, Inc., successor-in-interest to
The Bendix Corporation (“Honeywell”) hereby answers the unverified complaint filed on or about
June 6, 2007 (“Complaint”) of Plaintiff, LOUIS CASTAGNA (“Plaintiff"), as follows:

GENERAL DENIAL

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30(d), Honeywell denies
generally and specifically each and every allegation of each cause of action contained in the
Complaint, and further denies that Plaintiff has sustained injury or damage in the sums alleged, or
in any other sum or sums, or at all, and that PlaintifT is entitled to any relief as a result of any act,

Jconduct, or omission of Honeywell.

[Answer OF Defendant Honeywell International Ine, To Complaint
3912.05. 18704.EGAL13627900.1

zAS AND FOR ITS AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES HEREIN, HONEYWELL
ALLEGES AS FOLLOWS:
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
1, The Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, fails to state facts
sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Honeywell.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2, The Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, is barred, in whole or in
part, by the applicable statutes of limitation and/or repose, including, but not limited to, California
Code of Civil Procedure sections 340 and 340.2.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
3, Venue is improper in this Court
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
4, The Complaint, and cach purported cause of action therein, is barred, in whole or in
part, by the doctrine of estoppel by virtue of PlaintifI"s conduct.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
5, The Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, is barred, in whole or in
part, by the doctrine of laches by virtue of Plaintiff's conduct.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6, The Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, is barred, in whole or in

part, by the doctrine of waiver by virtue of Plaintiff's conduct.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFE!

7. The Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, is barred, in whole or in
part, by Plaintiff's express assumption of the risks and dangers, if any, associated with the alleged
conditions, conduct, or injuries, with knowledge of such risks and dangers.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
8. The Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, is barred, in whole or in

part, by Plaintiff's implied assumption of the risks and dangers, if any, associated with the alleged

2

Answer Of Defendai
39812-0003, 1N70-L EGA

jeywell International Ine, To Complaint
0.1conditions, conduct, or injuries, with knowledge of such risks and dangers.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9. Some or all of the damages claimed by Plaintiff are not recoverable under
[applicable law. In the event that there is a finding of damages for PlaintifT, any award or judgment
entered in favor of Plaintiff must be reduced or offset by the amount of any benefits Plaintiff
received, or is entitled to recive, from any source, under applicable law.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10. Plaintiff's damages, if any, were directly and proximately caused, or contributed to,
in whole or in part, by the acts and/or omissions and/or fault of other individuals, firms,
corporations, or other entities over whom Honeywell has or had no control or right of control, and
for whom it is/was not responsible. Said acts and/or omissions and/or fault intervened between,
and/or superseded, the acts and/or omissions and/or fault of Honeywell, if any. Plaintiff's recovery
against Honeywell, if any, should therefore be barred or diminished in accordance with applicable
law.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

11. Plaintiff's damages, if any, were directly and proximately caused, or contributed to,
by Plaintiffs own negligence or fault at the times and in the places sct forth in the Complaint, or
the negligence or other fault of individuals, firms, corporations, or other entities, over whom
Honeywell has or had no control or right of control, and for whom it is/was not responsible which
were in privity with Plaintiff, Plaintiff's recovery against Honeywell, if any, should therefore be
barred or diminished in accordance with applicable law.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

12. The Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, is barred, in whole or in

part, by Plaintiff's failure to mitigate damages, if any.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

13. Attthe times and in the places set forth in the Complaint, any Honeywell product in

question was not being used in the normal and ordinary way, nor was it being used in a manner

3

Answer Of Defendai
39812-0003, 1N70-L EGA

jeywell International Ine, To Complaint
0.1recommended by Honeywell, nor for the purposes for which it was designed. To the contrary, any
such Honeywell product was being put to an abnormall use or misuse, and to a use that was not
reasonably foreseeable to Honeywell. Such abnormal use or misuse was the sole, direct and
proximate cause of Plainti(l’s injuries and damages, if' any. PlaintifI’s recovery against
Honeywell, if any, is therefore barred.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

14, Atall times and in all places relevant to the alleged conditions, conduct, or injuries,
Plaintiff has or should have had notice and knowledge of the risks and dangers, if any, associated
‘with such conditions, conduct, and injuries, because any such risk or danger was open, obvious,
and apparent to Plaintiff, and/or Plaintiff appreciated the danger or risk, and voluntarily assumed.
lany such danger or risk.

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

15. If Plaintiff sustained any injury or damage as alleged in the Complaint, said injury
lor damage was solely, directly, and proximately caused by conditions, circumstances, and/or
conduct of others, beyond the control of Honeywell

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

16. The actions of Honeywell were in conformity with the state of the medical,
industrial, and scientific arts, so that there was no duty to warn Plainti(Y under the circumstances,
lor to the extent such a duty arose, Honeywell provided adequate warnings, labels, and/or
instructions concerning any Honeywell product in question, If those wamings, labels, and/or
instructions were not made available or heeded, it is the fault of others and not of Honeywell.

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

17. The Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, is barred, in whole or in
part, because Plaintiff has failed to join all necessary and indispensable partics.

EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,

18. Honeywell made no express or implied representations or warranties of any kind to

Plaintiff. To the extent that the alleged representations or warranties were made, they were made

4

Answer Of Defendai
39812-0003, 1N70-L EGA

jeywell International Ine, To Complaint
0.1by persons or entities other than Honeywell, and over whom Honeywell has or had no control or
right of control.

NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

19, Plaintiff did not rely upon any representations or warranties made by Honeywell.
‘To the extent Plaintiff relied upon any alleged representations or warranties, such reliance was
unjustified.

TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

20. Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages, if granted, would be excessive and would
violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,
Honeywell has not received [air notice that it could be subject to punitive damages in this state for
the conduct alleged. Honeywell’s conduct was not deliberate, and the damages, if any, to PlaintitY,
‘were economic, The punitive damages sought by Plaintiff would be greatly disproportionate to
Jany actual damages.

TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

21, Plaintiff°s claim for punitive damages would violate the Eighth Amendment to the
[United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 1 and 17, of the California Constitution because
it secks to impose an excessive fine upon Honeywell, is penal in nature, and seeks to punish
Honeywell upon vague standards.

TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

22. Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages would violate the Equal Protection Clause to
the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Scction 7 of the
[California Constitution because it discriminates against Honeywell on the basis of wealth and
because different amounts can be awarded against two or more defendants for the same act when
those defendants differ only in material wealth.

TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

23. Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth.

and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution because it seeks to punish

5

Answer Of Defendai
39812-0003, 1N70-L EGA

jeywell International Ine, To Complaint
0.1Honeywell based upon unconstitutionally vague standards.

TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

24. Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages would violate the Fifth Amendment to the
United States Constitution and Article I, Section 15 of the California Constitution because it
would expose Honeywell to multiple punishments and fines for the same act or conduct.

TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

25. Plaintifl’s claim for punitive damages violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution in the absence of an order
bifurcating that claim from the issue of liability.

TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

26. Any award of punitive damages in this case would violate the Separation of Powers
Doctrine since this Court and/or the jury would be usurping the exclusive power of the legislature
to define crimes and establish punishment.

TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

27. Any award of punitive damages in this case would be constitutionally defective as
Jan ex post facto law prohibited by the California and United States Constitutions. The jury, in
making any such punitive award, would effectively be criminalizing conduct after it has occurred
[and without appropriate advance notice to a defendant that such conduct may subject it to criminal
punishment,

TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

28. The punitive damages sought by Plaintiff would violate the Due Process Clause of
the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution because Plaintiff seeks to
punish Honeywell in California for alleged conduct that occurred elsewhere.

TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

29, At no time relevant hereto was PlaintilT exposed to any asbestos from products

designed, manufactured or sold by Honeywell.

6

Answer Of Defendai
39812-0003, 1N70-L EGA

jeywell International Ine, To Complaint
0.1THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

30. Any exposure by Plaintiff to any of Honeywell's products was so minimal as to be
insufficient, as a matter of law, to have constituted a substantial factor in causing any asbestos-
related disease.

THIRTY-FIRST AFFI

[ATIVE DEFENSE

31. Plaintiffs employers were negligent and careless, which negligence and
carelessness were legal and actual causes of, and contributed to, the damages, if'any, that PlaintilT
sustained, and which negligence and carelessness are a bar to the recovery by Plaintiff, from
Honeywell. Furthermore, Honeywell is entitled to sct off any workers’ compensation benefits
and/or veterans’ benefits and/or military benefits received or that are to be received by Plaintiff,
against any judgment that may be rendered in favor of PlaintilT, against Honeywell, or against
Honeywell and any other defendant or defendants.

THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

32, The Fair Responsibility Act of 1986, codified at California Civil Code section
1431.1 ef. seg., limits any damages governed thereby, which are awarded to PlaintilT against
Honeywell, to that portion of Plaintiff's non-economic damages, if any, that are attributable to
/Honcywell’s percentage of fault or liability, if any.

THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

33. The Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, is barred, in whole or in
part, by the exclusivity of remedy under the California Workers Compensation Act, California
[Labor Code section 3200 et. seg.

THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

34. Plaintiff's claims are barred or preempted, in whole or in part, by federal law,
statutes, and regulations.

THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

35. Honeywell is not liable for Plaintiff's injuries, if any, because it did not exercise the

requisite degree of control over the details of Plaintiff's work.

7

Answer Of Defendai
39812-0003, 1N70-L EGA

jeywell International Ine, To Complaint
0.1THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
36. Honeywell neither designed, nor manufactured nor sold any of the products alleged
in the Complaint.

THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

37. Any products manufactured by Honeywell that incorporated asbestos-containing

materials alleged to have becn a cause of, or to have contributed to, any discasc contracted by

Plainti(T, were manufactured in, under, and in conformity with the direction and control of the
[United States Government, which at all times material hereto had knowledge superior to that of
Honeywell with respect to the potential hazards of asbestos products: accordingly, no liability can
be imposed upon Honeywell,

THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

38. Any and all “market share,” “enterprise,” and/or “concert of action” theories of
liability arc inapplicable to Honeywell and/or any of Honeywell’s products in question.

THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

39. Third parties over whom Honeywell has or had no control or right of control, and
for whom it is/was not responsible, altered or modified the Honeywell product or products in
question, and such alteration or modification was the sole, direct, and proximate cause of
Plaintiffs damages, if any, thereby barring any and all claims against Honeywell.

FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

40, The plans or designs, method or technique of manufacturing, assembling, testing,
labeling and sale of any Honeywell product alleged in the Complaint to have caused all or part of
Plaintiffs alleged damages conformed with the state of the art at the time any such Honeywell
product was designed, manufactured, assembled, tested, labeled and/or sold by Honeywell,
pursuant to generally recognized and prevailing standards and in conformance with the statutes,
regulations, and requirements that governed the product or products at the time of design,

manufacture, assembly, testing, labeling, and sale.

3

Answer Of Defendai
39812-0003, 1N70-L EGA

jeywell International Ine, To Complaint
0.1FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

41. The benefits of the design of any Honeywell product in question outweigh any risk
associated with said products, if there was actually any risk, which Honeywell denies.

Honeywell reserves the right, upon completion of its investigation and discovery, to assert
such additional defenses as may be appropriate.

WHEREFORE, Honeywell prays for judgment against Plaintiff dismissing the Complaint
land each and every purported cause of action alleged against Honeywell therein, and awarding
Honeywell costs, interest, disbursements and such other and/or further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

DATED: October 9, 2007

PERKINS COIE LLP

By _/S/ Brien F, McMahon
Brien F. McMahon
Attorneys for Defendant
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.
fik/a AlliedSignal, Inc., Successor-in-Interest to
The Bendix Corporation

9

Answer Of Defendai
39812-0003, 1N70-L EGA

jeywell International Ine, To Complaint
0.1PROOF OF SERVICE
iam a resident of the State of California, over the age of cighteen years, and not a party to
the within action. My business address is Perkins Coie LLP, Four Embarcadero, Suite 2400, San

Francisco, CA 94111, On October 9, 2007, I served the within document(s):

ANSWER OF HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. TO COMPLAINT

& BY ELECTRONIC MAIL TO ALL PARTIES: I provided the document(s) listed above to
the Lexis Nexis website pursuant to their instructions on that website. If the
document(s) is/are provided to Verilaw electronically by 5:00 p.m., then the
document will be deemed served on the date that it was provided to Lexis Nexis.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United
States of America that the foregoing is true and correct and was executed in San Francisco,

California.

DATED: October 9, 2007.

Proof of Service