On June 05, 2007 a
Answer
was filed
involving a dispute between
Tobey, Charles,
and
Abhi-Crockett, Inc.,
Albay Construction Company,
All Asbestos Defendants-See Attached Documents,
Allis-Chalmers Corporation Product Libility Trust,
Asbestos Corporation Limited,
Asbestos Corporation Ltd.,
Asbestos Defendants,
A.W. Chesterton Company,
Bayer Cropscience Inc.,
Bayer Cropscience, Inc., Successor To Amchem,
Bechtel Corporation,
Bucyrus International Inc,
Cbs Corporation, A Delaware Corporation,,
C.C. Moore & Co. Engineers,
Cheveron Products Company,
Chevron U.S.A. Inc.,
Chrysler Llc,
Coltec Industries, Inc.,
Consolidated Insulation, Inc.,
Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc.,
Csk Auto, Inc.,
Dillingham Construction N.A., Inc.,
Does 1-8500,
Douglass Insulation Company, Inc.,
Durabla Manufacturing Company, Inc.,
E.I. Du Pont De Nemours And Company,
Fluor Corporation,
Foley-Pmi, Inc,
Foley-Pmi, Inc.,
Ford Motor Company,
Foster Wheeler Llc,
Garlock Sealing Technologies, Llc,
General Dynamics Corporation,
General Electric Company,
General Motors Corporation,
Goodloe E. Moore, Inc.,
Hanson Permanente Cement, Inc.,
Honeywell International Inc.,Fka Alliedsignal,Inc.,
Hopeman Brothers, Inc.,
Intricon Corporation,
J.T. Thorpe & Son, Inc.,
Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc.,
Lamons Gasket Company,
Metalclad Insulation Corporation,
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,
Occidental Chemical Corporation,
Oscar E. Erickson, Inc.,
Owens-Illinois, Inc.,
Pacific Gas And Electric Company,
Parker-Hannifin Corp.,
Plant Insulation Company,
Quintec Industries, Inc.,
Riley Power Inc.,
Riley Power, Inc.,
Santa Fe Braun, Inc.,
Scott Co. Of California,
Sequoia Ventures Inc.,
Shell Oil Company,
S.T.M. Automotive,
Stm Automotive, Inc.,
The Dow Chemical Company,
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company,
The Lunkenheimer Company,
Thermon Manufacturing Co.,
Thomas Dee Engineering Company,
Unocal Corporation,
Waldron Duffy Inc,
Zurn Industries, Llc,,
for civil
in the District Court of San Francisco County.
Preview
Selman Breitman Lip
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
28
130049. 143924196
MARK A, LOVE (SBN 162028)
ERNEST D. FAITOS (SBN 119141)
SELMAN BREITMAN LLP ELECTRONICALLY
33 New Montgomery, Sixth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-4537 FILED
Superior Court of California,
Telephone: (415) 979-0400 County of San Francisca
Facsimile: (415) 979-2099
GORDON Aaheors, k
Attorneys for Defendant “LI, Clerl
BY: CHRISTLE ARRIOLA
STM AUTOMOTIVE, INC. Deputy Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO (UNLIMITED JURISDICTION)
CHARLES F. TOBEY, CASE NO. 274226
Plaintiff, ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' AMENDMENT
TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL
v. INJURY - ASBESTOS
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP),
Defendants.
Defendant STM AUTOMOTIVE, INC. (herein "Defendant") answers plaintiff's
unverified complaint on its own behalf and on behalf of no other defendant or entity as
follows:
Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30(d), Defendant denies
generally each and every allegation of the Complaint.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Neither the Complaint nor any purported cause of action alleged by the plaintiff
therein states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
To the extent the Complaint asserts Defendant's alleged "market share" liability, or
"enterprise liability," the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of
action against Defendant.
1
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT-ASBESTOSSelman Breitman Lip
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
28
130049. 143924196
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Neither the Complaint nor any purported cause of action alleged therein states facts
sufficient to entitle plaintiff to an award of punitive damages against Defendant.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The imposition of any punitive damages in this matter would deprive Defendant of
its property without due process of law under the California Constitution and United States
Constitution.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The imposition of any punitive damages in this matter would violate the United
States Constitution's prohibition against laws impairing the obligation of contracts.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The imposition of any punitive damages in this matter would constitute a criminal
fine or penalty and should, therefore, be remitted on the ground that the award violates the
United States Constitution.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff's action, and each alleged cause of action, is barred by the applicable
statute of limitations, including but not limited to, California Code of Civil Procedure
sections 338(1), 338(4), 339(1), 340(2), 340(3), 340.2, 343, 353, 583.110, 583.210,
583.310 and 583.410 and California Commercial Code section 2725.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff unreasonably delayed in bringing this action, without good cause therefor,
and thereby has prejudiced Defendant as a direct and proximate result of such delay;
accordingly, this action is barred by laches.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff was negligent in and about the matters alleged in the Complaint and in
each alleged cause of action; this negligence proximately caused, in whole or in part, the
damages alleged in the Complaint. In the event plaintiff is entitled to any damages, the
itt
2
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT-ASBESTOSSelman Breitman Lip
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
28
130049. 143924196
amount of these damages should be reduced by the comparative fault of plaintiff and any
person whose negligent acts or omissions are imputed to plaintiff.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff knowingly, voluntarily and unreasonably undertook each of the risks and
hazards, if any, referred to in the Complaint and each alleged cause of action, and this
undertaking proximately caused and contributed to any loss, injury or damages incurred by
plaintiff.
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Any loss, injury or damage incurred by plaintiff was proximately caused by the
negligent or willful acts or omissions of parties whom Defendant neither controlled nor
had the right to control, and was not proximately caused by any acts, omissions or other
conduct of Defendant.
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The products referred to in the Complaint were misused, abused or altered by
plaintiff or by others; the misuse, abuse or alteration was not reasonably foreseeable to
Defendant, and proximately caused any loss, injury or damages incurred by plaintiff.
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant alleges that its products were manufactured, produced, supplied, sold and
distributed in mandatory conformity with specifications promulgated by the United States
Government under its war powers, as set forth in the United States Constitution, and that
any recovery by plaintiff on the Complaint on file herein is barred in consequence of the
exercise of those sovereign powers.
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff failed to exercise due diligence to mitigate his loss, injury or damages;
accordingly, the amount of damages to which plaintiff is entitled, if any, should be reduced.
by the amount of damages which would have otherwise been mitigated.
‘tt
3
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT-ASBESTOSSelman Breitman Lip
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
28
130049. 143924196
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the matters alleged in the
Complaint because the Complaint, and each alleged cause of action against Defendant, is
barred by the "exclusive remedy" provisions of California Labor Code section 3601, et
seq.
SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant alleges that at the time of the injuries alleged in the Complaint, plaintiff
was employed and was entitled to receive Workers' Compensation benefits from his
employers; that all of plaintiff's employers, other than Defendant, were negligent in and
about the matters referred to in said Complaint, and that such negligence on the part of said
employers proximately and concurrently contributed to the happening of the accident and
to the loss or damage complained of by plaintiff, if any there were; and that by reason
thereof Defendant is entitled to set off any such benefits to be received by plaintiff against
any judgment which may be rendered in favor of plaintiff.
SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant alleges that at the time of the injuries alleged in the Complaint, plaintiff's
employers were negligent in and about the matters referred to in said Complaint, and that
such negligence on the part of said employers proximately and concurrently contributed to
any loss or damage, including non-economic damages, complained of by plaintiff, if any
there were; and that Defendant is not liable for said employers' proportionate share of non-
economic damages.
EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant alleges that at the time of the injuries alleged in the Complaint, parties
other than this Defendant were negligent in and about the matters referred to in said
Complaint, and that such negligence on the part of said parties proximately and
concurrently contributed to any loss or damage, including non-economic damages,
complained of by plaintiff, if any there were; and that Defendant herein shall not be liable
for said parties' proportionate share of non-economic damages.
4
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT-ASBESTOSSelman Breitman Lip
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
28
130049. 143924196
NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant alleges that at all times relative to matters alleged in the Complaint, all of
plaintiff's employers, other than Defendant, were sophisticated users of asbestos-
containing products and said employers’ negligence in providing the product to its
employees in a negligent, careless and reckless manner was a superseding intervening
cause of plaintiff's injuries, if any there were.
TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
If plaintiff has received, or in the future may receive, Workers' Compensation
benefits from Defendant under the Labor Code of the State of California as a consequence
of the alleged industrial injury referred to in the Complaint, and in the event that Defendant
is held liable to plaintiff, any award against Defendant must be reduced in the amount of
all such benefits received by plaintiff.
TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
If plaintiff has received, or in the future may receive, Workers' Compensation
benefits from Defendant under the Labor Code of the State of California as a consequence
of the alleged industrial injury referred to in the Complaint, and in the event plaintiff is
awarded damages against Defendant, Defendant claims a credit against this award to the
extent that Defendant is barred from enforcing its rights to reimbursement for Workers’
Compensation benefits that plaintiff has received or may in the future receive.
TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
If plaintiff has received, or in the future may receive, Workers' Compensation
benefits from Defendant under the Labor Code of the State of California as a consequence
of the alleged industrial injury referred to in the Complaint, Defendant demands repayment
of any such Workers' Compensation benefits in the event that plaintiff recovers tort
damages as a result of the industrial injury allegedly involved here. Although Defendant
denies the validity of plaintiff's claims, in the event those claims are held valid and not
barred by the statute of limitations or otherwise, Defendant asserts that cross-demands for
money have existed between plaintiff and Defendant and the demands are compensated, so
5
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT-ASBESTOSSelman Breitman Lip
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
28
130049. 143924196
far as they equal each other, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section
431.70.
TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
At all times and places in the Complaint, plaintiff was not in privity of contract with
Defendant and said lack of privity bars plaintiff's recovery herein upon any theory of
warranty.
TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff is barred from recovery in that all products produced by Defendant were in
conformity with the existing state of the art, and as a result, these products were not
defective in any manner.
TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Defendant did not and does not have a substantial percentage of the market for
the asbestos-containing products which allegedly caused plaintiff's injuries. Therefore,
Defendant may not be held liable to plaintiff based on this Defendant's alleged percentage
share of the applicable market.
TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant denies any and all liability to the extent that plaintiff asserts Defendant's
alleged liability as a successor, successor in business, successor in product line or a portion
thereof, assign, predecessor, predecessor in business, predecessor in product line or a
portion thereof, parent, alter-ego, subsidiary, wholly or partially owned by, or the whole or
partial owner of or member in an entity researching, studying, manufacturing, fabricating,
designing, labeling, assembling, distributing, leasing, buying, offering for sale, selling,
inspecting, servicing, installing, contracting for installation, repairing, marketing,
warranting, rebranding, manufacturing for others, packaging and advertising a certain
substance, the generic name of which is asbestos.
TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant alleges that if plaintiff's claims were already litigated and resolved in any
prior action, plaintiff's claims herein are barred based on the primary right and res judicata
6
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT-ASBESTOS1 doctrines which prohibit splitting a single cause of action into successive suits, and seeking
2 | new recovery for injuries for which the plaintiff was previously compensated by alleged
3 | joint tortfeasors.
4 WHEREFORE, Defendant prays:
5 (1) ‘That plaintiff take nothing by this Complaint;
6 (2) That Judgment be entered in favor of Defendant;
7 (3) For recovery of Defendant's cost of suit;
8 (4) For appropriate credits and setoffs arising out of any payment of Workers'
9 | Compensation benefits as alleged above; and
0 5 For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
J prop’
s 1
a
S = 2 | DATED: August 14, 2008 SELMAN BREITMAN LLP
a
2 2B
=<
oe 14 By:_/S/_ MARK A. LOVE
a i MARK A. LOVE
x 15 ERNEST D. FAITOS
se Attorneys for Defendant
E < 16 STM AUTOMOTIVE, INC.
oD 7
n
8
9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
130049.1 143924196, 7
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT-ASBESTOS