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

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                DAVID T. BIDERMAN (State Bar No. 101577)
BRIEN F. MCMAHON (State Bar No. 66809)

PERKINS COIE LLP ELECTRONICALLY
Four Embarcadero, Suite 2400 FILED

San Francisco, California 94111 Superior Court of California,
Telephone: (415) 344-7000 County of San Francisco
Facsimile: (415) 344-7288 JUN 13 2008

GORDON PARK-LI, Clerk
BY: JUDITH NUNEZ
Attorneys for Defendant Deputy Clerk

Honeywell International Inc.,
fik/a AlliedSignal, Inc., Successor-in-Interest to
The Bendix Corporation

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

GODOFREDO PIQUE, Case No. CGC-08-274659
Plaintiff, ANSWER OF DEFENDANT
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC,
v. TO COMPLAINT

ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B¢P), et al.,

Defendants.

Defendant Honeywell International Inc., //a AlliedSignal, Inc., successor-in-interest to
The Bendix Corporation (“Honeywell”) hereby answers the unverified Complaint filed on or about
May 8, 2008, (“Complaint”) of Plaintiff, GODOFREDO PIQUE (‘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 Plaintiff is entitled to any relief as a result of any act,

conduct, or omission of Honeywell.

Answer Of Defendant Honeywell International Inc. To Complaint 3984 20003.2073/LEGALI4376058.1AS 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 each purported cause of action therein, is barred, in whole or in
part, by the doctrine of estoppel by virtue of Plaintiff's conduct.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
3. 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 DEFENSE

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

conditions, conduct, or injuries, with knowledge of such risks and dangers,

-2-

Answer Of Defendant Honeywell International Inc. To Complaint 3984 20003.2073/LEGALI4376058.1NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9. Some or all of the damages claimed by Plaintiff is not recoverable under applicable
law. In the event that there is a finding of damages for Plaintiff, 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 receive, 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

ll. 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 set 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. At the 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
recommended by Honeywell, nor for the purposes for which it was designed. To the contrary, any

such Honeywell product was being put to an abnormal use or misuse, and to a use that was not

-3-

Answer Of Defendant Honeywell International Inc. To Complaint 3984 20003.2073/LEGALI4376058.1reasonably foreseeable to Honeywell, Such abnormal use or misuse was the sole, direct and
proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages, if any. Plaintiff's recovery against Honeywell,
if any, is therefore barred.
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14. At all times and in all places relevant to the alleged conditions, conduct, or injuries,
Plaintiff had 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, Plaintiff appreciated the danger or risk, and voluntarily assumed any such
danger or risk.
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15. If Plaintiff sustained any injury or damage as alleged in the Complaint, said injury or
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 Plaintiff under the circumstances, or
to the extent such a duty arose, Honeywell provided adequate warnings, labels, and/or instructions
concerning any Honeywell product in question. If those warnings, 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 had failed to join all necessary and indispensable parties.
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
by persons or entities other than Honeywell, and over whom Honeywell has or had no control or

right of control.

Answer Of Defendant Honeywell International Inc. To Complaint 3984 20003.2073/LEGALI4376058.1NINETEENTH 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 fair 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 Plaintiff,
were economic. The punitive damages sought by Plaintiff would be greatly disproportionate to any
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 seeks to impose an excessive fine upon Honeywell, is penal in nature, and seeks to punish
Honeywell upon vague standards.

TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

22. Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages would violate the Equal Protection Clause to
the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 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. Plaintiff's 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

Honeywell based upon unconstitutionally vague standards.

Answer Of Defendant Honeywell International Inc. To Complaint 3984 20003.2073/LEGALI4376058.1TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24. Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages would violate the Fifth Amendment to the
United States Constitution and Article 1, 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. Plaintiff’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
bifureating 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 an
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 and/or Decedent 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 Plaintiff exposed to any asbestos from products

designed, manufactured or sold by Honeywell.

Answer Of Defendant Honeywell International Inc. To Complaint 3984 20003.2073/LEGALI4376058.1THIRTIETH 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 AFFIRMATIVE 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 Plaintiff sustained, and
which negligence and carelessness are a bar to the recovery by Plaintiff, from Honeywell.
Furthermore, Honeywell is entitled to set 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 Plaintiff, 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 et. seq., limits any damages governed thereby, which are awarded to Plaintiff against
Honeywell, to that portion of Plaintiffs non-economic damages, if any, that are attributable to
Honeywell’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 er. seq.
THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
34. Plaintiffs 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.

Answer Of Defendant Honeywell International Inc. To Complaint 3984 20003.2073/LEGALI4376058.1THIRTY-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 been a cause of, or to have contributed to, any disease contracted by
laintiff, 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
imposed upon Honeywell.

THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

38. Any and all “market share,” “enterprise,” and/or “concert of action” theories of

Hability are 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 Plaintiff’s
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
Plaintiff's 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.

Answer Of Defendant Honeywell International Inc. To Complaint 3984 20003.2073/LEGALI4376058.1FORTY-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.
FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
42. California Code of Civil Procedure section 361 is a bar to this action because
Plaintiff's claims arise in another state and, by the laws of that state, an action cannot be maintained
by reason of the lapse of time and as a consequence, cannot be maintained in this state.
FORTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
43. Another action is pending or has been adjudicated between Honeywell and Plaintiff
on the same claims alleged in this action, and therefore, pursuant to California Code of Civil
Procedure section 430.10(c), this action is duplicative and vexatious and cannot be maintained.

FORTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

44. Honeywell was under no legal duty to warn Plaintiff of the hazard associated with
the use of products containing asbestos or their existence at any premises owned, operated or
otherwise controlled by Honeywell. The purchasers of said products, Plaintiff, Plaintiff's
employers, his unions or certain third parties yet to be identified, were knowledgeable and
sophisticated users who knew or should have known of the risk associated with using products
containing asbestos and, assuming a warning was required, were in a better position to warn

Plaintiff.

Answer Of Defendant Honeywell International Inc. To Complaint 3984 20003.2073/LEGALI4376058.1WHEREFORE, Honeywell prays for judgment against Plaintiff dismissing the Complaint

and 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: June 13, 2008. PERKINS COTE LLP

By

/s/ Brien F. McMahon

-10-

Brien F. McMahon
Attorneys for Defendant
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.

Jk/a AlliedSignal, lnc., Successor-in-Interest

to The Bendix Corporation

Answer Of Defendant Honeywell International Inc. To Complaint

3984 20003.2073/LEGALI4376058.1oO YW DR HW BF WN &

Nn RM De ee Be Se Se Se se ee
Bee RR BRE SF Sa twaanarESoS aS

PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Lisa Hardcastle, am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. I am
over the age of 18 years and am not a party to the within action. My business address is Perkins
Coie LLP, Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 2400, San Francisco, California 94111. I am familiar
with the business practice of Perkins Coie LLP. On June 13, 2008, I caused to be served the
following document(s) on the interested parties in this action through the use of the website

maintained by Lexis Nexis.
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. TO COMPLAINT
—J BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: | 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: June 13, 2008.

isa Hardcastle

-lie-

Answer Of Defendant Honeywell International Inc. To Complaint 39812-0003.2073/LEGAL 14376058.1