Exhibit,Appendix: RODRICK BRECKLER et al VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P) AS REFLECTED ON et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                wn

GABRIEL A. JACKSON, State Bar No. 98119
gaby@jjr-law.com

DANIEL D. O’SHEA, State Bar No. 238534
doshea@jjr-law.com

TODD M. THACKER, State Bar No. 199506
tthacker@jjr-law.com

JACKSON JENKINS RENSTROM LLP
55 Francisco Street, 6th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94133

Tel: 415.982.3600

Fax: 415.982.3700

Attorneys for Defendant
S&S WELDING, INC.

ELECTRONICALLY
FILED

Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco

JUN 09 2011

Clerk of the Court
BY: WILLIAM TRUPEK
. Deputy Clerk

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

RODERICK BRECKLER and JOANNE
BRECKLER,

Plaintiffs,
v
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP),
Defendant.

1936113

Case No. CGC-08-274566

DECLARATION OF DANIEL D. O’SHEA
IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT S&S
WELDING, INC.’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION (EXHIBITS A-C)

Hearing Date: June 23, 2011

Time: 9:30 a.m.

Dept: 220

Judge: Hon. Harold Kahn
Trial Date: © July 11,2011

Action Filed: March 12, 2008

1

O’SHEA DEC. SUPPORTING S&S WELDING’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATIONw

Oo MD IA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

GABRIEL A. JACKSON, State Bar No. 98119
gaby@jjr-law.com

DANIEL D. O’SHEA, State Bar No. 238534
doshea@jjr-law.com

TODD M. THACKER, State Bar No. 199506
tthacker@jjr-law.com

JACKSON JENKINS RENSTROM LLP

55 Francisco Street, 6th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94133

Tel: 415.982.3600

Fax: 415.982.3700

Attorneys for Defendant
S&S WELDING, INC.

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

RODERICK BRECKLER and JOANNE Case No. CGC-08-274566
BRECKLER,
DECLARATION OF DANIEL D. 0’SHEA
Plaintiffs, IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT S&S
WELDING, INC.’S MOTION FOR

v. SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY

ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP), ADJUDICATION

Defendant. Hearing Date: June 23, 2011
Time: 9:30 a.m.

Dept: 220

Judge: Hon. Harold Kahn

Trial Date: July 11, 2011
Action Filed: March 12, 2008

I, DANIEL D. O’SHEA, declare as follows:

1. lam an attorney duly licensed to practice before all the courts in the State of
California and am an attorney with the law firm of Jackson Jenkins Renstom, LLP, attorneys of
record for S&S WELDING, INC. ("Defendant"). [ am sufficiently familiar with the facts set
forth herein to competently testify to them if required to do so.

2. Attached as Exhibit “A” is a true and correct copy of Roderick Breckler, et al.'s

(hereinafter “Plaintiffs’”) complaint.

I

O’SHEA DEC. SUPPORTING S&S WELDING’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATIONCo me DY RH HW BF WY =

YN MM NNN NR YD Be Bw Be Be eB es eB eB Be
ey HA BoB HN fF FEE HANA A FEHNH BS

3. Attached as Exhibit “B” is a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs’ Amendment to
Complaint.

4. Attached as Exhibit “C” is a true and correct copy of Defendant's Answer to
Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

7. Attached as Exhibit “D” is a true and correct copy of the client-specific special
interrogatories, requests for production of documents, form interrogatories, and requests for
admission Defendant propounded upon Plaintiffs.

8. Attached as Exhibit “E” is a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs’ responses to
Defendant’s client-specific discovery.

9. Attached as Exhibit “F” is a true and correct copy of relevant portions of the
transcripts of Roderick Breckler’s deposition in this action.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on June 8, 2011, at San

Francisco, California, ~) is ( _

DANIEL D. O'SHEA

2

O’SHEA DEC. SUPPORTING S&S WELDING’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATIONEXHIBIT ADUM-1UU

. Si "MONS FOR COURT USE ONLY
(CITAS .ON JUDICIAL) (S0L0 PARA USO DELACORTE)
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:
(AVISO AL, DEMANDADO):
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP)
As Reflected on Exhibits B, B-1, C, H, t; and DOES 1-8500;

and SEE ATTACHED LIST.

YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:
(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):

RODRICK BRECKLER and JOANN BRECKLER

right sway, if you do not Know an attorney, you may want to call an
attorney referral service, tf you cannot atford an ettornay, you may be eligible for free tegal services trom @ nonprofit legal

services
‘You can locate thesa nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (wwwJlawhelpcalifornia.org), the Califarnis
into.ca.goviselfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county ber association,

‘otros
servicio ds remisién a abogados, Si no pusde pagar a un sbogada, es |
Iegales gratultos de un programa de servicios legates sin fines de hicro.
Calltornie Legal Services, (www lawheipcaiifornia.org), en ef Centra de Ayuda de le9 Cortes de Californie,
(www.courtinto.ca.govicaltheipfespenol) © poniéadose en contacto con la corte o ef colegio de abogados facales.
The name and address of the court Is:
(Etnombre y direccién de fa corte es):
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
400 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102

‘The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiff's attomey, or plaintiff without an attomey,
nombre, la direcckin demandante,

Is:
e de telétono del abogado del , 0. del demandante que no tien abogado, es}
CAVID A. DONADIO, ESQ., STATE BAR NO. 154436 .
BRAYTON®PURCELL LLP

222 Rush Landing Road, Novato, CA 94948-6169 Goer Park-Li ”

1. Li asan individual defendant.
2 Tas tne person sued under the fietitious name of (specify):

3. Oo on behalf of (specify:
under] cep 416,10 (corporation) 1 cee 4te.60(minor)
0 cep 416.20 (defunct corporation) L cer 416.70 (conservatee)
CCP 416.40 (association of partnership) Oo CCP 416.90 (authorized person)
oO other (specify): :

4, Lo] by personal detivery on (date):
SUMMONSRUELL LLY
H4E-6169

ATLAW

ING ROAD

P.O, Box 6169

NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 9!

(415) 898-1535

RUSH LAND!

ATTORNEYS

SHALIUNYEU!
m2

C C.

ALLIS-CHALMERS CORPORATION PRODUCT LIABILITY TRUST
‘AMERICAN STANDARD, INC. 7

GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC .
HANSON PERMANENTE CEMENT, INC. FORMERLY KNOWN AS KAISER CEMENT, INC.
. PARKER-IANNIFIN CORPORATION

PLANT INSULATION COMPANY

QUINTEC INDUSTRIES,ING. «|

UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

VIACOM, INC.

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.

CHRYSLER LLC

FORD MOTOR COMPANY

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION

GENUINE PARTS COMPANY (GPC)

A.0, SMITH CORPORATION

BRYAN STEAM, LLC

CLAYTON INDUSTRIES

HURST BOILERS

BALDOR ELECTRIC COMPANY

‘W.W. GRAINGER, INC.

PLACERVILLE AUTO PARTS, INC.
LARRY HOPKINS INCORPORATED

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

AMERICAN CONFERENCE oF GOVERNMENTAL INDUSTRIAL HYGIENISTS, INC.

and DOES 1-8500,
Defendants.

ick Breck reckler vs. A: fendants (B%
San Francisco Superior CourtATTORNEYS ATLAW

BRAYTON@PURCELL LLP

C. — C¢

SUMMONS ISSUED

1] DAvw R. DONADIO, ESQ., $.B. #154436 F I L .
KIMBERLY J, CHU,ES, $B. #206817 D

2 OR ee taw Serannico Ca ED,

~ ttorneys at

3 223 Rush Landing Road MAR 1 2 2008
0, Box

a] Roane Cotvtommia 94948-6FM88 MANAGEMENT CNFERINGESE{FORDQN PARES Clerk

3 | 215) 88-1555 A a

6 | Attomeys for Plaintiffs FEB 18 2009 my

? DEPARTMENT

THIS CASE IS SUBJECT TO = SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

MANOATGRY ELECTRONIC FILING

PURSUANT TO AMENDED G.0. 158 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

222 RUSH LANDING ROAD
POBOX 6169
NOWATO, CALIFORNIA 94938-6169

} ASBESTOS
1] TOANN BRECKLER, 3 No. CGC -08-274566
Plaintiffs,
13 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY
|) vs: AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM -

Rg «14 } ASBESTOS
2 ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP) ——< —
& —15]{ As Reflected on Exhibits B, B-1, C,H, 3
= J; and DOES 1-8500; and SEE

16 || ATTACHED . )

17]

18} 1 Plaintiff RODRICK BRECKLER was born June 11, 1950.

19 2 The ©BraytonPurcell Master Complaint for Personal Injury [and Loss of

20 Consortium]- Asbestos (hereinafter "Master Complaint”) was filed January 2, 2003, in SanBRAYTON@PURCELLLLP
ATTORNEYS ATLAW
‘222 RUSH LANDING ROAD
P.O. Box 6169
NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 31946-6169,

(415) 898-1555

C C

ALLIS-CHALMERS CORPORATION PRODUCT LIABILITY TRUST
AMERICAN STANDARD, INC.”

BUCYRUS INTERNATIONAL, INC,

CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC.

GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY .
HANSON PERMANENTE CEMENT, INC. FORMERLY KNOWN AS KAISER CEMENT, INC.
PARKER-HANNIFIN CORPORATION

PLANT INSULATION COMPANY

QUINTEC INDUSTRIES, INC.

UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

‘VIACOM, INC.

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.

CHRYSLER LLC

FORD MOTOR COMPANY

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION

GENUINE PARTS COMPANY (GPC)

AO, SMITH CORPORATION

HURST BOILERS

BALDOR ELECTRIC COMPANY
‘W.W. GRAINGER, INC.
PLACERVILLE AUTO PARTS, INC.
LARRY HOPKINS INCORPORATED
CSK AUTO, INC, .
‘GOULDS PUMPS, INC.

BURNHAM CORPORATION WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS BURNHAM DELAWARE, INC.

YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
CARRIER CORPORATION

MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY
BAYER CROPSCIENCH INC,

ANDERSON, ROWE & BUCKLEY, INC.
RUDOLPH AND SLETTEN, INC.
CONSOLIDATED INSULATION, INC.

41.T. THORPE & SON, INC.

FCC CALIFORNIA, INC..

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC.

GATKE CORPORATION

AMERICAN CONFERENCE OF GOVERNMENTAL INDUSTRIAL HYGIENISTS, INC,
UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES, INC.
PNEUMO ABEX LLC :
‘WESTERN MACARTHUR COMPANY
WESTERN ASBESTOS COMPANY
MACARTHUR COMPANY

and DOES 1-8500,

Defendants.

Rodrick Breckler and Joann Breckler vs. Asbestos Defendants (BP)
San Francisco Superior CourtCause of Action
First (Negligence)
Second (Strict Liability)

Third (False
Representation)

Fourth (Loss of
fq.Sortium)

Fifth ises Owner!
Eiri setor i sability)

Sixth, Seventh, Eighth Oo
(pnseaon want Negligence
. Uones Act],Maintenance and Cure)

Ninth (Longshore and Harbor Workers oO
Compensation Act [LHWCA))

Tenth, Eleventh (FEL.A.) 0

Twelfth, Thirteenth irato!
Safety Devices) (Respirotory Oo

T teenth, Fifteenth

\petake Shoe Grinding) bs
Sixteenth (Concert of Action)

Seventeenth, Eighteenth 1 Fraud,
Misrepresentation/Concealment)

Nineteenth (Fraud/Deceit/
Intentional Misrepresentation)

Twentieth (Fraud/Deceit - Kent)
and their alternate entities as set forth in the Master Complaint or on any Exhibit.

mm

Bee Bw
o

xX

ooR
oor

o
Oo

OkC C

1] 3. Plaintiff's asbestos-related injury, date of diagnosis, employment status, and
2 history of exposure to asbestos are as stated on Exhibit A.

3] 4. Plaintiffs were married on November 20, 2006.

af 5. (a) "Exposed persons” in paragraphs 21, 68 and 69 of the Master Complaint
5] include plaintiff RODRICK BRECKLER herein and plaintiff's father, Joseph Breckler.

64 6. Plaintiffs’ claims against defendant VIACOM, INC. (successor by merger to

7] CBS CORPORATION which is successor-in-interest to WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC

8] CORPORATION) exclude military and federal government jobsites.
9 Dated: 9 BRAYTON“*PURCELL LLP

“| Q<
B

il .
| * paidR Dodo SSS~S
12 Attomeys for PlaintiffsEXHIBIT AC

San Jose Regional Vocational

Center

Wilcox High School
Santa Clara, CA.

Nelson Shell Gas Station
Santa Clara, CA

Reds Automotive & Gulf
Gas Station

f Sunnyvale, CA

United Technologies

| Corporation

Santa Clara, CA

Corky's Pest Control,
| Milpitas, CA

AZ Chemical

San Jose, CA
Electrite Plating
Bay Road

East Palo Alto, CA

Varian Associates
Pato Alto, CA

Rockys Muffler & Hitch
Shop

H Placerville, CA

AIO 5 Wan

48119 Springs Blvd

Fremont, C.

EXHIBIT A

Location of
Exposure

San Jose Regional
Vocational Cent

Wilcox High School
Santa Clara, CA

Nelson Shell Gas Station
Santa Clara, CA

Reds Automotive & Gulf
Gas Station

Sunnyvale, CA

United Technologies
Corporation

Santa Clara, CA

Corky's Pest Control,
Milpitas, CA

AZ Chemical
San Jose, CA

Electrite Plating
East Palo Alto, cA

Varian Associates
Palo Alto, CA

Rockys Moffler & Hitch
Placerville, CA

AIO 5 Was Sp
48119 Warm Springs Blvd
Fremont, C,

C

Plaintiff's exposure to asbestos and asbestos-contsiing Prose occurred at various

‘ Exposure
Job Title Dates
Mechanic 1966-1969
Gas Station 1966-1969
Attendant (After school 4-5
nights week)
Mechanic 1966-1969
(After school 2-3
nights week)
Fabricator 1969-1970"
Exterminator 1970

Warehouseman 1971

Plater 1972-1973
(Apprentice)

Plater 1972- 1973
Maintenance 1973-1977
worker

Maintenance 1977-1982
Supervisor

Owner 1982-1984
Sprayer 1997-2001

EXHIBIT Awant A vA & YW N

C C

EXHIBIT. A (cont'd.)

NON-OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE:

Plaintiff hes Performed his own brake work on most of his vehicles since the 1970's. Plaintiff
owned used GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION Chevrolets and Pontiacs, and FORD
MOTOR COMPANY Fords.

Plaintiff purchased all his brakes at KRAGEN and GRAND (CSK AUTO, INC.) outlets in
Santa Clara and Stevens Creek Boulevard, San Jose. Plaintiff purchased only Bendix
(HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.) and Raybestos (RAYMARK USTRIES, INC)
ral

PARA-OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE;

Plaintiff shared a household with his father Joseph Breckler (deceased), from 1950 to
1968. Plaintiff’s father worked as a maintenance mechanic. Plaintiff's father wore his dusty
work clothing home and plaintiff would greet and roughhouse with his father as a child,
Plaintiff would ride in the same car his father drove to and from work. Plaintiff's father's work
history is as follows:

Location of Exposure
Employer Exposure Job Title Dates
‘Westinghouse Corporation Westinghouse Corporation Maintenance 1950-1963
Columbus, OH Columbus, OH Mechanic (approx.)
Schlitz Brews Schlitz Bi Maintenance 1950-1963
Columbus, On Columbus, O) Mechanic (approx.}
United Technologies United Technologies Maintenance 1963-1968
Corporation Corporation Mechanic
Santa Clara, CA Santa Clara, CA

Plaintiff's exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products caused severe and
permanent injury to the plaintiff, including, but not limited to breathing difficulties, asbestosis,
and/or other lung damage, and increased risk and fear of developing mesothelioma, lung cancer
and various other cancers. Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer and asbestos-related
pleural disease on or about February 2008.

Plaintiff is still employed and therefore has suffered no disability due to his asbestes-
related disease as "disability" is defined in California Code of Civil Procedure § 340.2.

EXHIBIT AEXHIBIT B1 EXHIBIT
2.) DEFENDANTS
3] ALLIS.CHALMERS CORPORATION PRODUCT FORD MOTOR COMPANY
LIABILITY TRUST GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
4 || AMERICAN STANDARD, INC. GENUINE PARTS COMPANY (GPC)
BUCYRUS INTERNATIONAL, INC. A.O, SMITH CORPORATION
5] CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC. BRYAN STEAM, LLC
GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC CLAYTON INDUSTRIES
6] GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY HURST BOILERS
HANSON PERMANENTE CEMENT, INC. BALDOR ELECTRIC COMPANY
7|| FORMERLY KNOWN AS KAISER CEMENT, ‘W.W. GRAINGER, INC.
INC. PLACERVILLE AUTO PARTS, INC.
8 || PARKER-IANNIFIN CORPORATION LARRY HOPKINS INCORPORATED
PLANT INSULATION COMPANY * CSK AUTO, INC.
9} QUINTEC INDUSTRIES, INC. GOULDS PUMPS, INC.
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION BURNHAM CORPORATION WHICH WILL DO
10} VIACOM, INC. BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS BURNHAM

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.

eo
aA hk Ww Nm

BAYER CROPSCIENCE, INC.

-
in

GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION

BUCYRUS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC.

DELAWARE, INC.
YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

BAYER CROPSCIENCE USA, INC.

AVENTIS CROPSCIENCE USA, INC,

RHONE-POULENC AG COMPANY, INC,

RHODIA, INC.

RHONE-POULENC, ENC.

STAUFFER CHEMICAL COMPANY

STAUFFER CHEMICALS CO.

AMCHEM PRODUCTS, INC., THE BENJAMIN
FOSTER DIVISION

CONVAR

VULTEE AIRCRAFT INC.

CONSOLIDATED VULTEE AIRCRAFT CORPORATION
ASBESTOS CORPORATION LIMITED

BUCYRUS-ERIB

MARION POWER SHOVEL COMPANY, THE
OSGOOD COMPANY

GENERAL EXCAVATOR COMPANY

CLEAVER-BROOKS, A DIVISION OF AQUA-CHEM, INC.
AQUA-CHEM, INC,

CLEAVER BROOKS

SPRINGFIELD BOILER CO.

EXHIBIT Bom QA wu & WYN

eee oo
e232 AA & YW HE SD

19

GARLOCK SEALING
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY

PARKER-HANNIFIN CORPORATION

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION

EXHIBIT B (cont'd.
ERNA‘

GARLOCK, INC.

COLTEC INDUSTRIES, INC.
FAIRBANKS-MORSE

FAIRBANKS MORSE ENGINES:
BELMONT PACKING & RUBBER CO.
GARLOCK PACKING CO.

U.S. GASKET CO.

GOODRICH CORPORATION

ENPRO INDUSTRIES, INC,

MATTERN X-RAY

HOTPOINT ELECTRIC APPLIANCE COMPANY LIMITED
TRUMBULL ELECTRIC MANUFACTURING COMPANY
GE INDUSTRIAL SYSTEMS

CURTISTURBINES

PARSONS TURBINES

GENERAL ELECTRIC JET ENGINES

SACOMA-SIERRA, INC.

SACOMA MANUFACTURING COMPANY
E.LS. AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATION
CONDREN CORPORATION, THE
PARKER SEAL COMPANY

UNITED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION

UNITED AIRCRAFT & TRANSPORT CORPORATION
PRATT & WHITNEY

HAMILTON STANDARD CO.

SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT CORP.

CBS CORPORATION

WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION
‘WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC AND
MANUFACTURING COMPANY

BF. STURTEVANT

KPIX TELEVISION STATION

PARAMOUNT CGMMUNICATIONS, INC.

NEW DEPARTURE

CHEVROLET

AC, DELCO CO.

BUICK AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATION
CADILLAC

GM GOODWRENCH

ROCHESTER PRODUCTS DIVISION
EUCLID ROAD MACHINERY CO.
FRIDGIDAIRE (for exposure pre 4/9/1979)

EXHIBIT Boat nH & YN

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC,

FORD MOTOR COMPANY

AO. SMITH CORPORATION
BRYAN STEAM, LLC

‘W.'W. GRAINGER, INC.
“at
Mit

EXHIBIT B (oon)
ALTERNATE ENTITY

HONEYWELL, INC.

HONEYWELL CONTROLS

ALLIEDSIGNAL, INC,

ALLIED-SIGNAL, INC.

‘THE BENDIX CORPORATION:

BENDIX PRODUCTS AUTOMOTIVE DIVISION
BENDIX PRODUCTS DIVISION, BENDIX AVIATION CORP.
BENDIX HOME SYSTEMS

ALLIED CORPORATION

ALLIED CHEMICAL CORPORATION
GENERAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION

FRICTION MATERIALS OF LOS ANGELES
NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES COMPANY
EM SECTOR HOLDINGS INC.

UNIVERSAL OIL PRODUCTS COMPANY
BOYLSTON CORPORATION .

EHRHART & ASSOCIATES, INC.

EHRHART & ARTHUR, INC.

GARRETT AIR RESEARCH CORP.

STANLEY G. FLAGG & CO.

MERGENTHALER LINOTYPE COMPANY
ELTRA CORPORATION

BUNKER RAMO-ELTRACORPORATION
UNION TEXAS NATURAL GAS CORPORATION
UNION OIL AND GAS OF LOUISIANA

UNION SULPHUR AND OIL CORPORATION
UNION SULPHUR COMPANY, INC., THE
MINNEAPOLIS-HONEY WELL REGULATOR COMPANY
SIGNAL COMPANIES, INC., THE

HANCOCK OIL COMPANY

BARRETT DIVISION, ALLIED CHEMICAL & DYE
CORPORATION

BRITISH LEYLAND MOTORS, INC.
BRITISH MOTOR CORPORATION
JAGUAR CARS, INC,

TRIUMPH

LINCOLN CONTINENTAL
AUSTIN HEALEY

STERLING ELECTRIC, INC.

BRYAN STEAM CORPORATION
BRYAN BOLER

TEEL PUMP

EXHIBIT3 | GENUINE PARTS COMPANY

9} CSK AUTO, INC.

YORK INTERNATIONAL
15]| CORPORATION

EXHIBIT B (cont'd.
Al ATE.

NAPA AUTO PARTS

GENUINE PARTS COMPANY OF MICHIGAN, INC.
RAYLOC BRAKES

AUTHORIZED MOTOR PARTS CORP.

GENUINE PARTS COMPANY OF WISCONSIN, INC.
AUTOMOTIVE PARTS COMPANY

COLYEAR MOTOR SALES COMPANY

GENERAL AUTOMOTIVE PARTS CORPORATION
STANDARD UNIT PARTS CORPORATION
DIGERUD AUTO PARTS

FANCHER AUTO-TRUCK PARTS CO.

KRAGEN AUTO SUPFLY CO.

NORTHERN AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATI ON
CHECKER AUTO PARTS, INC.

TBDPC CORPORATION

PACCAR AUTOMOTIVE, INC.

GRAND AUTO, INC.

AL'S AND GRAND AUTO SUPPLY, INC.
SCHUCK'S AUTO SUPPLY

TOPPS AUTOMOTIVE

TRAK AUTO PARTS

‘YORK OPERATING COMPANY

YORK HOLDINGS

YORK HOLDING CORPORATION

CENTRAL ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS
BORG-WARNER AIR CONDITIONING, INC.
BORG-WARNER CENTRAL ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS
YORK DIVISION, BORG-WARNER

YORK AIR CONDITIONING DIVISION, BORG ‘WARNER
YORK-LUXAIRE, INC.

YORK CORPORATION

LUXAIRE

YORK CORPORATION

YORK ICE MACHINERY

YORK MANUFACTURING

FRICK COMPANY

YORK ACQUISITION CORPORATION

LILCO, INC.

NATKIN SERVICE

YIC HOLDINGS CORPORATION

YORK HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING

NORTHFIELD FREEZING SYSTEMS

UNITED MECHANICAL SERVICES, INC.

JOHNSON SUPPLY & EQUIPMENT CORPORATION

YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION CES
(CENTRAL SYSTEMS)

YORK INTERNATIONAL SALES & SERVICE

SYSTEMS

APPLIED
FRASER JOHNSTON

EXHIBIT BB (cont'd.
ALTERNATE ENTITY.

GOULDS PUMPS (IPG), INC.

MORRIS PUMPS, INC.

MORRIS MACHINE WORKS

U.S. PUMPS, INC. .

UNITED TECHNOLOGIES HOLDING CORPORATION
DAY & NIGHT HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING
DAY & NIGHT MANUFACTURER COMPANY
PAYNE HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING

BRYANT HEATERS & BOILERS

STEWART BRYANT

CARRIER TRANSICOLD

ELLIOT COMPANY

CROCKER-WHEELER COMPANY

WESTERN ASBESTOS CO.

MAC ARTHUR COMPANY

BAY CITIES ASBESTOS COMPANY
BK. PINNEY, INC.

EXHIBIT BEXHIBIT B-13] ANDERSON, ROWE & BUCKLEY, INC.
RUDOLPH AND SLETTEN, INC.
4] CONSOLIDATED INSULATION, INC.
|| 1:7. THORPE & SON, INC.
5) DOES 1-800; DOES 1001-2000

8
I 5-7, THORPE & SON, INC. ‘THE THORPE COMPANY
9| THORPE PRODUCTS CO.

EXHIBIT B-1EXHIBIT Cune

2]) DEFENDANTS
3 | UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION - RUDOLPH AND SLETTEN, INC. .
} FDCC CALIFORNIA, INC. CONSOLIDATED INSULATION, INC.
4] ANDERSON, ROWE & BUCKLEY, INC. J.T. THORPE & SON, INC. *
WESTERN MACARTHUR COMPANY PLANT INSULATION COMPANY
MACARTHUR COMPANY WESTERN ASBESTOS COMPANY
DOES 1001-2000 .
PREMISES OWNER ‘ .
DEFENDANTS LOCATIO! TIME PERIOD
1 UNITED TECHNOLOGIES . Santa Clara, CA, . 1963-1968
98 CORPORATION .
10
f CONTRACTOR
Lif] DEFENDANTS. LOCATION TIMEPERIOD

124] FOCC CALIPORNIA, INC., ANDERSON, Varian Associates, Palo Alto,CA Various
| ROWE & BUCKLEY, INC.; RUDOLPH

134 AND SLETTEN, INC.

14{ CONSOLIDATED INSULATION, INC. Varian Associates, Palo Alta,CA - Various

15]} J.T. THORPE & SON, INC. Varian Associates, Palo Alto,CA — Various
16} PLANT INSULATION COMPANY Various Various
17 | WESTERN MACARTHUR COMPANY “Vasian Associates, Palo Alto,CA — Various

18 | WESTERN ASBESTOS COMPANY Varian Associates, Palo Alto,CA Various *

19) MACARTHUR COMPANY Varian Associates, Palo Alto,CA — Various

EXHIBIT CEXHIBIT G6 6 1 A Wek wh me

eee eee
Aue HY BE S

7

DEEENDANTS
DOES 4001-4999

EXHIBIT GCoed An ea wr

o ‘mee
a asa GS ES

W7METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

PNEUMO ABEX LEC .

BORGWARNER MORSE TEC, INC.

HONEY WELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. (suecessor-in-
interest to ALLIEDSIGNAL, INC.)

H HL KRASNE MANUFACTURING COMPANY

ASBESTOS MANUFACTURING COMPANY
FIBRE & METAL PRODUCTS COMPANY
LASCO BRAKE PRODUCTS

LJ. MILEY COMPANY
ROSSENDALE-RUBOIL COMPANY

NATIONAL TRANSPORT SUEPLY, INC.

. SILVER LINE PRODUCTS, INC.

BELL ASBESTOS MINES LTD.

AUTO SPECIALTIES MANUFACTURING COMPANY DOES5000-8000EXHIBIT Iee

Ss

DEFENDANTS,

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC.

PNEUMO ABEX LLC

GATKE CORPORATION -

GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

AMERICAN CONFERENCE OF GOVERNMENTAL INDUSTRIAL HYGIENISTS, INC.
UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES, INC.

§ DOES5000-7500EXHIBIT BBRAYTON@PURCELL LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
222 RUSH LANDING ROAD
PO BOX 6169
NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 94948-6169
(415) 898-1555

ALAN R. BRAYTON, ESQ., S.B. #73685
DAVID R. DONADIO, ESQ., S.B. #154436

BRAYTON*PURCELL LLP ELECTRONICALLY
Attorneys at Law
222 Rush Landing Road s FILE D .
P.O. Box 6169 superior Court of California,
Novato, California 94948-6169 County of San Francisco
(415) 898-1555 JUL 17 2009
, GORDON PARK-LI, Clerk
Attorneys for Plaintiffs BY: EDNALEEN JAVIER
Deputy Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
RODRICK BRECKLER and. ) ASBESTOS
JOANNE BRECKLER, No. 274566
Plaintiffs, AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

2
vs. )

) [C.C,P, Section 474]

)

ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP)

Plaintiffs amend the complaint in this action as follows:

Plaintiffs have learned the true names of the defendants designated in the complaint as.

fictitious DOES as set forth below:
TRUE NAME

CRAFTSMAN ELEVATORS, INC.
INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY
R.E. CUDDIE CO.

CARL N. SWENSON CO., INC.
REDWOOD PLUMBING CO,, INC,
L.R. TRILLO COMPANY, INC.
SCOTT CO. . OF CALIFORNIA

Alternate Entities:
SCOTT COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA

FICTITIOUS NAME
DOE 17 & 4003
DOE 18

DOE 19 & 4004
DOE 20 & 4005
DOE 21 & 4006
DOE 22 & 4007
DOE 23 & 4008

SCOTT COMPANY OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

SCOTT CO, INDUSTRIAL CONTRACTORS

2Documents and Ssropnttton Documents on version Work D282 20080717175404016 od
AMENDMENT AINTOo mo YA mw Fw NH |

Ss

SCOTT-BROADWAY CONTRACTORS, INC,

BROADWAY PLUMBING CO,, INC,

BROADWAY MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.
ALLSBERRY MECHANICAL CORPORATION
RAY L. HELLWIG PLUMBING & HEATING, INC.
RAY L, HELLWIG MECHANICAL CO, INC,
HALEY ENGINEERING CORPORATION
AMERICAN PLUMBING & HEATING SUPPLIES
W. L. LARSEN, INC.

BIGGE CRANE AND RIGGING CO.
Alternate Entities:

BIGGE DRAYAGE CO.
BIGGE CRANE & RIGGING CORPORATION

UNIQUE ELECTRONIC TRANSFER AND STORAGE, INC.

$8 & § WELDING, INC,

AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC.

Alternate Entities:
SOUTH BAY WELDING SUPPLY, INC.

MADCO WELDING SUPPLY CO., INC.
GEORGE ROSSMANN, INC,

8. H. COLEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
SAN JOSE BOILER WORKS, INC,

FEDERAL-MOGUL ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY
TRUST AS SUCCESSOR TO FELT-PRODUCTS
MANUFACTURING CO.
Alternate Entities:

FEL-PRO INCORPORATED

MOOG AUTOMOTIVE, INC.

PRECISION BRAKES

NATIONAL SEAL DIVISION

WAGNER ELECTRIC CORPORATION

GOETZE CORPORATION OF AMERICA

MUSKEGON PISTON RING COMPANY

SUPER SHOPS, INC.
THE JACK DYMOND COMPANY
PEEBELS EQUIPMENT COMPANY

(CADocuments and SertingsGeadmiutMy Documen Conversion Work i292, 20000717175 $205161 wad
AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

DOE 24 & 4009
DOE 25 & 4010
DOE 26 & 4011
DOE 27 & 4012
DOE 28

DOE 29 & 4013
DOE 30 & 4014

DOE 31 & 4015
DOE 32 & 4016
DOE 33

DOE 34
DOE 35
DOE 36 & 4017
DOE 37 & 4018

DOE 38

DOE 39 & 4019
DOE 40 & 4020
DOE 41ec wo YM A A PF YW NH

SOUTH BAY ELECTRIC

SASCO (FKA SASCO ELECTRIC)
Alternate Entities:

PACIFIC WESTERN ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS CO.

ELECTRICAL MATERIALS, INC.
CHESTER C. LEHMANN, CO., INC.
BUCKLES-SMITH ELECTRIC COMPANY
Alternate Entities:

STATE ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO

CRANE SERVICE CORPORATION

Plaintiffs hereby substitute such true names for the fictitious names as set forth above

wherever said names appear in the complaint.

DOE 42
DOE 43

DOE 44

DOE 45

DOE 46

DOE 47

Dated:__07/16/2009 BRAYTON*PURCELL LLP

By: /s/ David R. Donadio

David R. Donadio
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

CADoeuments and Settings Soadmin My Documents\Conversion Work Di282 200007171754340161 w
AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINEXHIBIT CGABRIEL A. JACKSON, State Bar No. 98119
DANIEL D. O’SHBA, State Bar No, 238534
JACKSON & WALLACE Lip

35 Francisco Strect, 6th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94133

Tel: 415.982.6300

Fax: 415.982.6700

for Defendant
ING, INC,

Attome}
8&8

ELECTRONICALLY
FILED

‘Suparlor Court of Caltomia,
‘Cownly of San Francisco

GONIRN FARO Rio
‘BY: CHRISTLE ARRIOLA.
‘Depuly Clerk

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

RODERICK BRECKLER and JOANNE
BRECKLER,

Plaintifi,

Y
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP),
Defendant.

Case No. CGC-08-274566

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT S&S
WELDING, INC. TG UNVERIFIED
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY -
ASBESTOS

DEFENDANT, S&S WELDING, INC., (hereinafter -DEPENDANT") answers the
unverified Complaint (“Complaint”) hereia on its own behalf and on bebalf of no other defendant

oF 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 plaintiffs therein

slates facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against DEFENDANT,

SECOND.

ATIVE DEFENSE

To the extent the Complaint asserts DEFENDANT's alleged "market share" liability, or
“enterprise liability," the Complaint fails to state farts sufficient to constitute a cause of action

vsse8

1

‘DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INFURY28
JACRSON & WALLACE
uP

SAN FRANCISCO

GABRIEL A, JACKSON, State Bar No. 98119
DANIEL D. O’SHEA, State Bar No. 238534
JACKSON & WALLACE LLP

55 Francisco Street, 6th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94133

Tel: 415.982.6300

Fax: 415.982.6700

Attorneys for Defendant
S&S WELDING, INC.

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

RODERICK BRECKLER and JOANNE Case No. CGC-08-274566
BRECKLER,
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT S&S
Plaintiffs, WELDING, INC. TO UNVERIFIED
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY -
vy ASBESTOS
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP),
Defendant.

DEFENDANT, S&S WELDING, INC., (hereinafter "DEFENDANT") answers the
unverified Complaint (“Complaint”) herein 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 plaintiffs 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

1793349 1

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURYSo em MW A WH BF WN =

aaa
Coe NY A AW PB YW NH SB S

JACKSON & WALLACE
uP

BAN FRANGISCO

against DEFENDANT.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Neither the Complaint nor any purported cause of action alleged therein states facts
sufficient to entitle plaintiffs 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 Jaws 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
Plaintiffs’ 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(1), 340(3), 340.2, 343 and 353 and California Commercial Code, section
2725.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs unreasonably delayed in bringing this action, without good cause therefore, and
thereby has prejudiced DEFENDANT as a direct and proximate result of such delay; accordingly,
his action is barred by laches and by section 583 et. seg. of the Code of Civil Procedure.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs were 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 plaintiffs are entitled to any damages, the amount of these
1793349 2

DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURYOo ON HH BR WN

RN NON NN N NN Se Be Be Be Be Be Be Be Be
ou at A 8B Oe NF SOD ew It NH Pe BE GS

SCRSON & WALLACE,

Lp
SAN FRANCISCO

damages should be reduced by the comparative fault of plaintiffs and any person whose negligent
acts or omissions are imputed to plaintiffs.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiffs knowingly, voluntarily and unreasonably undertook to encounter 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
plaintiffs.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Any loss, injury or damage incurred by plaintiffs 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 plaintiffs or
by others; the misuse, abuse or alteration was not reasonably foreseeable to DEFENDANT, and
proximately caused any loss, injury or damages incurred by plaintiffs.

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 plaintiffs on the Complaint on file herein is barred in consequence of the exercise of
those sovereign powers.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiffs failed to exercise due diligence to mitigate his loss, injury or damages;
accordingly, the amount of damages to which plaintiffs are entitled, if any, should be reduced by
the amount of damages which would have otherwise been mitigated.
Mt

Mt
1793349 3

DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURYCo mI KH Hh RB YW NHN =

Ra a a i
oOo mem INAH BF HW HP FS

28
Jackson & Wauace
up

‘SAN FRANCISCO

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 are barred by the
provisions of California Labor Code, section 3600, ef seq.

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

DEFENDANT alleges that at the time of the injuries alleged in the Complaint, plaintiffs’
wer employed and was entitled to receive Workers’ Compensation benefits from his employer's
workers' compensation insurance carrier; that all of plaintiffs’ 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 plaintiffs, if any there
were; and that by reason thereof DEFENDANT is entitled to set off and/or reduce any such
workers’ compensation benefits received or to be received by plaintiffs against any judgment
which may be rendered in favor of plaintiffs. (Wirt v. Jackson, 57 Cal.2d 57, 366 P.2d 641)

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

DEFENDANT alleges that at the time of the injuries alleged in the Complaint, plaintiffs’
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 plaintiffs, 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 plaintiffs,
if any there were; and that DEFENDANT herein shall not be liable for said parties' proportionate

share of non-economic damages.
1793349 4

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURYoC Dm WH

NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

DEFENDANT alleges that at all times relative to matters alleged in the Complaint, all of
plaintiffs’ 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 cause of plaintiffs’ injuries, if any.

TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

If plaintiffs have 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 is awarded damages
against DEFENDANT, DEFENDANT claims a credit against this award to the extent that
DEFENDANT is barred from enforcing his rights to reimbursement for Workers’ Compensation
benefits that plaintiffs have received or may in the future receive,

TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Tf plaintiffs have received, or in the future may receive Workers’ Compensation benefits
from DEFENDANT under the Labor Code of the State of Califomia 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 plaintiffs recover tort damages as a result
of the industrial injury allegedly involved here. Although DEFENDANT denies the validity of
plaintiffs’ 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 plaintiffs and DEFENDANT and the demands are compensated, so far as they equal
each other, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.70.

TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

At all times and places in the Complaint, plaintiffs were not in privity of contract with
DEFENDANT and said lack of privity bars plaintiffs’ recovery herein upon any theory of
warranty.
W

it
4793349 5

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURYCO ND Hh FW DY

NR N BP NN NR DP Be Be ew Be oe ee ee
I Awe DB NH =— SO BAA HF AEHKH SE TS

28
JACKSON & WALLACE
uP

SAN FRANCISCO

TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs are barred from recovery in that all products produced, sold or distributed by
DEFENDANT, if any, were in conformity with the existing state-of-the-art, and as a result, these
products were not defective in any manner.

TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

DEFENDANT did not and does not have a substantial percentage of the market for the
asbestos-containing products which allegedly caused plaintiffs’ injuries. Therefore,
DEFENDANT may not be held liable to plaintiffs based on this DEFENDANT's alleged
percentage share of the applicable market.

TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

DEFENDANT denies any and all liability to the extent that plaintiffs 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-SIXTH AF TIVE DEFENSE

DEFENDANT alleges that plaintiffs’ claims are or may be barred in whole or in part by
res judicata, collateral estoppel, issue preclusion and/or release.

TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

DEFENDANT alleges that it is immune from liability for any alleged failure to warn
plaintiffs of material risks associated with DEFENDANT's products, if any, because such risks
were or should have been obvious to a reasonably prudent product user in plaintiffs’ position, or
were otherwise a matter of common knowledge to persons in the same or similar position to

plaintiffs.
1793349 6

DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY28
JACKSON & WALLACE
up

SAN FRANCISCO

TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
This court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the causes of action alleged in the
Complaint.
TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As a result of plaintiffs’ unreasonable delay in bringing this action, without good cause
therefore, in addition to his other unreasonable acts and omissions, plaintiffs have waived each or
some of the claims stated or purportedly stated in the Complaint.
THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The activity alleged in the Complaint, to the extent that it was engaged in by
DEFENDANT, if at all, was not ultrahazardous under California law.
THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
California Civil Code sections 1431.1 through 1431.5, known as the Fair Responsibility
Act of 1986, is applicable at least in part to the present action and to certain claims therein, and
based upon the principle of comparative fault, the liability, if any, of DEFENDANT, if liable at
all, shall be several only and shall not be joint. DEFENDANT, if liable at all, shall be liable as to
certain claims only for the amount of non-economic damages allocated to DEFENDANT in direct
proportion to DEFENDANT's percentage of fault, if any, and a separate and several judgment
shall be rendered against DEFENDANT for non-economic damages, if any.
THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs cannot prove any facts showing that the conduct of DEFENDANT was the cause
in fact of any alleged injuries or damages suffered by plaintiffs as alleged in the Complaint.
THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ,
Plaintiffs cannot prove any facts showing that the conduct of DEFENDANT was the
proximate cause of any alleged injuries or damages suffered by plaintiffs as alleged in the
Complaint.
THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
If plaintiffs were injured as alleged in the Complaint, those injuries were proximately

caused by allergies, sensitivities and idiosyncrasies particular to plaintiffs, and not found in the
1793349 7

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY28
JACKSON & WaLLACE
LP

SAN PRANCISCO

general public and unknown and unknowable to DEFENDANT. Such injuries, if any, were not
reasonably foreseeable to DEFENDANT.
THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
At all times relevant, DEFENDANT's acts and omissions were in conformity with all
government statutes and regulations and all industry standards based upon the state of knowledge
existing at the time of the acts or omissions.
THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs have failed to join all parties necessary for full and just adjudication of the
purported causes of action asserted in the Complaint.
THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
DEFENDANT alleges that plaintiffs have directed, ordered, approved and/or ratified
DEFENDANT's conduct and plaintiffs are therefore estopped from asserting her claims alleged in
the Complaint as a result of their own acts, conduct or omissions.
THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
DEFENDANT alleges that at the time of the injuries alleged in the Complaint, plaintiffs
were employed and was entitled to receive Workers’ Compensation benefits from their employer's
workers’ compensation insurance carrier; that DEFENDANT did not control plaintiffs’ work
activities at his worksites; that all of plaintiffs’ employers, other than DEFENDANT, were
negligent in and about the matters referred to in said Complaint, that other parties over whom.
DEFENDANT had no control were negligent in and about the matters referred to in said
Complaint, and that such negligence on the part of said employers and other parties proximately
and concurrently contributed to the happening of the accident and to the loss or damage
complained of by plaintiffs, if any there were; and as a result thereof, DEFENDANT bears no
liability for plaintiffs’ alleged damages.
THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for “Premises
Owner/Contractor Liability” against this DEFENDANT pursuant to the ruling of the California

Supreme Court in Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, the ruling of the California
1793349 8

DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY© eo ADAH BF YK Ye

Boe SB Be eB eB oe eB ee
So 02m NIU AH kB YW NF GS

28
JACKSON 6 WALLACE
up

SAN FRANCISCO

Court of Appeal in Smith v. ACandS, Inc. (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 77, the California Court of
Appeal in Grahn v. Tosco Corporation (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th, 1373, and the ruling of the
California Supreme Court in Toland v. Sunland Housing Group, Inc. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 253,
FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

DEFENDANT had no property interest, ownership or control of any premises at any time
during which plaintiffs allege they were exposed to asbestos dust, allegedly causing injuries
and/or damages.

FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

DEFENDANT refers to and incorporates herein each and every affirmative defense
pleaded by the other parties herein to the extent that such defenses are not inconsistent with the
matters stated herein.

FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

DEFENDANT alleges that it presently has insufficient knowledge or information on
which to form a belief as to whether it may have additional, as yet unasserted defenses available.
DEFENDANT reserves herein the right to assert additional defenses in the event discovery
indicates that they would be appropriate.

WEREFORE, DEFENDANT prays:

(1) That plaintiffs take nothing by this Complaint;

(2) That Judgment be entered in favor of DEFENDANT;

(3) For recovery of DEFENDANT's costs of suit;

(4) For appropriate credits and set-offs arising out of any payment of Workers’
Compensation benefits, or otherwise, as alleged above; and

(5) For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated: November U9 , 2009 K. Bh CE LLP
hee
By:

DANIEL D. O’SHEA
8&5 WELDING, INC.

1793349 9

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY28
JACESON & WALLACE
up

SAN FRANCISCO

Roderick and Joanne Breckler_v, Asbestos Defendants (BP) S.F.S.C #274566

PROOF OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION
I, the undersigned, declare that am a citizen of the United States and employed in San
Francisco County, California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within-
entitled action. My business address is 55 Francisco Street, 6th Floor, San Francisco, Califomia
94133. On November 24 2009, I electronically served pursuant to General Order No. 158,
the following document(s):
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT S&S WELDING, INC. TO

UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY-
ASBESTOS

on interested parties in this action by causing Lexis Nexis E-Service program pursuant to General

Order No. 158, to transmit a true copy thereof to the email address(es) of the following party(ies):

BRAYTON PURCELL LLP and

222 Rush Landing Road
Novato, CA 94048 ° +**Please See Lexis Nexis Service List***

The above document(s) were transmitted by Lexis Nexis E-Service and the transmission
was reported as complete without error.

I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct and was executed on November 24, 2009, at San Francisco,

Valerie Capobianco

California.

1793349GABRIEL A. JACKSON, State Bar No. 98119
DANIEL D. O'SHEA, State Bar No. 238534

JACKSON & WALLACE LLP ELECTRONICALLY
‘55 Francisco Street, 6th Floor
San Fi CA’ 94133 FILED
Tel: 415.982.6300 Superior Court of Calton,
Fax: 415.982.6700

NOV 24 2009
Altomneys for Defendant GORDON PARICLI, Clerk
S&S WELDING, INC. Ag

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

RODERICK BRECKLER and JOANNE: Case No. CGC-08-274566

BRECKLER,
DEFENDANT S&S WELDING, INC’S
Plaintiffs, DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY AND
ESTIMATE OF LENGTH OF TRIAL
v.
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP),

Defendant.

TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT AND TO ALL PARTIES
HEREIN:

PLHASE TAKE NOTICE that defendant S&S WELDING, INC., hereby demands a trial
by jury in the above-entitled action and estimates thal the length of trial will be six to eight weeks
induration.

Dated: November_YY, 2009 é wACLace itr

NX

By:

D.O'SHEA
S&S WELDING, INC.

1939

‘DEFENDANT'S DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY AND ESTIMATE OF LENGTH OF TRIALoe YN AH WH hw DK =

Boe Se Be eB eB ew De eka
Cet A WA BW KH =| S

28

JACKSON & WALLACE
uP
SAN FRANCHCO.

GABRIEL A. JACKSON, State Bar No. 98119
DANIEL D. O’SHEA, State Bar No. 238534
JACKSON & WALLACE LLP

55 Francisco Street, 6th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94133

Tel: 415.982.6300

Fax: 415.982.6700

Attorneys for Defendant
S&S WELDING, INC.

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

RODERICK BRECKLER and JOANNE Case No. CGC-08-274566
BRECKLER,

DEFENDANT S&S WELDING, INC.’S

Plaintiffs, DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY AND

ESTIMATE OF LENGTH OF TRIAL
vy.

ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP),
Defendant.

TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT AND TO ALL PARTIES
HEREIN:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that defendant S&S WELDING, INC., hereby demands a trial
by jury in the above-entitled action and estimates that the length of trial will be six to eight weeks
in duration.

Dated: November VD 2009

DANIBH D.0’SHEA
S&S WELDING, INC.

1793349

DEFENDANT’S DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY AND ESTIMATE OF LENGTH OF TRIALeo eo YN WA HW FF Ye NH =

ea
eo YN DA A RF YW N | SG

19

28

JACKSON & WALLACE
up
SAN FRANCISCO

Roderick and Joanne Breckler v. Asbestos Defendants (BP) S.F.S.C #274566

PROOF OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION
I, the undersigned, declare that am a citizen of the United States and employed in San

Francisco County, California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within-
entitled action. My business address is 55 Francisco Street, 6th Floor, San Francisco, California
94133. On November ZY 2009, I electronically served pursuant to General Order No, 158,
the following document(s):

DEFENDANT S&S WELDING, INC.’S DEMAND FOR TRIAL
BY JURY AND ESTIMATE OF LENGTH OF TRIAL

on interested parties in this action by causing Lexis Nexis E-Service program pursuant to General
Order No. 158, to transmit a true copy thereof to the email address(es) of the following party(ies):

BRAYTON PURCELL LLP and
222 Rush Landing Road

Novato, CA 94948 ***Please See Lexis Nexis Service List***
The above document(s) were transmitted by Lexis Nexis E-Service and the transmission
was reported as complete without error.

I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct and was executed on November 24 , 2009, at San Francisco,

AU

California.

1793349 2GABRIEL A, JACKSON, State Bar No. 98119
DANIEL D. O'SHEA, State Bar No, 238534

JACKSON & WALLACE LP ELECTRONICALLY
35 Francisco Street, 6th Floor om
San Francisco, CA 94133 oak ILE 2,
Tel: 5.982, ore fom,
Fax: 415.982.6700 County of San Frencteco
NOV 24 2009

for Defendant GORDON PARK-LI, Clerk]

S&S ING, INC. ‘BY: CHRISTLE ARRIOLA,
Deputy Clerk

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