Motion,Ex Parte: ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                ho

co ep em IN DH B® Ww

GABRIEL A. JACKSON, State Bar No. 98119
ANTHONY C. CHIOSSO, State Bar No. 209014

JACKSON JENKINS RENSTROM LLP
55 Francisco Street, 6th Floor ELECTRONICALLY
San Francisco, CA 94133 F I L E D
Tel: 415.982.3600 Superior Court of California,
Fax: 415.982.3700 County of San Francisco

FEB 06 2012
Attorneys for Defendant Clerk of the Court
COSCO FIRE PROTECTION, INC. BY: ALISON AGBAY

Deputy Clerk

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

ROBERT ROSS AND JEAN ROSS, Case No CGC-10-275731
Plaintiffs, SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT COSCO FIRE PROTECTION, INC. 'S
ve MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR

SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

C.C, MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS;

Defendants as Reflected on Exhibit 1 DATE: March 20, 2012

attached to the Summary Complaint TIME: 9:30 a.m.

herein; and DOES 1-8500., et al. DEPT: 503

TRIAL: May 21, 2012
Defendants.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(b), Defendant Cosco Fire Protection,
Inc. (hereinafter “Cosco”) submits this separate statement of undisputed material facts in

support of its motion for summary judgment:

MOVING PARTY’S UNDISPUTED MATERIAL OPPOSING PARTY'S RESPONSE AND
FACTS SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

1. Plaintiff has complained against Cosco for 1,
contractor liability, loss of consortium, and
punitive damages. (Chiosso Decl., Exh. “A.”)

2. Cosco requested that Plaintiff identify each 2.
fact supporting his contention that Cosco is

liable to him as alleged in his complaint and/or
supporting his contention that he was exposed

to asbestos-containing products disturbed by

Defendant Cosco Fire Protection, Inc.’s Objection to Plaintiffs’ Offer to Campromise Pursuant
to Code of Civil Procedure Section 998CoC Oe NKR HW BF Ww |=

NR RYN RYN NN KN fF Fe Fe Be Se Be Be Be
oN OA Hh FY YP — SD OD OH DO FY KY YF Ss

Cosco. (Chiosso Decl., Exh. “E,” Special
Interrogatory No. 2, p. 3:3-5; No. 5, p. 3:12-
14.)

3. In response, Plaintiff identifies four jobsites 3.
at which he claims to have worked around

Cosco employees in the 1970s. Plaintiff adds
further details and references his deposition

to support them, but the testimony at the
citations he references has nothing to do with

any work around Cosco employees. (Chiosso
Decl., Exh. “F,” Response to Special

Interrogatory No. 2, p. 2:2-28.)

4, Cosco requested that Plaintiff identify each 4.
site or location where he alleges exposure to
asbestos as a result of Cosco’s activities and

the dates when the alleged exposures

occurred. (Chiosso Decl., Exh. “E,” Special
Interrogatory Nos. 6-7, p. 3:15-21.}

5. Plaintiff identified: Highland Hospital in 5.
Oakland, CA, for one month on and off in the
1967-72 time period; UCSF Medical Center for
nine days in 1977 and four months, on and off,

in the 1977-79 time period; and University of
California, Berkeley’s Warren Hall for 2 weeks

in 1979. (Chiosso Decl., Exh. “F,” Response to
Special Interrogatory Nos. 6-7, p. 9:16-10:25.)

6. Cosco requested that Plaintiff identify the 6.
type of work or activity in which he was

engaged when he alleges exposure to asbestos

as a result of Cosco’s activities. (Chiosso Decl.,
ay Special Interrogatory No. 9, p. 3:26-

4:1,

7. Plaintiff responded that he worked as an 7.
insulator, working with asbestos-containing
insulation products, on each of the projects

where he alleges seeing Casco employees.
{Chiosso Decl., Exh. “F,” Response to Special
Interrogatory No. 9, p. 11:5-12:7.)

8. Cosco requested that Plaintiffidentify each 8.
person with knowledge regarding each alleged
exposure for which he believes Cosco is
responsible, and each and every fact relevant

to the alleged exposures known to those

persons. (Chiosso Decl., Exh. “E,” Special
Interrogatory Nos. 12-13; 15-17, p. 4:9-19;
4:26-5:8.)

9. Plaintiff did not identify anyone other than 9.
himself who might have knowledge regarding 3

Defendant Cosco Fire Protection, Inc.’s Objection to Plaintiffs’ Offer to Compromise Pursuant
to Code of Civil Procedure Section 998Oo SB DW BH HD FF BN |

NN YP NY NN NR DY DB me ee ae
CN DA HW FF BY KB KF SD BO OB HM DH HW FF WY YW KF DS

any exposures for which Cosco might be
responsible. (Chiosso Decl., Exh. “F,”
Response to Special Interrogatory Nos. 12-13;
15-17, p. 13:5-21; 14:6-28.)

10. Cosco also requested that Plaintiff identify
every document relating to each alleged
exposure. . (Chiosso Decl., Exh. “E,” Special
Interrogatory No. 18, p. 5:9-17.)

11. Plaintiff was unable to identify any
document showing either that Cosco was
present on any site or that sprinklerfitters
should have known that shooting studs for the
purpose of hanging supports and hangers
might be hazardous to anyone, much less
insulators working on asbestos-containing
materials in the area. (Chiosso Decl., Exh. “F,”
Response to Special Interrogatory No. 18, p.
15:1-16:24.)

12. Cosco requested that Plaintiff identify
each fact supporting his allegation that Cosco
should be liable for punitive damages.
{Chiosso Decl., Exh. “E,” Special Interrogatory
No. 22, p. 6:3-5.)

13. Plaintiff was unable to provide any
information responsive to this request.
(Chiosso Decl., Exh. “F,” Response to Special
Interrogatory No. 22, p. 18:1-7.

14, Plaintiff believes that he worked around
Cosco employees at: Highland Hospital; UCSF
Medical Center; and University of California
Berkeley, Warren Hall. (Chiosso Dect., Exh.
“G," p. 1371:9-18.)

15. Plaintiff worked at Highland Hospital from
1967 to 1972 for around a total of one month,
when he was with Consolidated. (Chiosso
Decl., Exh. “G,” p. 1371:22-24; 1372:6-9.) He
worked at UCSF Medical Center from 1977-79
on an off for about four months total.
(Chiosso Decl., Exh. “G,” p. 1371:25-1372:5;
1388:7-15.) He also worked at USCF for nine
days in 1977. (Chiosso Decl., Exh. “G,” p.
1374:4-6.) He worked at UC Berkeley, Warren
Hall for a couple of weeks in 1979. (Chiosso
Decl., Exh. “G,” p. 1372:10-18.)

16. The only reason he associated any
workers with Cosco at any of these jobsites is
that they had “Cosco” on their hardhats; he
could not recall what they wore and did not

10.

11.

12.

13.

14,

15.

16.

Defendant Cosco Fire Protection, inc.’s Objection to Plaintiffs’ Offer to Compromise Pursuant
to Cade of Civil Procedure Section 998Co mom nN KH A Bb

recall any logos on their clothes. (Chiosso
Decl., Exh. “G,” p. 1375:22-1376:18; p.
1389:21-1390:2; p. 1396:4-6; 1402:25-1403:2.)

17, Mr. Ross saw these workers that he 17.
associated with Cosco installing sprinkler pipe.
(Chiosso Decl., Exh. “G,” p. 1377:24-25.) They

were right across from him on ladders, or

twenty feet away. (Chiosso Decl., Exh. “G,” p.
1376:21-1377:1.) He believes those

employees penetrated fireproofing, but

cannot estimate how many times that

occurred. (Chiosso Decl., Exh. “G,” p. 1378:21-
1379:9.)

18. Mr. Ross did not know the brandnameor 18.
manufacturer of the fireproofing these

employees penetrated. (Chiosso Decl., Exh.

“G,” p. 1379:17-20.)

19. He believes these employees exposed him 19.
to asbestos by shooting studs into the ceilings

in order to hang sprinkler pipe. (Chiosso Decl.,

Exh. “G,” p. 1378:1-8; 1386:3-8.)

20. According to Mr. Ross, these employees 20.
performed the same work each time he

observed them at the various jobsites.

{Chiosso Decl., Exh. “G,” p. 1390:19-1391:6; p.
1396:24-1397:4; p. 1404:4-9.)

21. Mr. Ross does not know who appliedthe 21.
fireproofing at these jobsites. (Chiosso Decl.,

Exh. “G,” p. 1380:16-18; p. 1391:25-1392:5; p.
1397:20-25; p. 1405:4-8.)

22. Mr. Ross does not have any information 22.
showing that Cosco knew the fireproofing they
disturbed contained asbestos; The Cosco
employees did not wear masks, although Mr.

Ross did. {Chiosso Decl., Exh. “G,” p. 1381:3-
1381:8; p. 1392:9-1392:14; p. 1398:7-19; p.
1405:19-1406:3.)

23, Mr. Ross was himself insulating pipe and = =—.23.
wrapping duct at these jobsites.

24. Laborers not employed by Cosco cleaned = 24.
up the fireproofing at these jobsites. (Chiosso
Decl., Exh. “G,” p.1382:6-13; p. 1393:1-15; p.
1399:13-24.)

25. Mr. Ross does not know when Cosco 25.
learned the hazards of asbestos. (Chiosso

Decl., Exh. “G,” p. 1385:17-19.} 4

Defendant Cosco Fire Protection, Inc.’s Objection to Plaintiffs’ Offer to Campromise Pursuant
to Code of Civil Procedure Section 998CO me YN DA WA RB WH =

YR NR YN YN NN ND eB em eee ee
C2 WR A BF YW Yb =— SOD ew HM DAH F BW WP KF

26. Fireproofing was applied by the
fireproofing contractor. Cosco was never
retained to apply fireproofing and the
application of fireproofing was not part of our
job duties. Cosco never purchased fireproofing
as a part of its business. Fireproofing became
asbestos-free in the very early 1970s. (Chiosso
Decl., Exh. “H,” 416, p.2:9-12.)

27. Cosco did not learn that shooting studs for
the purposes of installing hanger and supports
for sprinkler pipe could create a hazard until
the 1980s, when building specifications began
requiring contractors to take precautions
regarding work with fireproofing. Prior to
that, Cosco did not believe shooting studs for
hanger and supports for the sprinkler pipe
could create a health hazard. (Chiosso Decl.,
Exh. “H,” 417, p.2:13-17.}

28. Shooting studs for the purposes of
installing hangers and supports for sprinkler
pipes created only a little bit of dust. During
the 1970s, there was no reason for Cosco to
believe that this action created a hazard for its
sprinklerfitters, much less for any insulators
working in the area. (Chiosso Decl., Exh. “H,”
418, p.2:18-20.}

29. During the 1970s, trades such as
plumbers, HVAC workers, and electricians
would create much larger disturbances of
fireproofing than that caused by the shooting
of studs for the purposes of installing hangers
and supports for sprinkler pipes. Cosco is not
aware that any of these trades took any
precautions with respect to disturbing
fireproofing in the 1970s. (Chiosso Deci., Exh.
“H,” 99, p.2:21-24.)

30. Cosco is aware of no literature available in
the 1970s suggesting that the act of shooting
studs for the purposes of installing hangers
and supports for sprinkler pipes could create a
hazardous condition for anyone in the area.
No sprinklerfitter organization in the 1970s
warned that such actions might be hazardous.
No governmental regulations in the 1970s
addressed the shooting of studs for the
purposes of installing hangers and supports
for sprinkler pipes or any asbestos hazards of
sprinklerfitting. The government regulations
that did exist regarding asbestos in the 1970s
concerned concentrations much higher than

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

Defendant Cosco Fire Protection, Inc.’s Objection to Plaintiffs’ Offer to Compromise Pursuant
to Code of Civil Procedure Section 998that caused by the shooting of studs for the
purposes of installing hangers and supports
for sprinkler pipes, (Chiosso Decl., Exh. “H,”
10, p.2:25 -3:4.)

31. Cosco is aware of no sprinklerfitter 31.
company in the 1970s that took any

precautions regarding possible health hazards

from shooting studs for the purposes of

installing hangers and supports for sprinkler

pipes. (Chiosso Decl., Exh. “H,” 9111, p.3:5-7.)

32. Cosco did not provide hardhats with logos 32.
until the 1990s. (Chiosso Decl., Exh. “H,” 112,
p.3:8.}

33. Cosco was a very small outfit, especially in 33.
the early 1970s. Cosco would not have had

the capability of doing a hospital project until

1977 or later. (Chiosso Decl., Exh. “H,” 913,
p.3:9-10.)

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(b), Cosco hereby submits this Separate
Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in support of its Motion for Summary Adjudication of
the following issues:

1. Issues One and Two: Summary Adjudication of Plaintiffs’ Causes of Action for
Contractor Liability and Loss of Consortium Are Proper, As They Cannot
Establish the Requisite Elements.

2. Cosco requested that Plaintiffidentify each 2.
fact supporting his contention that Cosco is

liable to him as alleged in his complaint and/or
supporting his contention that he was exposed

to asbestos-containing products disturbed by
Cosco. (Chiosso Decl., Exh. “E,” Special
ayy No. 2, p. 3:3-5; No. 5, p. 3:12-

14.

3. Inresponse, Plaintiff identifies four jobsites 3.
at which he claims to have worked around

Cosco employees in the 1970s. Plaintiff adds
further details and references his deposition

to support them, but the testimony at the
citations he references has nothing to do with

any work around Cosco employees. (Chiosso
Decl., Exh. “F,” Response to Special

Interrogatory No. 2, p. 2:2-28.)

4. Cosco requested that Plaintiff identifyeach 4.
site or location where he alleges exposure to
asbestos as a result of Cosco’s activities and

Defendant Cosco Fire Protection, Inc.’s Objection to Plaintiffs’ Offer to Compromise Pursuant
to Code of Civil Procedure Section 998the dates when the alleged exposures
occurred. (Chiosso Decl., Exh. “E,” Special
Interrogatory Nos. 6-7, p. 3:15-21.)

5. Plaintiff identified: Highland Hospital in
Oakland, CA, for one month on and off in the
1967-72 time period; UCSF Medical Center for
nine days in 1977 and four months, on and off,
in the 1977-79 time period; and University of
California, Berkeley’s Warren Hall for 2 weeks
in 1979, (Chiosso Decl., Exh. “F,” Response to
Special Interrogatory Nos. 6-7, p. 9:16-10:25.)

6. Cosco requested that Plaintiff identify the
type of work or activity in which he was
engaged when he alleges exposure to asbestos
as a result of Cosco’s activities. (Chiosso Decl.,
Exh. “E,” Special Interrogatory No. 9, p. 3:26-
4:1.)

7. Plaintiff responded that he worked as an
insulator, working with asbestos-containing
insulation products, on each of the projects
where he alleges seeing Cosco employees.
(Chiosso Dect., Exh. “F,” Response to Special
Interrogatory No. 9, p. 11:5-12:7.)

8. Cosco requested that Plaintiff identify each
person with knowledge regarding each alleged
exposure for which he believes Cosco is
responsible, and each and every fact relevant
to the alleged exposures known to those
persons. (Chiosso Decl., Exh. “E,” Special
Interrogatory Nos. 12-13; 15-17, p. 4:9-19;
4:26-5:8.)

9. Plaintiff did not identify anyone other than
himself who might have knowledge regarding
any exposures for which Cosco might be
responsible. (Chiosso Decl., Exh. “F,”
Response to Special Interrogatory Nos. 12-13;
15-17, p. 13:5-21; 14:6-28.)

10. Cosco also requested that Plaintiff identify
every document relating to each alleged
exposure. . (Chiosso Decl., Exh. “E,” Special
Interrogatory No. 18, p. 5:9-17.)

11. Plaintiff was unable to identify any
document showing either that Cosco was
present on any site or that sprinklerfitters
should have known that shooting studs for the
purpose of hanging supports and hangers
might be hazardous to anyone, much less
insulators working on asbestos-containing

10.

11.

Defendant Cosco Fire Protection, Inc.’s Objection to Plaintiffs’ Offer to Compromise Pursuant
to Code of Civil Procedure Section 998wo em NY DH BF WN

NN NY NY RN N DY DOH ee eee a ie
on A A BF UN SF 5S OD wm I KD A BR BW HY SE Ss

materials in the area. (Chiosso Decl., Exh. “F,”
Response to Special Interrogatory No. 18, p.
15:1-16:24.)

12. Cosco requested that Plaintiff identify 12.
each fact supporting his allegation that Cosco
should be liable for punitive damages.

(Chiosso Decl., Exh. “E,” Special Interrogatory

No. 22, p. 6:3-5.)

13. Plaintiff was unable to provide any 13.
information responsive to this request.

(Chiosso Decl., Exh. “F,” Response to Special
Interrogatory No. 22, p. 18:1-7,

14. Plaintiff believes that he worked around 14,
Cosco employees at: Highland Hospital; UCSF
Medical Center; and University of California
Berkeley, Warren Hall. (Chiosso Decl., Exh.

"G," p. 1371:9-18.)

15. Plaintiff worked at Highland Hospital from 15.
1967 to 1972 for around a total of one month,
when he was with Consolidated. (Chiosso
Decl., Exh. “G,” p. 1371:22-24; 1372:6-9.) He
worked at UCSF Medical Center from 1977-79
on an off for about four months total.
{Chiosso Decl., Exh. “G,” p. 1371:25-1372:5;
1388:7-15.) He also worked at USCF for nine
days in 1977. (Chiosso Decl., Exh. “G,” p.
1374:4-6.) He worked at UC Berkeley, Warren
Hall for a couple of weeks in 1979. (Chiosso
Decl., Exh. “G,” p. 1372:10-18.}

16. The only reason he associated any 16.
workers with Cosco at any of these jobsites is

that they had “Cosco” on their hardhats; he

could not recall what they wore and did not

recall any logos on their clothes. (Chiosso

Decl., Exh. “G,” p. 1375:22-1376:18; p.
1389:21-1390:2; p. 1396:4-6; 1402:25-1403:2.)

17. Mr. Ross saw these workers that he 17.
associated with Cosco installing sprinkler pipe.
(Chiosso Decl., Exh. “G,” p. 1377:24-25.) They

were right across from him on ladders, or

twenty feet away. (Chiosso Decl., Exh. “G,” p.
1376:21-1377:1.) He believes those

employees penetrated fireproofing, but

cannot estimate how many times that

occurred. (Chiosso Decl., Exh. “G,” p. 1378:21-
1379:9.)

18. Mr. Ross did not know the brandname or 18.
manufacturer of the fireproofing these

Defendant Cosco Fire Protection, Inc.’s Objection to Plaintiffs’ Offer to Compromise Pursuant
to Code of Civil Procedure Section 998SN DR Hw F&F BW Le

employees penetrated. (Chiosso Decl., Exh.
“G,” p. 1379:17-20.)

19. He believes these employees exposed him 19.
to asbestos by shooting studs into the ceilings

in order to hang sprinkler pipe. (Chiosso Decl.,

Exh. “G,” p. 1378:1-8; 1386:3-8.)

20, According to Mr. Ross, these employees 20.
performed the same work each time he

observed them at the various jobsites.

{Chiosso Decl., Exh. “G,” p. 1390:19-1391:6; p.
1396:24-1397:4; p. 1404:4-9.)

21. Mr. Ross does not know who applied the = 21.
fireproofing at these jobsites. (Chiosso Decl.,

Exh, “G,” p. 1380:16-18; p. 1391:25-1392:5; p.
1397:20-25; p. 1405:4-8.)

22. Mr. Ross does not have any information 22.
showing that Cosco knew the fireproofing they
disturbed contained asbestos. (Chiosso Decl.,

Exh. “G,” p. 1381:3-1381:8; p. 1392:9-1392:14;

p. 1398:7-19; p. 1405:19-1406:3.)

23. The Cosco employees did not wear masks, 23.
although Mr. Ross did. (Chiosso Decl., Exh.

“G,” p. 1381:3-1381:8; p. 1392:9-1392:14; p.
1398:7-19; p. 1405:19-1406:3.)

24. Laborers not employed by Cosco cleaned 24.
up the fireproofing at these jobsites. (Chiosso
Decl., Exh. “G,” p.1382:6-13; p. 1393:1-15; p.
1399:13-24.)

25. Mr. Ross does not know when Cosco 25.
learned the hazards of asbestos. (Chiosso
Decl., Exh. “G,” p. 1385:17-19.)

26. Fireproofing was applied by the 26.
fireproofing contractor. Cosco was never

retained to apply fireproofing and the

application of fireproofing was not part of our

job duties. Cosco never purchased fireproofing

as a part of its business. Fireproofing became
asbestos-free in the very early 1970s. (Chiosso
Decl., Exh. “H,” 16, p.2:9-12.)

27. Cosco did not learn that shooting studs for 27.
the purposes of installing hanger and supports

for sprinkler pipe could create a hazard until

the 1980s, when building specifications began
requiring contractors to take precautions

regarding work with fireproofing. Prior to

that, Cosco did not believe shooting studs for

Defendant Cosco Fire Protection, Inc.’s Objection to Plaintiffs’ Offer te Compromise Pursuant
to Code of Civil Procedure Section 998oD mI DH FF YW HY He

=

Dn vu F&F WwW NH

hanger and supports for the sprinkler pipe
could create a health hazard. (Chiosso Decl.,
Exh, “H,” (7, p.2:13-17.)

28. Shooting studs for the purposes of
installing hangers and supports for sprinkler
pipes created only a little bit of dust. During
the 1970s, there was no reason for Cosco to
believe that this action created a hazard for its
sprinklerfitters, much less for any insulators
working in the area. (Chiosso Decl., Exh. “H,”
98, p.2:18-20.)

29. During the 1970s, trades such as
plumbers, HVAC workers, and electricians
would create much larger disturbances of
fireproofing than that caused by the shooting
of studs for the purposes of installing hangers
and supports for sprinkler pipes. Cosco is not
aware that any of these trades took any
precautions with respect to disturbing
fireproofing in the 1970s. (Chiosso Decl., Exh.
“H,” 19, p.2:21-24.)

30. Cosco is aware of no literature available in
the 1970s suggesting that the act of shooting
studs for the purposes of installing hangers
and supports for sprinkler pipes could create a
hazardous condition for anyone in the area.
No sprinklerfitter organization in the 1970s
warned that such actions might be hazardous.
No governmental regulations in the 1970s
addressed the shooting of studs for the
purposes of installing hangers and supports
for sprinkler pipes or any asbestos hazards of
sprinklerfitting. The government regulations
that did exist regarding asbestos in the 1970s
concerned concentrations much higher than
that caused by the shooting of studs for the
purposes of installing hangers and supports
for sprinkler pipes. (Chiosso Decl., Exh, “H,”
910, p.2:25 -3:4.)

31. Cosco is aware of no sprinklerfitter
company in the 1970s that took any
precautions regarding possible health hazards
from shooting studs for the purposes of
installing hangers and supports for sprinkler
pipes. (Chiosso Decl., Exh. “H,” 9111, p.3:5-7.)

32. Cosco did not provide hardhats with logos
until the 1990s. (Chiosso Decl., Exh. “H,” 9112,
p.3:8.)

33. Cosco was a very small outfit, especially in 1

28,

29,

30.

31.

32.

33.
0

Defendant Cosco Fire Protection, Inc.’s Objection to Plaintiffs’ Offer to Compromise Pursuant
to Code of Civil Procedure Section 998the early 1970s. Cosco would not have had
the capability of doing a hospital project until
1977 or later. (Chiosso Decl., Exh. “H,” 113,

p.3:9-10.)
2, Issue Three: Summary Adjudication of Plaintiffs’ Claim for Punitive Damages is
Proper, As They Cannot Establish That Cosco Acted with the Malice, Fraud, or
Oppression Necessary to Justify Invocation of Such Damages.
MOVING PARTY’S UNDISPUTED MATERIAL OPPOSING PARTY’S RESPONSE AND
FACTS SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
12. Cosco requested that Plaintiff identify 12.

each fact supporting his allegation that Cosco
should be liable for punitive damages.
(Chiosso Decl., Exh. “E,” Special Interrogatory
No. 22, p, 6:3-5.)

13. Plaintiff was unable to provide any 13.
information responsive to this request.

(Chiosso Decl., Exh. “F,” Response to Special
Interrogatory No. 22, p. 18:1-7.

22. Mr. Ross does not have any information 22.
showing that Cosco knew the fireproofing they
disturbed contained asbestos. (Chiosso Decl.,

Exh, “G,” p. 1381;3-1381:8; p. 1392:9-1392:14;

p. 1398:7-19; p. 1405:19-1406:3.)

25. Mr. Ross does not know when Cosco 25.
learned the hazards of asbestos. (Chiosso
Decl., Exh. “G,” p. 1385:17-19.}

27. Cosco did not learn that shooting studs for 27.
the purposes of installing hanger and supports

for sprinkler pipe could create a hazard until

the 1980s, when building specifications began
requiring contractors to take precautions

regarding work with fireproofing. Prior to

that, Cosco did not believe shooting studs for
hanger and supports for the sprinkler pipe

could create a health hazard. (Chiosso Decl.,

Exh. “H,” 47, p.2:13-17.)

i

Defendant Cosco Fire Protection, Inc.’s Objection to Plaintiffs’ Offer ta Compromise Pursuant
to Code of Civil Procedure Section 998Cc mW Dw PB WY =

YN BN NN KY NM DY ee BR ee ee ee ee
oN A Wh RF YB BP Fe DO we I DH BF Bw NH SF DS

Dated: February 6, 2012 JACKSON JENKINS RENSTROM LLP

By: /s/ ANTHONY C. CHIOSSO
ANTHONY C. CHIOSSO
Attorneys for Defendant
COSCO FIRE PROTECTION, INC.

12

Defendant Cosco Fire Protection, Inc.'s Objection to Plaintiffs’ Offer to Compromise Pursuant
to Code of Civil Procedure Section 998