Preview
LAW OFFICES OF
COOLEY MANION JONES HakE Kurowsk1 LLP
ec eo DW KR HW FF WN
NN RB NY NY NR RD ND Qa
oN KR A 8B OWN = SG © we WM DH Bw NY
William M. Hake (State Bar No. 110956)
Howard P. Skebe (State Bar No. 191407)
Joanna L. Drozd (State Bar No. 253707) ELECTRONICALLY
COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE FILED
KUROWSKI LLP Superior Court of Californk
201 Spear Street, Suite 1800 County of San Francisco
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: (415) 512-4381 APR 15 2011
Fax: (415) 512-6791 Clerk of the Court
BY: RAYMOND K. WONG
Attorneys for Defendant Deputy Clerk
COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.
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, DEFENDANT COLLINS ELECTRICAL
v. COMPANY, INC,’S ANSWER TO FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL
C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS; INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM-
Defendants as Reflected on Exhibit 1 ASBESTOS
attached to the Summary Complaint herein;
and DOES 1-8500.
Defendants. |
|
COMES NOW, Defendant, COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC. (hereinafter
referred to as “this answering defendant”), for itself alone, and in answer to the unverified First
Amended Complaint of Plaintiff(s) herein and as amended in the future, allege as follows:
Pursuant to the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure § 431.30, this answering
defendant denies each, every and all of the allegations of the unverified Complaint and each and
every cause of action contained therein, and the whole thereof, and denies thet Plaintiff(s) have
sustained damages in the sum or sums alleged, in any other sum or sums whatsoever, or at all.
Mt |
Mt
Mf
DEFENDANT COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
FOR PERSONAL AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM- ASBESTOS:Law OFFICES OF
COOLEY MANION JONES Hake KuUROWSKI LLP
AS AND FOR A FIRST, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this
answering defendant alleges that the Complaint and each and every cause of action alleged
therein, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this answering
defendant, and fails to state a claim upon which relief may granted.
AS AND FOR A SECOND, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
the Complaint and every cause of action alleged therein is/are barred by California Code of Civil
Procedure sections 335, 338, 339, 340, 340.2, 343, by California Commercial Code section 2725,
and by all other applicable statute of limitations provisions, and plaintiffs are thereby precluded
from recovering the damages and other relief sought in the Complaint.
AS AND FOR A THIRD, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
the applicable laws, rules, statutes or regulations, including but not limited to, California Code of
Civil Procedure sections 340.2, and sister state statutes of limitations and statutes of repose
borrowed by California Code of Civil Procedure section 361, requiring the institution of suit
within a certain period of time following its accrual, were not complied with, and, therefore,
plaintiffs’ claims are barred as a matter of law and equity.
AS AND FOR A FOURTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
this answering defendant alleges that Plaintiff(s) unreasonably delayed in bringing this action,
without good cause, and has/have thereby prejudiced the rights of this answering defendant. The
Complaint and all claims alleged therein are therefore barred by the Doctrine of Laches.
AS AND FOR A FIFTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this
answering defendant alleges that Plaintiff(s) have waived any and all claims which they seek to
assert in this action, and/or estopped by their conduct from asserting or recovering on such
claims.
AS AND FOR A SIXTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
this answering defendant alleges that prior to the filing of this action; Plaintiffs) fully, completely
and unequivocally settled and compromised their claims for relief against this answering
defendant.
Mf
2
DEFENDANT COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
FOR PERSONAL AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM- ASBESTOS:Law Obt
COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE KUROWSKI LLP
AS AND FOR A SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendantalleges that Plaintiff(s’) Complaint, now and as amended in
the future, and each cause of action therein, is vague, ambiguous, unintelligible and uncertain.
AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
this answering defendant alleges, with respect to some or all of Plaintiff(s’) alleged claims and
causes of action, this Court lacks jurisdiction.
AS AND FOR A NINTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
this answering defendant alleges, with respect to some or all of Plaintiff(s’) alleged claims and
causes of action, in the interest of substantial justice, the action should be heard in a forum
outside this state.
AS AND FOR A TENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
this answering defendant alleges that Plaintiff(s’) Complaint has been filed in an improper venue.
AS AND FOR AN ELEVENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that at all times and places mentioned in the
Complaint, now and as amended in the future, Plaintiff(s) were negligent and careless and failed
to exercise that degree of care and caution for their own safety which a reasonable prudent person
would have used under the same or similar circumstances, in that, among other things, said
Plaintiff(s) so negligently and carelessly stationed, conducted and maintained themselves, failed
to utilize safety devices and other equipment or facilities supplied to them and/or existing as part
of their environment, and failed to observe open obvious conditions, so as to directly and
proximately cause and contribute to their injuries and damages, if any. Plaintiff(s) are therefore
precluded from obtaining any recovery against this answering defendant. Altematively, any
negligence or other legal fault attributable to Plaintiff(s) thereby comparatively reduces the
percentage of negligence or fault, if any, attributable to this answering defendant, which this
answering defendant expressly denies.
AS AND FOR A TWELFTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that no act, omission, conduct or product attributable
to it caused or contributed to any injuries or damages sustained by Plaintifi(s), if any, and that if
DEFENDANT COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
FOR PERSONAL AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM- ASBESTOS:Law OFFICES OF
COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE Kurowsk1 LLP
such injuries and damages, if any, were not solely caused by Plaintiff(s’) own acts, omissions and
other conduct , then said injuries and damages were proximately caused and contributed to by the
negligence and/or other tortious acts, omissions, conduct and products of persons or entities other
than this answering defendant, and that said negligence and/or other legal fault was an intervening
and superseding cause of Plaintiff(s’) injuries and damages, if any. Any damages recoverable by
Plaintiff(s) must therefore be diminished in proportion to the amount of fault attributable to these
other persons and entities, and there should be an apportionment of the harm and damage claimed
by Plaintiff{s), if any.
AS AND FOR A THIRTEENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that at all times and places referred to in the
Complaint, as amended, now or in the future, Plaintiff(s) were, or in the exercise of reasonable
care should have been, aware of all circumstances and conditions then and there existing and
prevailing, but nonetheless knowingly, voluntarily, and in full appreciation of the potential
consequences thereof, exposed themselves to whatever risks and dangers may have been
attendant to such circumstances and conditions, thereby freely and voluntary assuming any and
all risk(s) incident thereto, and thereby barring Plaintiff(s) from recovery herein.
AS AND FOR A FORTEENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AF. RIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that at all times and places relevant to this action,
Plaintiff(s) failed to make reasonable efforts to mitigate their injuries, loss and/or damages, if any.
AS AND FOR A FIFTEENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that at all times material to this action, Plaintiff(s)
failed to use the products alleged in the Complaint in the foreseeable, proper'and safe manner
which would have otherwise been anticipated and expected of an ordinary user. Such misuse of
the products described in the Complaint by Plaintifi(s) were the sole, proximate and legal cause
of Plaintiffs’) injuries and damages, if any, thereby barring Plaintiff(s) from recovery herein.
AS AND FOR A SIXTEENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that at all times material to this.action, the products
described in the Complaint which allegedly injured Plaintiff(s) were, without this answering
DEFENDANT COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC."S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
FOR PERSONAL AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM- ASBESTOS,Law OFFICES OF
COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE Kurowsk1 LLP
defendant’s knowledge, approval or consent, and contrary to instructions and/or the custom and
practice in the industry, altered, redesigned, modified, or subjected to other tteatment which
substantially changed their character, such that they were not being used, functioning and/or
performing in a manner intended by their manufacturer, and/or were not in substantially the same
or similar condition as when they left the manufacturer’s possession. If there was a defect in said
products covered by this answering defendant, which supposition is specifically denied by this
answering defendant, such defect resulted solely from such alteration, re-design, modification,
treatment or cther change therein and not from any act or omission by this answering defendant,
thereby barring Plaintiff(s) from recovery herein as against this answering defendant.
AS AND FOR A SEVENTEENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that Plaintiff(s) are barred from. recovery herein in
that any and all products allegedly supplied or distributed by this answering defendant were
manufactured and/or produced in conformity with specifications established and provided by the
United States Government pursuant to its War Powers as set forth in the United States
Constitution, and that any defect in said products was caused by deficiencies|in said
specifications, and not by any action or conduct on the part of this answering defendant.
AS AND FOR AN EIGHTEENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that Plaintiff(s) are barred from recovery herein in
that all products allegedly manufactured or distributed by this answering defendant were in
conformity with the existing state of the medical, scientific, and industrial knowledge, art, and
practices, and as a result, said products were not defective in any manner.
AS AND FOR A NINETEENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that at all times and places mentioned in the
Complaint, as amended, now or in the future, Plaintiff(s) were not in privity of contract with this
answering defendant, and said lack of privity bars Plaintiff(s’) recovery herein upon any theory of
warranty.
AS AND FOR A TWENTIETH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that Plaintiff(s) failed to give this answering
DEFENDANT COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
FOR PERSONAL AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM- ASBESTOSLaw OFFICES OF
COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE KUROWSKI LLP
defendant timely and reasonable notice of any alleged breach of contract or warranty, thereby
barring Plaintifi(s) from recovery herein.
AS AND FOR A TWENTY-FIRST, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges at all times and places relevant to this action,
Plaintiff(s) waived whatever right they might otherwise have had to claim a breach of warranty,
in that Plaintif{(s) failed to notify this answering defendant of any alleged breach of warranty,
express or implied, and if any alleged defects existed in any product(s) manufactured or
distributed by this answering defendants, Plaintiff(s) discovered or should have discovered said
defect or non-conformity, if any existed, and failure to do so within a reasonable period of time
prejudices this answering defendant from being able to fully investigate and defend the
allegations made against it in the Complaint, now and as amended in the future.
AS AND FOR A TWENTY-SECOND, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that Plaintiff(s’) breach of warranty claims are
barred by written disclaimers and/or exclusions contained on or in the labels or packaging of the
products at issue in this action.
AS AND FOR A TWENTY-THIRD, SEPARATE AND DISTINGT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that the Complaint, now and a5 amended in the
future, and each and every cause of action contained therein, fails to state facts sufficient to
constitute “fraud,” “oppression,” or “malice,” as these terms are used in California Civil Code §
3294, and therefore fails to a cause of action for punitive damages.
AS AND FOR A TWENTY-FOURTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that the imposition of piv ema damages
against this corporate defendant for acts of a former and/or predecessor corporate entity would be
a violation of due process of law, and against public policy, under the various laws of the State of
California and the United States.
AS AND FOR A TWENTY-FIFTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that California Civil Code § 3294 violates the Due
Process and/or Equal Protection clauses of the California and/or United States Constitutions, is
DEFENDANT COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.’ ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
FOR PERSONAL AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM- ASBESTOS.LAW OFFICES OF
COOLEY MANION Jones HAKE Kurowski LLP
cD eI DR A RB HN
RN BR NY NY NY NY NY Dw a a ae
eo NUN A A BF YU NY &§ SS GC we BAH Bw we
void because it is vague and ambiguous, constitutes and undue burden on interstate commerce,
and violates the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Accordingly, Plaintiff(s)
are barred from any recovery thereunder.
AS AND FOR A TWENTY-SIXTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that 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.
AS AND FOR A TWENTY-SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that the liability of this answering defendant, if any,
shall be apportioned in accordance with the provisions of California Civil Code §§ 1431, et seq.,
commonly known as the Fair Responsibility Act of 1986.
AS AND FOR A TWENTY-EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges on information and belief that at all times and places
relevant to this action, Plaintiff(s) were an employee of any employer or employers whose names
are presently unknown, and that nay injuries or damages alleged in the Complaint, as amended
now or in the future, occurred while Plaintiff(s) were acting within the course of scope of such
employment, This answering defendant further alleges on information and lief that Plaintiff(s’)
employer or employers provided Plaintiff(s) with certain benefits in ode with the terms
and provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Laws of the State of California, The nature and
extent of such Workers’ Compensation benefits that may have been provided is unknown, but
when said benefits are determined, leave to amend this answer and to set forth the details of said
benefits will be sought. It is further alleged that any and all injuries or damages complained of by
Plaintiff(s) were solely and proximately caused by, or resulted from, the negligence and
carelessness of Plaintiff(s’) employer, his co-workers and/or his employer’s jgents, servants or
employees. Therefore, this answering defendant is entitled to an offset of any such benefits
received or to be received by Plaintiff(s) against any judgment which may be rendered in favor of
said Plaintiff(s). Pursuant to the doctrine of Wiit v. Jackson (1961) 57 Cal.2a'57.
Ut
7
DEFENDANT COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
FOR PERSONAL AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM- ASBESTOS 'LAW OFFICES OF
COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE KurowskI LLP
AS AND FOR A TWENTY-NINTH, SEPARATE AND DISINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that Plaintiff(s) are barred from recovery herein if at
any time, past or present, Plaintiff(s) were or is an employee of this answering defendant,
including any of this answering defendant’s divisions or subsidiaries, thereby creating conditions
of compensation. The right to recover Workers’ Compensation benefits is Plaintiff(s’) and/or
Plaintifi(s’) sole and exclusive remedy as against this answering defendant, pursuant to the
provisions of California Labor Code §§ 3300, et seq., and/or §§ 3600, et seq. This answering
defendant is entitled to a judicial determination of any such employer-employee relationship
establishing such exclusive remedy and bar to recovery prior to any hearing or trial on the merits
in this matter. Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4” 689.
AS AND FOR A THIRTIETH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alieges that even if Plaintiff(s) were exposed to any
asbestos-containing products manufactured or distributed by this answering defendant, which
supposition is expressly denied, Plaintiff(s’) exposure to said products would have been so
minimal as to be insufficient to constitute a “substantial contributing factor”\in the causation of
Plaintiff(s’) alleged injuries or disease, if any.
AS AND FOR A THIRTY-FIRST, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant is not liable for any alleged failure to warn of any risks,
dangers or hazards in the use of any asbestos-containing products or other goods that it allegedly
distributed, sold, supplied or delivered to Plaintiff(s’) employer(s), because said employer(s) had
as great, if not greater, knowledge about the nature of any risks, dangers or hazards than did this
answering defendant, and unlike this answering defendant, said employer(s)| were in a position to
warn person exposed to such products any such risks, dangers or hazards.
AS AND FOR A THIRTY-SECOND, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that at all times relevant to the matters alleged in the
Complaint, as amended now or in the future, all of Plaintiff(s’) employers, other than this
answering defendant were sophisticated and knowledgeable users of asbestos products and said
employers’ negligence in providing said product(s) to their employees in a negligent, careless and
DEFENDANT COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
FOR PERSONAL AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM- ASBESTOS&
a
COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE KurowskI LLP
Cc em NR DR HW BF YY
NR NM YB NR RM NY NR RD mm te
ow A hw 8 Oo NUN SF SD Oo wm TD DA BR YH NY &
reckless manner was a superseding cause of Plaintiff(s’) injuries, if any.
AS AND FOR A THIRTY-THIRD, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that to the extent the Complaint, or any cause of
action alleged therein, is based upon an allegation of strict products liability as against this
answering defendant, said cause of action cannot be maintained as this answering defendant was
not a “seller” within the meaning of § 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Tors, and
consequently any claim of strict liability against this answering defendant is barred pursuant to
Monte Vista Development Corporation vs. Superior Court (1991) 226 Cal App.3d 1681.
AS AND FOR A THIRTY-FOURTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE to the entire Complaint, and each cause of action thereof, this answering defendant
alleges that it had no control over any work performed by others, including Plaintiff(s),
employer(s) and entities other than this answering defendant, and, therefore, has no responsibility
for the claimed damages
AS AND FOR A THIRTY-FIFTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE to the entire Complaint, and each cause of action thereof, this answering defendant
alleges that it did not own, occupy, possess, lease, maintain, manage or control any premises upon
which Plaintiff(s) were allegedly exposed to asbestos and, as a result, Plaintiff(s) are barred from
maintaining any cause of action against this answering defendant under a theory of premises
liability.
AS AND FOR A THIRTY-SIXTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE to the entire Complaint, and each cause of action thereof, this answering defendant
alleges that any danger or defect in or about the premises was obvious or could have been
observed by Plaintiff(s) in this exercise of reasonable care.
AS AND FOR A THIRTY-SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE to the entire Complaint, and each cause of action thereof, this angwering defendant
alleges that any defect of danger in or about the premises was trivial.
AS AND FOR A THIRTY-EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant denies that iit was a successor, successor in business,
DEFENDANT COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
FOR PERSONAL AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM- ASBESTOSLAW OFFICES OF
COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE KUROWSKI LLP
oO ND HR eB WH
YM YY BY BN Dm ea
ot A A PB YS & SF © we ADH Bw Be oS
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 any entity owning property, maintaining
premises, researching, studying, manufacturing, fabricating, designing, labeling, assembling,
distributing, leasing, buying, offering for sale, selling, inspecting, servicing, installing,
contracting for installation, repairing, marketing, warranting, re-branding, manufacturing for
others, packaging, and advertising any asbestos/silica products. This answering defendant is
therefore not liable for any acts, whether they are active or passive, or omissions of any entities to
which this answering defendant is or may be alleged to be a successor-in-interest, predecessor-in-
interest, alter ego, or the like.
AS AND FOR A THIRTY-NINTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, his answering defendant did not and does not have a substantial percentage of the
market for any asbestos-containing products which allegedly caused the injuries and damages
claimed by Plaintiff(s). Furthermore, the asbestos-containing products which allegedly caused.
the injuries and damages claimed by Plaintiff(s) are not “fungible’” in nature. As such, this
answering defendant may not be held liable to Plaintiff(s) based upon any “market-share” or
“enterprise” theories of liability.
AS AND FOR A FORTIETH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that the Complaint, now or as amended in the future,
and each purported cause of action set forth therein, to the extent it purports to state a cause of
action under Sindell y. Abbott Laboratories (1980) 26 Cal.3d. 588, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 912
(1980), is barred by the Plaintiff(s’) failure to join as defendants the manufacturer of a substantial
share of the alleged market which Plaintifi(s) allege Defendant herein is a member, and should it
prove impossible to identify the manufacturer of the product which comprises said alleged
market, said purported causes of action are barred by the fault of the Plaintiff(s), and their agents
in making the identification of the manufacturer impossible.
AS AND FOR A FORTY-FIRST, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges to the extent the Complaint asserts defendant’s
DEFENDANT COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
FOR PERSONAL AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM- ASBESTOS'a
A
—
2
2
M
a4
=
82
B
az
é
4
3
z
Q
o
oO
Oo Om I DH
alleged “market share” liability, or “enterprise liability”, the Complaint fails to state facts
sufficient to constitute a cause of action against defendant.
AS AND FOR A FORTY-SECOND, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that its liability, if any, to the extent Plaintiff(s’)
action is pursued or found to be a market share action, is several only; that is, this answering
defendant would be liable only for that portion of Plaintiff(s’) damages, if any be found, that
corresponds to the percentage of this answering defendant’s share of relevant market for the
subject product.
AS AND FOR A FORTY-THIRD, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that the Complaint, now or as amended in the future,
and any and all claims and causes of action alleged therein, are preempted by the Locomotive
Boiler Inspection Act 49 U.S.C.S. §§ 20701, et seq., the Federal Safety Appliances Act, 49
US.C. § 20301, ef seq., and all other applicable federal statues, laws or regulations.
AS AND FOR A FORTY-FORTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that the Complaint, now or as amended in the future,
and each purported cause of action set forth therein, if based upon lack of identification of the
manufacturer of the alleged injury-causing product, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a
cause of action against this answering defendant herein in that Plaintiff(s) have asserted claims
for relief which, if granted, would contravene this answering defendant’s constitutional rights to
substantive and procedural due process of law as preserved by the Fourteenth Amendment of the
Constitution of the United States and by Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution of the state of
California.
AS AND FOR A FORTY-FIFTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendantalleges that the Complaint, now or as amended in the future,
and each purported cause of action set forth therein, if based upon lack of identification of the
manufacturer of the alleged injury-causing product, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a
cause of action against this answering defendant herein in that Plaintiff(s) have asserted claims
for relief which, if granted, would constitute a denial by this Court of this answering defendant’s
DEFENDANT COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
FOR PERSONAL AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM- ASBESTOSLaw OFFICES OF
COOLEY MANION JONES HaKE KurowskI LLP
wa
oOo I DN
10
ul
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
tight to equal protection of the law, as preserved by the Fourteenth Amendment of the
Constitution of the United States and by Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution of the state of
California.
AS AND FOR A FORTY-SIXTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendantalleges that the Complaint, now or as amended in the future,
and each purported cause of action set forth therein, if based upon lack of identification of the
manufacturer of the alleged injury-causing product, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a
cause of action against this answering defendant herein in that Plaintiff(s) have asserted claims
for relief which, if granted, would constitute a taking of private property for public use without
just compensation, and that such taking would contravene this answering defendant’s
constitutional rights as preserved by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United
States and by Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution of the state of California.
AS AND FOR A FORTY-SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendantalleges that the Complaint, now or as amended in the future,
and each purported cause of action set forth therein, if based upon lack of identification of the
manufacturer of the alleged injury-causing product, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a
cause of action against this answering defendant herein in that Plaintiff(s) have asserted claims
for relief which, if granted, would constitute an invalid burden by the Court on interstate
commerce and a burden without resort to less burdensome alternatives, in violation of the
Commerce Clause, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States.
AS AND FOR A FORTY-EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that the Complaint, now or as amended in the future,
and the purported cause of action alleging breach of express warranty, fraud, fraud by
concealment and/or claiming punitive damages, if based upon lack of identification of the
manufacturer of the alleged injury-causing product, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a
cause of action against this answering defendant herein in that Plaintiff(s) have asserted claims
for which may not be maintained in such an action pursuant to the laws of this State and the
orders of this Court. b
DEFENDANT COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
FOR PERSONAL AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM- ASBESTOSLAW OFFICES OF
COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE Kurowski LLP
I
AS AND FOR A FORTY-NINTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that the Complaint, as amended now or in the future,
and any and all claims and causes of action alleged therein, fails to state a cause of action against
this answering defendant because the federal government has preempted the field of law
applicable to the products alleged to have caused Plaintiff(s’) injuries, or the claims forming the
basis for relief. The granting of the relief prayed for in the Complaint would, impede, impair,
frustrate and/or burden the effectiveness of federal law regulating the field and would violate the
Supremacy Clause contained in Article VI, paragraph 2, of the United States Constitution.
AS AND FOR A FIFTIETH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
this answering defendant alleges that the activity alleged in the Complaint, as amended now or in
the future, and any and all claims and causes of action alleged therein, to the extent it was
engaged in by this answering defendant, if at all, was not ultra hazardous under California Law.
AS AND FOR A FIFTY-FIRST, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that Plaintiff(s) cannot prove any facts showing that
the conduct of this answering defendant was the cause in fact of any injuries or damages suffered
by Plaintiff(s) as alleged in the Complaint.
AS AND FOR A FIFTY-SECOND, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that Plaintiff(s) cannot prove any facts showing that
the conduct of this answering defendant was the proximate cause of any injuries or damages
suffered by Plaintiff(s) as alleged in the Complaint.
AS AND FOR A FIFTY-THIRD, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that the Complaint, as amended now or in the future,
and any and all claims and causes of action alleged therein, is/are barred by Plaintiff(s’) failure to
timely join one or more parties that are indispensable and/or necessary to a resolution of the
matter alleged in the Complaint, as required by California Code of Civil Procedure § 389.
AS AND FOR A FIFTY-FORTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that the Complaint, as amended now or in the future,
1
and any and ail claims and causes of action alleged therein, is/are barred pursuant to the doctrines
|
DEFENDANT COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
FOR PERSONAL AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM- ASBESTOS|LAW OFFICES OF
COOLEY MANION JONES HaKE KuROwsKI LLP
|
2
3
4
wn
eo oe 1D
of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel.
AS AND FOR A FIFTY-FIFTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that the Complaint, as amendedinow or in the future,
and any and all claims and causes of action alleged therein, is/are barred because there is a defect
and misjoinder of parties.
AS AND FOR A FIFTY-SIXTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that at all times relevant to the matters alleged in the
Complaint, as amended now or in the future, Plaintiff(s) knew or should have known of the
inherent hazards, risks or potential dangers of the product(s) alleged to be at issue, and was
therefore a sophisticated and knowledgeable user of each such product. As such, this answering
defendant is not liable to Plaintiff(s) for any alleged failure to warn of such hazards, risks or
dangers.
AS AND FOR A FIFTY-SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that Plaintiff(s) have improperly split their causes of
action and seek to maintain a duplicative lawsuit based on the same facts and circumstances as a
lawsuit previously filed.
AS AND FOR A FIFTY-EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that Plaintiff(s’) injuries or illness, if any, were due
to the acts or omissions of a person or persons over whom this defendant had neither control nor
the right of control.
AS AND FOR A FIFTY-NINTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that to the extent it was a government contractor
with respect to any products involved in this lawsuit, Plaintiff(s) are barred from any recovery
based on the government contractor defense.
AS AND FOR A SIXTIETH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
this answering defendant alleges that Plaintiff(s) acknowledged, ratified, consented to and
acquiesced in the alleged acts or omissions, if any, of this answering defendant, thus barring
recovery.
y 14
DEFENDANT COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
FOR PERSONAL AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM- ASBESTOS :LAW OFFICES OF
COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE KUROWSKI LLP
2 Oo me I DR HD RB YW NY
AS AND FOR A SIXTY-FIRST, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
| DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that the Complaint, as amended now or in the future,
and any and all claims and causes of action alleged therein, is/are barred by the “sophisticated
user” doctrine pursuant to Johnson v. American Standard, Inc. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 56.
AS AND FOR A SIXTY-SECOND, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant asserts that Plaintiff(s’) maritime claims brought under 46
U.S.C. § 30101 are barred by the holding in Burnette v. Nicolet, Inc., 818 F.2d 1098 a Cir.
1986) and Grubert, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. (1995) 513 U.S. 527.
AS AND FOR A SIXTY-THIRD, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant asserts that Plaintiff(s’) maritime claims brought under 446
U.S.C. § 30101 are barred by the holding in Harville v. Johns-Manville Products Corps., 731
F.2d 775 (11" Cir. 1984), Roberts v. U.S., 498 F.2d 520 go" Cir, 1974) and Sisson v. Ruby, 497
U.S, 358 (1990).
AS AND FOR A SIXTY-FORTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE to the Complaint, now and as amended in the future, and each cause of action therein,
this answering defendant alleges that if it has purportedly been named or served in this action as a
Doe Defendant, Plaintiff(s’) attempt to do so is invalid in that Plaintiff(s) new or should have
known of the identity of this answering defendant and of Plaintiff(s’) alleged causes of action
against it at the time of the filing of the Complaint.
AS AND FOR A SIXTY-FIFTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant presently has insufficient knowledge ot information on
which to form a belief as to whether it may have additional, as yet unstated, defenses available.
Defendant reserves herein the right to assert additional defenses in the event liscovery indicates
that they would be appropriate. |
RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
This answering defendant hereby reserves the right, upon completion of its investigation
and discovery, to amend this answer to include such additional defenses as may be appropriate.
Mt \
15 '
DEFENDANT COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
FOR PERSONAL AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM- ASBESTOS 'LAW OFFICES OF
COOLEY MANION JONEs HaKE KurowsK1 LLP
co Be eo KN HB Ye DH
WHEREFORE, Defendant, COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC. prays for
judgment as follows:
1. That Plaintiff(s) take nothing by way of their Complaint or any cause of action thereof
against this answering defendant;
2. That the court award judgment in favor of this answering defendant;
3. For reasonable attorneys’ fees;
4. For costs of suit and disbursements;
5. That if defendant COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC. is found liable, that
the degree of responsibility and liability for the resulting damages be determined and apportioned
in accordance with California Civil Code section 1431 et seg.; and
6. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem proper.
DATED: April 15, 2011 COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE KUROWSKI LLP
e.
Howard P. Skebe es
Attorneys for Defendant
COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.
16
DEFENDANT COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
FOR PERSONAL AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM- ASBESTOSCOOLEY MANION JONES HAKE KUROWSKI LLP
PROOF OF SERVICE
Tam a citizen of the United States and employed in San Francisco County, California. [
am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within-entitled action. My business
address is 201 Spear Street, Suite 1800, San Francisco, CA 94105.
On April 15, 2011 I electronically filed and served the following document via
LexisNexis File and Serve on all parties listed on the transmission report:
DEFENDANT COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.’S
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS
OF CONSORTIUM- ASBESTOS
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above
is true and correct.
Executed on April 15, 2011 at San Francisco, Californi:
VANESSA MARKY
17
DEFENDANT COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
FOR PERSONAL AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM- ASBESTOS
Preview
LAW OFFICES OF COOLEY MANION JONES HakE Kurowsk1 LLP ec eo DW KR HW FF WN NN RB NY NY NR RD ND Qa oN KR A 8B OWN = SG © we WM DH Bw NY William M. Hake (State Bar No. 110956) Howard P. Skebe (State Bar No. 191407) Joanna L. Drozd (State Bar No. 253707) ELECTRONICALLY COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE FILED KUROWSKI LLP Superior Court of Californk 201 Spear Street, Suite 1800 County of San Francisco San Francisco, CA 94105 Tel: (415) 512-4381 APR 15 2011 Fax: (415) 512-6791 Clerk of the Court BY: RAYMOND K. WONG Attorneys for Defendant Deputy Clerk COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC. 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, DEFENDANT COLLINS ELECTRICAL v. COMPANY, INC,’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS; INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM- Defendants as Reflected on Exhibit 1 ASBESTOS attached to the Summary Complaint herein; and DOES 1-8500. Defendants. | | COMES NOW, Defendant, COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC. (hereinafter referred to as “this answering defendant”), for itself alone, and in answer to the unverified First Amended Complaint of Plaintiff(s) herein and as amended in the future, allege as follows: Pursuant to the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure § 431.30, this answering defendant denies each, every and all of the allegations of the unverified Complaint and each and every cause of action contained therein, and the whole thereof, and denies thet Plaintiff(s) have sustained damages in the sum or sums alleged, in any other sum or sums whatsoever, or at all. Mt | Mt Mf DEFENDANT COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM- ASBESTOS:Law OFFICES OF COOLEY MANION JONES Hake KuUROWSKI LLP AS AND FOR A FIRST, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that the Complaint and each and every cause of action alleged therein, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this answering defendant, and fails to state a claim upon which relief may granted. AS AND FOR A SECOND, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, the Complaint and every cause of action alleged therein is/are barred by California Code of Civil Procedure sections 335, 338, 339, 340, 340.2, 343, by California Commercial Code section 2725, and by all other applicable statute of limitations provisions, and plaintiffs are thereby precluded from recovering the damages and other relief sought in the Complaint. AS AND FOR A THIRD, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, the applicable laws, rules, statutes or regulations, including but not limited to, California Code of Civil Procedure sections 340.2, and sister state statutes of limitations and statutes of repose borrowed by California Code of Civil Procedure section 361, requiring the institution of suit within a certain period of time following its accrual, were not complied with, and, therefore, plaintiffs’ claims are barred as a matter of law and equity. AS AND FOR A FOURTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that Plaintiff(s) unreasonably delayed in bringing this action, without good cause, and has/have thereby prejudiced the rights of this answering defendant. The Complaint and all claims alleged therein are therefore barred by the Doctrine of Laches. AS AND FOR A FIFTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that Plaintiff(s) have waived any and all claims which they seek to assert in this action, and/or estopped by their conduct from asserting or recovering on such claims. AS AND FOR A SIXTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that prior to the filing of this action; Plaintiffs) fully, completely and unequivocally settled and compromised their claims for relief against this answering defendant. Mf 2 DEFENDANT COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM- ASBESTOS:Law Obt COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE KUROWSKI LLP AS AND FOR A SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendantalleges that Plaintiff(s’) Complaint, now and as amended in the future, and each cause of action therein, is vague, ambiguous, unintelligible and uncertain. AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges, with respect to some or all of Plaintiff(s’) alleged claims and causes of action, this Court lacks jurisdiction. AS AND FOR A NINTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges, with respect to some or all of Plaintiff(s’) alleged claims and causes of action, in the interest of substantial justice, the action should be heard in a forum outside this state. AS AND FOR A TENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that Plaintiff(s’) Complaint has been filed in an improper venue. AS AND FOR AN ELEVENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that at all times and places mentioned in the Complaint, now and as amended in the future, Plaintiff(s) were negligent and careless and failed to exercise that degree of care and caution for their own safety which a reasonable prudent person would have used under the same or similar circumstances, in that, among other things, said Plaintiff(s) so negligently and carelessly stationed, conducted and maintained themselves, failed to utilize safety devices and other equipment or facilities supplied to them and/or existing as part of their environment, and failed to observe open obvious conditions, so as to directly and proximately cause and contribute to their injuries and damages, if any. Plaintiff(s) are therefore precluded from obtaining any recovery against this answering defendant. Altematively, any negligence or other legal fault attributable to Plaintiff(s) thereby comparatively reduces the percentage of negligence or fault, if any, attributable to this answering defendant, which this answering defendant expressly denies. AS AND FOR A TWELFTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that no act, omission, conduct or product attributable to it caused or contributed to any injuries or damages sustained by Plaintifi(s), if any, and that if DEFENDANT COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM- ASBESTOS:Law OFFICES OF COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE Kurowsk1 LLP such injuries and damages, if any, were not solely caused by Plaintiff(s’) own acts, omissions and other conduct , then said injuries and damages were proximately caused and contributed to by the negligence and/or other tortious acts, omissions, conduct and products of persons or entities other than this answering defendant, and that said negligence and/or other legal fault was an intervening and superseding cause of Plaintiff(s’) injuries and damages, if any. Any damages recoverable by Plaintiff(s) must therefore be diminished in proportion to the amount of fault attributable to these other persons and entities, and there should be an apportionment of the harm and damage claimed by Plaintiff{s), if any. AS AND FOR A THIRTEENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that at all times and places referred to in the Complaint, as amended, now or in the future, Plaintiff(s) were, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have been, aware of all circumstances and conditions then and there existing and prevailing, but nonetheless knowingly, voluntarily, and in full appreciation of the potential consequences thereof, exposed themselves to whatever risks and dangers may have been attendant to such circumstances and conditions, thereby freely and voluntary assuming any and all risk(s) incident thereto, and thereby barring Plaintiff(s) from recovery herein. AS AND FOR A FORTEENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AF. RIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that at all times and places relevant to this action, Plaintiff(s) failed to make reasonable efforts to mitigate their injuries, loss and/or damages, if any. AS AND FOR A FIFTEENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that at all times material to this action, Plaintiff(s) failed to use the products alleged in the Complaint in the foreseeable, proper'and safe manner which would have otherwise been anticipated and expected of an ordinary user. Such misuse of the products described in the Complaint by Plaintifi(s) were the sole, proximate and legal cause of Plaintiffs’) injuries and damages, if any, thereby barring Plaintiff(s) from recovery herein. AS AND FOR A SIXTEENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that at all times material to this.action, the products described in the Complaint which allegedly injured Plaintiff(s) were, without this answering DEFENDANT COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC."S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM- ASBESTOS,Law OFFICES OF COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE Kurowsk1 LLP defendant’s knowledge, approval or consent, and contrary to instructions and/or the custom and practice in the industry, altered, redesigned, modified, or subjected to other tteatment which substantially changed their character, such that they were not being used, functioning and/or performing in a manner intended by their manufacturer, and/or were not in substantially the same or similar condition as when they left the manufacturer’s possession. If there was a defect in said products covered by this answering defendant, which supposition is specifically denied by this answering defendant, such defect resulted solely from such alteration, re-design, modification, treatment or cther change therein and not from any act or omission by this answering defendant, thereby barring Plaintiff(s) from recovery herein as against this answering defendant. AS AND FOR A SEVENTEENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that Plaintiff(s) are barred from. recovery herein in that any and all products allegedly supplied or distributed by this answering defendant were manufactured and/or produced in conformity with specifications established and provided by the United States Government pursuant to its War Powers as set forth in the United States Constitution, and that any defect in said products was caused by deficiencies|in said specifications, and not by any action or conduct on the part of this answering defendant. AS AND FOR AN EIGHTEENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that Plaintiff(s) are barred from recovery herein in that all products allegedly manufactured or distributed by this answering defendant were in conformity with the existing state of the medical, scientific, and industrial knowledge, art, and practices, and as a result, said products were not defective in any manner. AS AND FOR A NINETEENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that at all times and places mentioned in the Complaint, as amended, now or in the future, Plaintiff(s) were not in privity of contract with this answering defendant, and said lack of privity bars Plaintiff(s’) recovery herein upon any theory of warranty. AS AND FOR A TWENTIETH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that Plaintiff(s) failed to give this answering DEFENDANT COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM- ASBESTOSLaw OFFICES OF COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE KUROWSKI LLP defendant timely and reasonable notice of any alleged breach of contract or warranty, thereby barring Plaintifi(s) from recovery herein. AS AND FOR A TWENTY-FIRST, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges at all times and places relevant to this action, Plaintiff(s) waived whatever right they might otherwise have had to claim a breach of warranty, in that Plaintif{(s) failed to notify this answering defendant of any alleged breach of warranty, express or implied, and if any alleged defects existed in any product(s) manufactured or distributed by this answering defendants, Plaintiff(s) discovered or should have discovered said defect or non-conformity, if any existed, and failure to do so within a reasonable period of time prejudices this answering defendant from being able to fully investigate and defend the allegations made against it in the Complaint, now and as amended in the future. AS AND FOR A TWENTY-SECOND, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that Plaintiff(s’) breach of warranty claims are barred by written disclaimers and/or exclusions contained on or in the labels or packaging of the products at issue in this action. AS AND FOR A TWENTY-THIRD, SEPARATE AND DISTINGT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that the Complaint, now and a5 amended in the future, and each and every cause of action contained therein, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute “fraud,” “oppression,” or “malice,” as these terms are used in California Civil Code § 3294, and therefore fails to a cause of action for punitive damages. AS AND FOR A TWENTY-FOURTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that the imposition of piv ema damages against this corporate defendant for acts of a former and/or predecessor corporate entity would be a violation of due process of law, and against public policy, under the various laws of the State of California and the United States. AS AND FOR A TWENTY-FIFTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that California Civil Code § 3294 violates the Due Process and/or Equal Protection clauses of the California and/or United States Constitutions, is DEFENDANT COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.’ ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM- ASBESTOS.LAW OFFICES OF COOLEY MANION Jones HAKE Kurowski LLP cD eI DR A RB HN RN BR NY NY NY NY NY Dw a a ae eo NUN A A BF YU NY &§ SS GC we BAH Bw we void because it is vague and ambiguous, constitutes and undue burden on interstate commerce, and violates the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Accordingly, Plaintiff(s) are barred from any recovery thereunder. AS AND FOR A TWENTY-SIXTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that 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. AS AND FOR A TWENTY-SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that the liability of this answering defendant, if any, shall be apportioned in accordance with the provisions of California Civil Code §§ 1431, et seq., commonly known as the Fair Responsibility Act of 1986. AS AND FOR A TWENTY-EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges on information and belief that at all times and places relevant to this action, Plaintiff(s) were an employee of any employer or employers whose names are presently unknown, and that nay injuries or damages alleged in the Complaint, as amended now or in the future, occurred while Plaintiff(s) were acting within the course of scope of such employment, This answering defendant further alleges on information and lief that Plaintiff(s’) employer or employers provided Plaintiff(s) with certain benefits in ode with the terms and provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Laws of the State of California, The nature and extent of such Workers’ Compensation benefits that may have been provided is unknown, but when said benefits are determined, leave to amend this answer and to set forth the details of said benefits will be sought. It is further alleged that any and all injuries or damages complained of by Plaintiff(s) were solely and proximately caused by, or resulted from, the negligence and carelessness of Plaintiff(s’) employer, his co-workers and/or his employer’s jgents, servants or employees. Therefore, this answering defendant is entitled to an offset of any such benefits received or to be received by Plaintiff(s) against any judgment which may be rendered in favor of said Plaintiff(s). Pursuant to the doctrine of Wiit v. Jackson (1961) 57 Cal.2a'57. Ut 7 DEFENDANT COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM- ASBESTOS 'LAW OFFICES OF COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE KurowskI LLP AS AND FOR A TWENTY-NINTH, SEPARATE AND DISINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that Plaintiff(s) are barred from recovery herein if at any time, past or present, Plaintiff(s) were or is an employee of this answering defendant, including any of this answering defendant’s divisions or subsidiaries, thereby creating conditions of compensation. The right to recover Workers’ Compensation benefits is Plaintiff(s’) and/or Plaintifi(s’) sole and exclusive remedy as against this answering defendant, pursuant to the provisions of California Labor Code §§ 3300, et seq., and/or §§ 3600, et seq. This answering defendant is entitled to a judicial determination of any such employer-employee relationship establishing such exclusive remedy and bar to recovery prior to any hearing or trial on the merits in this matter. Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4” 689. AS AND FOR A THIRTIETH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant alieges that even if Plaintiff(s) were exposed to any asbestos-containing products manufactured or distributed by this answering defendant, which supposition is expressly denied, Plaintiff(s’) exposure to said products would have been so minimal as to be insufficient to constitute a “substantial contributing factor”\in the causation of Plaintiff(s’) alleged injuries or disease, if any. AS AND FOR A THIRTY-FIRST, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant is not liable for any alleged failure to warn of any risks, dangers or hazards in the use of any asbestos-containing products or other goods that it allegedly distributed, sold, supplied or delivered to Plaintiff(s’) employer(s), because said employer(s) had as great, if not greater, knowledge about the nature of any risks, dangers or hazards than did this answering defendant, and unlike this answering defendant, said employer(s)| were in a position to warn person exposed to such products any such risks, dangers or hazards. AS AND FOR A THIRTY-SECOND, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that at all times relevant to the matters alleged in the Complaint, as amended now or in the future, all of Plaintiff(s’) employers, other than this answering defendant were sophisticated and knowledgeable users of asbestos products and said employers’ negligence in providing said product(s) to their employees in a negligent, careless and DEFENDANT COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM- ASBESTOS& a COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE KurowskI LLP Cc em NR DR HW BF YY NR NM YB NR RM NY NR RD mm te ow A hw 8 Oo NUN SF SD Oo wm TD DA BR YH NY & reckless manner was a superseding cause of Plaintiff(s’) injuries, if any. AS AND FOR A THIRTY-THIRD, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that to the extent the Complaint, or any cause of action alleged therein, is based upon an allegation of strict products liability as against this answering defendant, said cause of action cannot be maintained as this answering defendant was not a “seller” within the meaning of § 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Tors, and consequently any claim of strict liability against this answering defendant is barred pursuant to Monte Vista Development Corporation vs. Superior Court (1991) 226 Cal App.3d 1681. AS AND FOR A THIRTY-FOURTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the entire Complaint, and each cause of action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that it had no control over any work performed by others, including Plaintiff(s), employer(s) and entities other than this answering defendant, and, therefore, has no responsibility for the claimed damages AS AND FOR A THIRTY-FIFTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the entire Complaint, and each cause of action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that it did not own, occupy, possess, lease, maintain, manage or control any premises upon which Plaintiff(s) were allegedly exposed to asbestos and, as a result, Plaintiff(s) are barred from maintaining any cause of action against this answering defendant under a theory of premises liability. AS AND FOR A THIRTY-SIXTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the entire Complaint, and each cause of action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that any danger or defect in or about the premises was obvious or could have been observed by Plaintiff(s) in this exercise of reasonable care. AS AND FOR A THIRTY-SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the entire Complaint, and each cause of action thereof, this angwering defendant alleges that any defect of danger in or about the premises was trivial. AS AND FOR A THIRTY-EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant denies that iit was a successor, successor in business, DEFENDANT COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM- ASBESTOSLAW OFFICES OF COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE KUROWSKI LLP oO ND HR eB WH YM YY BY BN Dm ea ot A A PB YS & SF © we ADH Bw Be oS 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 any entity owning property, maintaining premises, researching, studying, manufacturing, fabricating, designing, labeling, assembling, distributing, leasing, buying, offering for sale, selling, inspecting, servicing, installing, contracting for installation, repairing, marketing, warranting, re-branding, manufacturing for others, packaging, and advertising any asbestos/silica products. This answering defendant is therefore not liable for any acts, whether they are active or passive, or omissions of any entities to which this answering defendant is or may be alleged to be a successor-in-interest, predecessor-in- interest, alter ego, or the like. AS AND FOR A THIRTY-NINTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, his answering defendant did not and does not have a substantial percentage of the market for any asbestos-containing products which allegedly caused the injuries and damages claimed by Plaintiff(s). Furthermore, the asbestos-containing products which allegedly caused. the injuries and damages claimed by Plaintiff(s) are not “fungible’” in nature. As such, this answering defendant may not be held liable to Plaintiff(s) based upon any “market-share” or “enterprise” theories of liability. AS AND FOR A FORTIETH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that the Complaint, now or as amended in the future, and each purported cause of action set forth therein, to the extent it purports to state a cause of action under Sindell y. Abbott Laboratories (1980) 26 Cal.3d. 588, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 912 (1980), is barred by the Plaintiff(s’) failure to join as defendants the manufacturer of a substantial share of the alleged market which Plaintifi(s) allege Defendant herein is a member, and should it prove impossible to identify the manufacturer of the product which comprises said alleged market, said purported causes of action are barred by the fault of the Plaintiff(s), and their agents in making the identification of the manufacturer impossible. AS AND FOR A FORTY-FIRST, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges to the extent the Complaint asserts defendant’s DEFENDANT COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM- ASBESTOS'a A — 2 2 M a4 = 82 B az é 4 3 z Q o oO Oo Om I DH alleged “market share” liability, or “enterprise liability”, the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against defendant. AS AND FOR A FORTY-SECOND, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that its liability, if any, to the extent Plaintiff(s’) action is pursued or found to be a market share action, is several only; that is, this answering defendant would be liable only for that portion of Plaintiff(s’) damages, if any be found, that corresponds to the percentage of this answering defendant’s share of relevant market for the subject product. AS AND FOR A FORTY-THIRD, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that the Complaint, now or as amended in the future, and any and all claims and causes of action alleged therein, are preempted by the Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act 49 U.S.C.S. §§ 20701, et seq., the Federal Safety Appliances Act, 49 US.C. § 20301, ef seq., and all other applicable federal statues, laws or regulations. AS AND FOR A FORTY-FORTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that the Complaint, now or as amended in the future, and each purported cause of action set forth therein, if based upon lack of identification of the manufacturer of the alleged injury-causing product, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this answering defendant herein in that Plaintiff(s) have asserted claims for relief which, if granted, would contravene this answering defendant’s constitutional rights to substantive and procedural due process of law as preserved by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and by Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution of the state of California. AS AND FOR A FORTY-FIFTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendantalleges that the Complaint, now or as amended in the future, and each purported cause of action set forth therein, if based upon lack of identification of the manufacturer of the alleged injury-causing product, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this answering defendant herein in that Plaintiff(s) have asserted claims for relief which, if granted, would constitute a denial by this Court of this answering defendant’s DEFENDANT COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM- ASBESTOSLaw OFFICES OF COOLEY MANION JONES HaKE KurowskI LLP wa oOo I DN 10 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 tight to equal protection of the law, as preserved by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and by Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution of the state of California. AS AND FOR A FORTY-SIXTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendantalleges that the Complaint, now or as amended in the future, and each purported cause of action set forth therein, if based upon lack of identification of the manufacturer of the alleged injury-causing product, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this answering defendant herein in that Plaintiff(s) have asserted claims for relief which, if granted, would constitute a taking of private property for public use without just compensation, and that such taking would contravene this answering defendant’s constitutional rights as preserved by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and by Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution of the state of California. AS AND FOR A FORTY-SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendantalleges that the Complaint, now or as amended in the future, and each purported cause of action set forth therein, if based upon lack of identification of the manufacturer of the alleged injury-causing product, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this answering defendant herein in that Plaintiff(s) have asserted claims for relief which, if granted, would constitute an invalid burden by the Court on interstate commerce and a burden without resort to less burdensome alternatives, in violation of the Commerce Clause, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States. AS AND FOR A FORTY-EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that the Complaint, now or as amended in the future, and the purported cause of action alleging breach of express warranty, fraud, fraud by concealment and/or claiming punitive damages, if based upon lack of identification of the manufacturer of the alleged injury-causing product, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this answering defendant herein in that Plaintiff(s) have asserted claims for which may not be maintained in such an action pursuant to the laws of this State and the orders of this Court. b DEFENDANT COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM- ASBESTOSLAW OFFICES OF COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE Kurowski LLP I AS AND FOR A FORTY-NINTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that the Complaint, as amended now or in the future, and any and all claims and causes of action alleged therein, fails to state a cause of action against this answering defendant because the federal government has preempted the field of law applicable to the products alleged to have caused Plaintiff(s’) injuries, or the claims forming the basis for relief. The granting of the relief prayed for in the Complaint would, impede, impair, frustrate and/or burden the effectiveness of federal law regulating the field and would violate the Supremacy Clause contained in Article VI, paragraph 2, of the United States Constitution. AS AND FOR A FIFTIETH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that the activity alleged in the Complaint, as amended now or in the future, and any and all claims and causes of action alleged therein, to the extent it was engaged in by this answering defendant, if at all, was not ultra hazardous under California Law. AS AND FOR A FIFTY-FIRST, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that Plaintiff(s) cannot prove any facts showing that the conduct of this answering defendant was the cause in fact of any injuries or damages suffered by Plaintiff(s) as alleged in the Complaint. AS AND FOR A FIFTY-SECOND, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that Plaintiff(s) cannot prove any facts showing that the conduct of this answering defendant was the proximate cause of any injuries or damages suffered by Plaintiff(s) as alleged in the Complaint. AS AND FOR A FIFTY-THIRD, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that the Complaint, as amended now or in the future, and any and all claims and causes of action alleged therein, is/are barred by Plaintiff(s’) failure to timely join one or more parties that are indispensable and/or necessary to a resolution of the matter alleged in the Complaint, as required by California Code of Civil Procedure § 389. AS AND FOR A FIFTY-FORTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that the Complaint, as amended now or in the future, 1 and any and ail claims and causes of action alleged therein, is/are barred pursuant to the doctrines | DEFENDANT COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM- ASBESTOS|LAW OFFICES OF COOLEY MANION JONES HaKE KuROwsKI LLP | 2 3 4 wn eo oe 1D of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel. AS AND FOR A FIFTY-FIFTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that the Complaint, as amendedinow or in the future, and any and all claims and causes of action alleged therein, is/are barred because there is a defect and misjoinder of parties. AS AND FOR A FIFTY-SIXTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that at all times relevant to the matters alleged in the Complaint, as amended now or in the future, Plaintiff(s) knew or should have known of the inherent hazards, risks or potential dangers of the product(s) alleged to be at issue, and was therefore a sophisticated and knowledgeable user of each such product. As such, this answering defendant is not liable to Plaintiff(s) for any alleged failure to warn of such hazards, risks or dangers. AS AND FOR A FIFTY-SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that Plaintiff(s) have improperly split their causes of action and seek to maintain a duplicative lawsuit based on the same facts and circumstances as a lawsuit previously filed. AS AND FOR A FIFTY-EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that Plaintiff(s’) injuries or illness, if any, were due to the acts or omissions of a person or persons over whom this defendant had neither control nor the right of control. AS AND FOR A FIFTY-NINTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that to the extent it was a government contractor with respect to any products involved in this lawsuit, Plaintiff(s) are barred from any recovery based on the government contractor defense. AS AND FOR A SIXTIETH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that Plaintiff(s) acknowledged, ratified, consented to and acquiesced in the alleged acts or omissions, if any, of this answering defendant, thus barring recovery. y 14 DEFENDANT COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM- ASBESTOS :LAW OFFICES OF COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE KUROWSKI LLP 2 Oo me I DR HD RB YW NY AS AND FOR A SIXTY-FIRST, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE | DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that the Complaint, as amended now or in the future, and any and all claims and causes of action alleged therein, is/are barred by the “sophisticated user” doctrine pursuant to Johnson v. American Standard, Inc. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 56. AS AND FOR A SIXTY-SECOND, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant asserts that Plaintiff(s’) maritime claims brought under 46 U.S.C. § 30101 are barred by the holding in Burnette v. Nicolet, Inc., 818 F.2d 1098 a Cir. 1986) and Grubert, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. (1995) 513 U.S. 527. AS AND FOR A SIXTY-THIRD, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant asserts that Plaintiff(s’) maritime claims brought under 446 U.S.C. § 30101 are barred by the holding in Harville v. Johns-Manville Products Corps., 731 F.2d 775 (11" Cir. 1984), Roberts v. U.S., 498 F.2d 520 go" Cir, 1974) and Sisson v. Ruby, 497 U.S, 358 (1990). AS AND FOR A SIXTY-FORTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint, now and as amended in the future, and each cause of action therein, this answering defendant alleges that if it has purportedly been named or served in this action as a Doe Defendant, Plaintiff(s’) attempt to do so is invalid in that Plaintiff(s) new or should have known of the identity of this answering defendant and of Plaintiff(s’) alleged causes of action against it at the time of the filing of the Complaint. AS AND FOR A SIXTY-FIFTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant presently has insufficient knowledge ot information on which to form a belief as to whether it may have additional, as yet unstated, defenses available. Defendant reserves herein the right to assert additional defenses in the event liscovery indicates that they would be appropriate. | RESERVATION OF RIGHTS This answering defendant hereby reserves the right, upon completion of its investigation and discovery, to amend this answer to include such additional defenses as may be appropriate. Mt \ 15 ' DEFENDANT COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM- ASBESTOS 'LAW OFFICES OF COOLEY MANION JONEs HaKE KurowsK1 LLP co Be eo KN HB Ye DH WHEREFORE, Defendant, COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC. prays for judgment as follows: 1. That Plaintiff(s) take nothing by way of their Complaint or any cause of action thereof against this answering defendant; 2. That the court award judgment in favor of this answering defendant; 3. For reasonable attorneys’ fees; 4. For costs of suit and disbursements; 5. That if defendant COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC. is found liable, that the degree of responsibility and liability for the resulting damages be determined and apportioned in accordance with California Civil Code section 1431 et seg.; and 6. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem proper. DATED: April 15, 2011 COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE KUROWSKI LLP e. Howard P. Skebe es Attorneys for Defendant COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC. 16 DEFENDANT COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM- ASBESTOSCOOLEY MANION JONES HAKE KUROWSKI LLP PROOF OF SERVICE Tam a citizen of the United States and employed in San Francisco County, California. [ am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within-entitled action. My business address is 201 Spear Street, Suite 1800, San Francisco, CA 94105. On April 15, 2011 I electronically filed and served the following document via LexisNexis File and Serve on all parties listed on the transmission report: DEFENDANT COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM- ASBESTOS I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on April 15, 2011 at San Francisco, Californi: VANESSA MARKY 17 DEFENDANT COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM- ASBESTOS