Answer: ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                LAW OFFICES OF
COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE KuROWSKI LLP

so ON DN HN FR Ww NY

Nn RON RB De ee es i a ei
BNRRRRBRE SE RWREEBHAS

William M. Hake, Esq. (State Bar No. 110956)
Howard P. Skebe, Esq. (State Bar No. 191407)

COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE ELECTRONICALLY
KUROWSKI LLP FILED
201 Spear Street, 18" Floor vy
San Francisco, CA 94105 Superior Court of California,
Tel: (415) 512. 4381 County of San Francisco
Fax: (415) 512-6791 MAR 23 2011
Clerk of the Court
Attorneys for Defendant BY: JUDITH NUNEZ
BELL PRODUCTS, INC. (erroneously sued as Deputy Clerk
BELL PRODUCTS 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 BELL PRODUCTS, INC.’S
v. ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL
C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS, et al., | INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM -
ASBESTOS
Defendants.

COMES NOW, Defendant, BELL PRODUCTS, INC. (hereinafter referred to as “this
answering defendant”), for itself alone, and in answer to the unverified Complaint of Plaintifi(s)
herein and as amended, now or in the future, allege as follows:

Whenever the masculine pronoun is used in this answer, its reference embraces a female
pronoun, company, partnership, entity or corporation, respectively, to the same effect as if the
corresponding female or neuter pronoun were substituted. Wherever the singular “Plaint-ff” is
used, it also embraces the plural.

1. 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 that
Plaintiff(s) have sustained damages in the sum or sums alleged, in any other sum or sums

whatsoever, or at all.

DEFENDANT BELL PRODUCTS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTLaw OFFICES OF

COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE KUROWSKI 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,
this answering defendant alleges 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 Plaintiff(s) 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 ail 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, Plaintifi{s) fully, completely
and unequivocally settled and compromised their claims for relief against this answering

defendant.
2

DEFENDANT BELL PRODUCTS, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTLaw OFFICES OF
COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE KuROWSKI LLP

Dw I DAU

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
7
18
19
20
21
2
23
24
25
26
27
28

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 D=FENSE,
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 prudeat person
would have used under the same or similar circumstances, in that, among other things, said
Plaintiffs) 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 anc
proximately cause and contribute to their injuries and damages, if any. Plaintiff(s) are therefore
precluded from obtaining any recovery against this answering defendant. Alternatively, 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 Plaintiff(s), if any, and that if
3

DEFENDANT BELL PRODUCTS, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTLaw OFFICES OF
COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE KUROWSKI 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 enti-ies 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 voluntarily assuming any and
all risk(s) incident thereto, and thereby barring Plaintiff(s) from recovery herein.

AS AND FOR A FORTEENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
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 Plaintiff(s) were the sole, proximate and legal cause
of Plaintiff(s’) 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
4

DEFENDANT BELL PRODUCTS, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTLaw OFFICES OF
COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE KUROWSKI LLP

DO I DA WN

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

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 treatment 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 other change therein and not from any act or omission by this answering delendant,
thereby barring Plaintiff{s) from recovery herein as against this answering defendant.

AS AND FOR A SEVENTEENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMAT.VE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that Plaintifi(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, Plaintifi(s) were not in privity of contract with this
answering defendant, and said lack of privity bars Plaintiffs’) 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
5

DEFENDANT BELL PRODUCTS, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTLaw OFFICES GF
COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE Kurowsk! LLP

defendant timely and reasonable notice of any alleged breach of contract or warranty, thereby
barring Plaintiff(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 actioa,
Plaintifi(s) waived whatever right they might otherwise have had to claim a breach of warranty,
in that Plaintiff(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 DISTINCT AFFIRMA“IVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that the Complaint, now and as 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 punitive/exemplary 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
6

DEFENDANT BELL PRODUCTS, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTLaw OFFICES OF
COOLEY MANION JONES HaKE Kurowski LLP

So Oe YN DH FB WY

NR Y= Be Be Be Be ee ee ee
BXRRRERSRHRSSSEWIRREEBHE CS

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 defendantalleges 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 belief that Plaintifi(s’)
employer or employers provided Plaintiff(s) with certain benefits in compliance 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 complaiaed of by
Plaintifi(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 agents, servants or
employees. Therefore, this answering defendant is entitled to an offset of any such bene‘its
received or to be received by Plaintiff(s) against any judgment which may be rendered in favor of
said Plaintiff(s). Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4" 689.

Mit
7

DEFENDANT BELL PRODUCTS, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTLaw OFFICES OF
COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE KurowskI LLP

Co Oo Oe I DH RB Ww NY

RN = Be ee se ee Be ee

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 Plaintiffs’) and/or
Plaintiff(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.

AS AND FOR A THIRTIETH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges 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 causa‘ion 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 wam 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
8

DEFENDANT BELL PRODUCTS, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTLAW OFFICES OF
COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE KurowskI LLP

0 Oo WM DA HW BB WN

Be se oe
nbs 5

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 Torts, 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 ne control over any work performed by others, including Plaintiff(s),
employer(s) and entities other than this answering defendant, and, therefore, has no respensibility
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 ot 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 defeadant
alleges that any danger or defect in or about the premises was obvious or could have been
observed by Plaintifi{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 answering 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 it was a successor, successor in business,
9

DEFENDANT BELL PRODUCTS, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTLAW OFFICES OF
COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE KuROWSKI LLP

oe YN DA MW BF WN

NR YD YD Be ee ee oe ee
BNR RRE RRR BSS RR BEBEHKR TS

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, assemb:ing,
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 AFFIRMAT.VE
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 v. Abbot Laboratories (1980) 26 C. rd 588, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 912
(1980), is barred by the Plaintiff(s’) failure to join as defendants the manufacturer of a scbstantial
share of the alleged market which Plaintiff(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 Plaintiffs), 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
10

DEFENDANT BELL PRODUCTS, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTLAW OFFICES OF
COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE KUROWSKI LLP

oOo ID

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

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, ef seq., the Federal Safety Appliances Act, 49
U.S.C. § 20301, et 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 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 constitute a denial by this Court of this answering defendant’s
11

DEFENDANT BELL PRODUCTS, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTLAW OFFICES OF
COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE Kurowski LLP

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 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 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 Califormia.

AS AND FOR A FORTY-SEVENTH, 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 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 1, 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.
12

DEFENDANT BELL PRODUCTS, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT‘LAW OFFICES OF
COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE KUROWSKI LLP

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 VA, Clause 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 Plaintiffs) 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’) “ailure 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-PORTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that the Complaint, as amended now or in the future,

and any and ali claims and causes of action alleged therein, is/are barred pursuant to the doctrines
13

DEFENDANT BELL PRODUCTS, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTLAW OFFICES OF
COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE Kurowski LLP

Co mw YN DR HW BF YW VY

2

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 amended now 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.
14

DEFENDANT BELL PRODUCTS, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTLaw OFFICES OF
COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE KuROWwSKI LLP

0 OB YN DH WA FB WN =

Ny NY NN NR NY Ne ee ee a a i
B® RRP BRR BEBE RURBEBEHK ZS

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 vy. American Standard (2008) 43 Cal.4" 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., C.A. 4 (.N.C.) 1986, F. 2d
1098 and Grubert, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 115 S.Ct. 1043.

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.. C.A. 11
(ala.) 1984, 731, F.2d 775, Roberts y. U.S.,C.A. 9 (Cal.) 1974, 498 F.2d, 520 and Sisson v.
Ruby, 110 S.Ct, 2892.

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 alleges that to the extent the Complaint, as amended now or
in the future, is based upon an allegation of strict products liability as against this answering
defendant, said cause of action is barred and cannot be maintained under the component parts
doctrine of Taylor v. Elliot Turbomachinery Co., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4” 564.

AS AND FOR A SIXTY-SIXTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ 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.
15

DEFENDANT BELL PRODUCTS, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT‘Law OFFICES GF
COOLEY MANION JONES HaKE Kurowski LLP

AS AND FOR A SIXTY-SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that the benefit of the design of any product
associated with said defendant outweighs any risk associated with said product, if any risk there
actually was, which this answering defendant denies.

AS AND FOR A SIXTY-EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that, if any express or implied warranties for
purpose or merchantability were provided, which this answering defendant expressly denies as to
Plaintiffs, said product met all such express or implied warranties for purpose or merchantability.

AS AND FOR A SIXTY-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, is/are barred by the “sophisticated
user” doctrine pursuant to Johnson v. American Standard, Inc. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 56.

AS AND FOR A SEVENTIETH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges 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, as amended now or in the future, said cause of action cannot be maintained as this
answering defendant did not manufacture a product within the meaning of any applicable case
law or statute that supports any cause of action brought by these Plaintiffs against this answering
defendant.

AS AND FOR A SEVENTY-FIRST, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges it is not liable for any alleged failure to warn of any
tisks, dangers or hazards in the use of any asbestos-containing products or other goods that it
allegedly distributed, sold, supplied, manufactured or delivered to Plaintiffs’ 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 persons exposed to such products of any such risks,
dangers or hazards.

it
16

DEFENDANT BELL PRODUCTS, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTLAW OFFICES OF
COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE KUROWSKI LLP

wa

co oO NOD

AS AND FOR A SEVENTY-SECOND, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ employers were partially, if not
wholly, negligent, or otherwise at fault on their own part pursuant to the doctrine of comparative
negligence, and Plaintiffs should be batred from recovery of that portion of the damages directly
attributable to Plaintiffs’ employers’ proportionate share of the negligence or fault pursuant to
Witt v. Jackson (1961) 57 Cal. 24 57.

AS AND FOR A SEVENTY-THIRD, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that any product(s) allegedly associated with this
answering defendant and subject to the instant Complaint were as safe as could be designed under
the state of technology and medical and scientific knowledge existing at the time the products
were manufactured.

AS AND FOR A SEVENTY-FOURTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that if Plaintiffs sustained injuries attributable to the
use of any product, which allegations are expressly denied, the injuries were caused in whole or
in part by the unreasonable, unforeseeable and inappropriate purpose and/or improper use which
was made of the product.

AS AND FOR A SEVENTY-FIFTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, this answering defendant presently has insufficient knowledge or 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 discovery 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.

WHEREFORE, Defendant BELL PRODUCTS, 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;
17

DEFENDANT BELL PRODUCTS, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTLAW OFFICES OF
COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE Kurowski LLP

3. For reasonable attorneys’ fees;

4. For costs of suit and disbursements;

5. That if defendant BELL PRODUCTS, 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 seq.; and

6. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem proper.

DATED: March 23, 2011 COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE KUROWSKI LLP

Howard P. Skebe, Esq.

Attomeys for Defendant
BELL PRODUCTS, INC.

18

DEFENDANT BELL PRODUCTS, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTLaw OFFICES OF
COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE KUROWSKI LLP

wa

PROOF OF SERVICE FOR ELECTRONIC FILING
Tam a citizen of the United States and employed in San Francisco County, California, I
am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within-entitled action. My business
address is 201 Spear Street, 13% Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105.
On March 23, 2011, I served the foregoing document:
DEFENDANT BELL PRODUCTS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF
CONSORTIUM -ASBESTOS

via Lexis/Nexis File and Serve on all parties as set forth in the transaction report
maintained by Lexis/Nexis. :

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above
is true and correct.

Executed on March 23, 2011, at San Francisco, California.

JEF! @ FOOTE

1

PROOF OF SERVICE