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

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                BRYDON
Fuao & PARKER,

San Beaneise0, CA 94105,

DW & Ww we

Edward R. Hugo [Bar No. 124839]
P.M. Bessette [Bar No. 127588]

BRYDON HUGO & PARKER
135°‘Main street, 20% Floor ELECTRONICALLY
San Francisco, CA 94105 FILED
Telephone: (415) 808-0300 jor Court of California,

Facsimile: (415) 808-0333 “County of San Francisco
Attorneys for Defendant _ FEB 07 20 4
A. TEICHERT & SON, INC. eck oF the eo

Deputy Clerk

SUPERIOR COURT - STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS, (ASBESTOS
Case No. CGC-10-275731
Plaintiffs,
vs.
ANSWER OF A. TEICHERT & SON, INC.
C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS, et al, | TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY
- ASBESTOS
Defendants.

COMES NOW Defendant A. TEICHERT & SON, INC. (“TEICHERT” or
“Defendant’) denying liability for itself and any alternate entities named in the
complaint, and answers Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Personal Injury ~ Asbestos (hereinafter
the “Complaint”) on file herein, admits, denies, and alleges as follows:

GENERAL DENIAL

Under the provisions of Section 431.30(d), California Code of Civil Procedure,
this answering defendant denies each and every allegation of plaintiffs’ Complaint and
the whole thereof, and denies that plaintiffs have been damaged in any sur or amount
whatsoever, or at all, and denies that plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages of any
kind in any amount whatsoever from TEICHERT.

RESERVATION OF RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY
TEICHERT reserves the right to a trial by jury.

ANSWER OF A. TEICHERT & SON, INC. TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS:li

BRYDON
Huge: & PARKER

Be ROOR.
Sno Braaciteg, CA 9410S

oO BP em NR OH RB Ow

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DERENSE

Failure to State a Cause of Action

This answering defendant alleges that plaintiffs’ Complaint and each of the causes
of action for relief alleged therein, fails to state a cause of action against this answering
defendant.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Contravention of Defendant's Constitutional Rights to Due Process of Law

The Complaint and each cause of action thereof, which is admittedly based upon a
lack of identification of the manufacturer of, and contractor using or distributing the
alleged injury-causing product, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action
in that plaintiffs have asserted a claim for relief which, if granted, would contravene
defendant's constitutional rights to substantive and procedural due process of law as
preserved for defendant by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution
and by Article T, Section 7, of the Constitution of the State of California.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Denial of Defendant's Constitutional Rights to Equal Protection of the Laws
The Complaint, and each cause of action thereof, fails to state facts sufficient to

constitute a cause of action in that plaintiffs have asserted claims for relief which, if
granted, would constitute a denial by this Court of defendant's constitutional right to
equal protection of the laws as preserved by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United
States Constitution and by Article I, Section 7, of the Constitution of the State of

California.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Unconstitutional Taking of Private Property for Public Use Without Just Compensation

The Complaint, and each cause of action thereof, which is admittedly based upon

a lack of identification of the manufacturer, and contractor using or distributing the

alleged injury-causing product, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action

ANSWER OF A. TEICHERT & SON, INC. TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INIURY - ASBESTOSmm oO DP Oe WY BR HW & BN =

oO OP BD A BR |] ON

NR PW NM ww NM w NY
SIAR hm FB GB 8 A S

28

Brypon
HUG & PARKER
U5 Maw sneer
2 RGR
San Franiisca, CA S105

in that plaintiffs have asserted claims for relief which, if granted, would constitute the
taking of private property for public use without just compensation in contravention of
the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and by Article 1,
Section 7 and 19, of the Constitution of the State of California, and the applicable
California statutes.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Comparative Fault
This answering defendant alleges that the damages, if any, complained of by

plaintiffs, were proximately caused by the negligence, fault, breach of contract and/or
strict Hability of plaintiff or other defendants, firms, persons, corporations, unions,
employers and entities other than TEICHERT, and that said negligence, fault, breach of
contract and/or strict liability comparatively reduces the percentage of any negligence,
fault, breach of contract or strict lability for which TEICHERT is legally responsible, if
any be found, which liability this defendant expressly denies. Further, this answering
defendant alleges that plaintiff did not exercise ordinary care, caution or prudence to
avoid the incidents complained of herein, and said incidents and the injuries and
damages, if any, sustained by plaintiff, were directly and proximately caused and
contributed to by the carelessness and negligence of said plaintiff.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Contributory Negligence

This answering defendant alleges that plaintiff did not exercise ordinary care,
caution or prudence to avoid the incidents complained of herein, and said incidents and.
the injuries and damages, if any, sustained by plaintiff, were directly and proximately
caused and contributed to by the carelessness and negligence of said plaintiff.
if
Hit
Mit

31 : SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

2 Uncertainty

3 This answering defendant alleges that plaintiffs’ Complaint and all purported

4 || causes of action therein are vague, ambiguous and uncertain, and fail to state a cause of
5 |} action on any theory.

6 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

7 Laches

8 This answering defendant alleges that plaintiffs unreasonably delayed in bringing

this action and that such delay substantially prejudiced defendant, and that this action is
10 || therefore barred by the Doctrine of Laches.

il NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 Statute of Limitations
3 This answering defendant alleges that plaintiffs’ Complaint and the purported

14 || causes of action therein are barred by all statutes of limitation, including, but not limited
5 || to, the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 338, 338.1, 339(1), 340, 3403)
16 || and 340.2, 343, 352, 366.1, 366.2 and California Commercial Code § 2725. Plaintiffs’ claims

17 || are further barred by the statute of limitations of states other than California pursuant to

g || California Code of Civil Procedure § 361.

19 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20 Failure to Mitigate
a This answering defendant alleges that plaintiff failed to mitigate damages which

22 || plaintiff contends he suffered, and plaintiffs are therefore barred from any recovery
23 || whatsoever, or alternatively, any damages found must be reduced in proportion to such

24 || failure to mitigate.

25 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26 Estoppel
7 This answering defendant alleges that as a result of the acts, conduct and/or

28 || omissions of plaintiff and his agents, or any of them, and each cause of action presented

BRYDON

HUGO & PARKER, 4
135 Main STREET
oP deeeerenertntsnreneunnnentein minnie hiunsnnpsiyepnapunnaepeniinantsna rinnanntnananninnanninsneenee

Someiice, CA aet08 ANSWER OF A. TEICHERT & SON, INC. TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS28

Beynon
HuGo & PARKER:
13d Mate Seeger
20" Foon,

San Francisoa, OA SATS

therein, is barred under the Doctrine of Estoppel.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Waiver
This answering defendant alleges that plaintiffs, by their acts, conduct and
omissions, have waived the claims alleged in their Complaint and in each purported

cause of action alleged therein.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Acguiescence
Plaintiffs acknowledged, ratified, consented to, and acquiesced in the alleged acts

or omissions, if any, of this answering defendant, thus barring plaintiffs from any relief as

prayed for herein.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Notice of Dangers
Plaintiff was advised, informed, and warned of any potential hazards and/or

dangers, if there were any, associated with the normal or foreseeable use, handling,
storage and in place asbestos of the products, substances, equipment and at premises in
which exposure is claimed as is described in the Complaint and is therefore barred from
any relief prayed for.

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Compliance with Statute,
This answering defendant alleges that all of its conduct and activities as alleged in
the plaintiffs’ Complaint conformed to statutes, government regulations, and industry

standards based upon the state of knowledge existing at all relevant times.

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Compliance with Specifications
This answering defendant alleges that the asbestos products or asbestos used or in
place at any premises, if any, for which TEICHERT had any legal responsibility, were

manufactured, packaged, distributed or gold in accordance with contract specifications

5

ANSWER OF A. TEICHERT & SON, INC. TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS ~BRYDON
HuGo & PARKER
138 Mag SYRERT
20 LOOK
Sin Prancien, CA BALS

imposed by its co-defendants, by the U.S. Government, by the State of California, by
plaintiff's employers, or by third parties yet to be identified.
SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

No Conspiracy

This answering defendant alleges that TEICHERT has no liability for the acts,
omissions or otherwise of any other defendant or entity because TELCHERT did not
become legally responsible for the acts of any such defendant, nor entity, by any
communication, alleged, implied, or actual, nor act, action, or activity, and never was, nor

is, a conspirator nor co-conspirator with any other defendant or entity.

EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEPENSE

State-of-the-Art
This answering defendant alleges that all of its activities, products, materials and
its premises at issue here at all times were conducted, used, produced, marketed, and
operated in conformity with the existing scientific, medical industrial hygiene and

consumer knowledge, art and practice and state-of-the-art.

NINTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

No Foreseeable Risk to Plaintiff

The state of the medical, scientific, and industrial knowledge and practice was at

all material times such that defendant neither breached any alleged duty owed plaintiff,
nor knew, nor could have known, that its activities, materials, products, activities or
premises presented a foreseeable risk of harm to plaintiff in the normal and expected

course of such activities and use of such materials and products.

TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

No Right to Control

This answering defendant alleges that any loss, injury, or damage incurred by
Plaintiffs was proximately and legally caused by the negligent or willful acts or omissions
of parties which TEICHERT neither controlled, nor had the right to control, and was not

proximately caused by any acts, omissions, or other conduct of TEICHERT.

6

ANSWER OF A. TEICHERT & SON, INC. TO. COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJORY - ASBESTOSBRYDON
Hugo & PARKER,
135 MAINSIReT
BO FLOR
Sat Francisca, CA 94105,

TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Action for Relief

This answering defendant alleges the causes of action, if any, attempted to be
stated and set forth in the Complaint, are barred by the provisions of the Code of Civil
Procedure of the State of California and/or other statutes of the State of California,
including without limitation C.C.P. § 338(d).

TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Misuse and Improper Use of Products

This answering defendant alleges that if the plaintiff allegedly suffered injuries

attributable to the disturbance or use of any product for which TEICHERT had any legal
responsibility, which allegations are expressly herein denied, the injuries were solely
caused by, and attributable to the unreasonable, unforeseeable, and inappropriate
purpose and improper use and abuse which was made of said product by persons or

entities other than TEICHERT.

TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Due Care and Diligence
This answering defendant alleges that TEICHERT exercised due care and diligence
in all of the matters alleged in the Complaint, and no act or omission by TEICHERT was

the proximate cause of any damage, injury or loss to plaintiff.

TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Alteration an isuse of Product
This answering defendant alleges that an insubstantial amount, if any at all, of the
products containing asbestos distributed, used, supplied by defendant or used or in place
at any premises owned or controlled by defendant, were not disturbed or used in the
presence of plaintiff and not supplied to the plaintiff, and if so, were substantially altered

by others and/or used in a manner inconsistent with the labeled directions.

7Ce eB NA tn

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

BRYDON
HuGo & PARKER
135 Main Shae
26" FLOOR
Sen Fesnelsco, C4 94108

TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIATIVE DEFENSE

Egual or Greater Knowledge §

This answering defendant alleges that any and all products containing asbestos
used, distributed or supplied by defendant were distributed or supplied to, or for,
persons or entities who had knowledge with respect to the hazards, if any, resulting from
exposure to products containing asbestos, which-knowledge is equal to or greater than

the knowledge of TEICHERT.
TWENTY-SIXTH APFIRMATIVE DEPENSE

Other Parties’ Liability and Negligence
This answering defendant alleges that if there was any negligence or any other
form of liability on the part of any of the parties named herein, it was the sole and
exclusive negligence and liability of the other persons or entities and not of TEICHERT.

TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Apportionment and Offset

This answering defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that

plaintiffs acts and omissions, including plaintiff's agents, servants, and employees acting
within the course and scope of their employment, and others, contributed to the alleged
damages, injury, or loss, if any, sustained by plaintiff. Defendant requests that the Court
apply the principles of apportionment and offset so as to permit the Court or jury to
apportion liability according to fault and to grant defendant a corresponding offset
against any damages awarded to plaintiffs.

TWENTY-FIGHTH AFRIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Contribution/Equitable Indemnity

This answering defendant alleges, in the event it is held liable to Plaintiffs, any
such liability is expressly herein denied, and any other co-defendants are likewise held
liable, TEICHERT is entitled to a percentage contribution of the total liability from said
co-defendants in accordance with the principles of equitable indemnity and comparative

contribution.

82 Pw eC YQ Dw BR YW NH mm

BRYDON
Hetao & PARKER
135 MAIN STREAT
20" Feo
‘Son Pranciyon, C4, O41

TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Assumption of Risk by Plaintiff's Emplover(s)

This answering defendant alleges that the Complaint and each cause of action,
alleged therein are barred on the grounds that plaintiff's employer or employers
knowingly entered into and engaged in the operations, acts and conduct alleged in the
Complaint, and voluntarily and knowingly assumed all of the risks incident to said
operations, acts and conduct at the time and place mentioned in the Complaint.

TEURTIETH APEIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Assumption of Risk
This answering defendant alleges plaintiff assumed the risk of the matters referred

to in his Complaint and that plaintiff knew and appreciated the nature of the risk and
that the plaintiff voluntarily accepted this risk.
THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,

© Market Share
This answering defendant alleges that TEICHERT did not have an appreciable

share of the market for the asbestos-containing products which allegedly caused
plaintiff's injuries, which occurrence TEICHERT expressly denies. Accordingly,
TEICHERT may not be held liable to plaintiffs based on its alleged share of the applicable
product market.
THIRTY-SECOND APFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff Fails to Join a Substantial Market Share

The Complaint, and each cause of action thereof, fails to state facts sufficient to

constitute a cause of action against this answering defendant, in that defendant has failed
to join a substantial market share of the producers or products to which plaintiff was
allegedly exposed.
THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
Insufficient Facts to Show Substantial Market Share of this Defendant

To the extent the Complaint asserts defendants alleged “alternative,” “market

92 C2 6B MH KR Hh BR BR Rm

RR RR Ne
I HAR BRB VW NM Be SBS CLC woe Bw DAD A & Bw oe

28

Brypon
HuGo & PARKER
138 MapeSmeity
20 FLocet
‘Sun Feancigns, CA P4105

share,” or “enterprise” liability, the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a

cause of action against this defendant.
THIRTY-FOURTH APFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Independent, Interyening or Superseding Cause

This answering defendant alleges that if plaintiff suffered any injuries attributable

to the use of any product containing asbestos which was'used, distributed or sold by
defendant, which allegations are expressly denied herein, the injuries were solely caused
by an unforeseeable, independent intervening and/or superseding event beyond the
control and unrelated to any conduct of defendant. Defendant's actions, if any, were
superseded by the negligence and wrongful conduct of others.
THIRTY-TIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Not a Substantial Factor

This answering defendant alleges that the Complaint and each cause of action

therein presented are barred on the grounds that the products, conduct, materials or
premises of defendant as referred to in plaintiffs’ Complaint, if any, were not a
substantial factor in bringing about the injuries and damages complained of by plaintiff
and did not increase the risk that plaintiff would suffer the injuries and damages
complained of.

THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Insuffici xposure
Any exposure of plaintiff to defendant's activities, products or exposure to
asbestos or asbestos-containing products at TEICHERT’s premises was so minimal as to
be insufficient to establish by a reasonable degree of probability that any such product
caused any alleged injury, damage, or loss to plaintiff.
THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

No Successor Liability
This answering defendant alleges that TEICHERT has no liability for the acts,

omissions or otherwise of any other defendant or any other entity because TEICHERT

101 |) did not become legally responsible for the acts of any such defendant or entity given the
2 || facts and circumstances of the pertinent transactions and never was, nor is, a successor-
3} in-interest, a successor-in-liability or an alternate entity for any other user, marvufacturer,
4 || supplier, seller, distributor or premises holder relating to asbestos or asbestos-containing
51) products.

6 THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

7 Lack of Privity
8

9

This answering defendant alleges that plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of
action in that the Complaint fails to allege that there was privity between defendant on
10 |) the one hand, and plaintiffs on the other, and furthermore, such privity did not exist

1 |} between defendant on the one hand, and plaintiffs on the other.

12 THRITY-NINTH SBFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
3 Secondary Assumption of Risk
4 ‘This answering defendant alleges that any and all products containing asbestos

5 || used, distributed or supplied by defendant were used, distributed or supplied to, or for,

16 || persons or entities who had knowledge with respect to the hazards, if any, resulting from

7 || exposure to products containing asbestos, which is equal to or greater than, the

18 || knowledge of TEICHERT, Le. TEICHERT’s liability should be reduced in proportion to
19 || the knowledge of plaintiff.

20 PORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21 ivil Cod tion 1431.2
22 This answering defendant alleges that the provisions of California Civil Code §

23 |) 1431.2 (commonly referred to as “Proposition 51”) are applicable to plaintiffs Complaint

24 |} and to each cause of action therein.

23 FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26 Workers’ Compensation Exclusive Remedy
27 This answering defendant alleges that the Complaint is barred by the exclusivity

28 |) provisions of the California Workers’ Compensation laws, including, but not limited to,

BRYDOR

Huco & PARKER t1
133 Mane Senet
20" Soon senescent nena tintninimntntuninunuuipnsainneninsneniineininntinninaenimnnes

Sen Frenchie, CANS ANSWER OF A. TEICHERT & SON, INC. TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSSC © UA Hh BG SG

Mw PNM ww NM Bw we Ly
SA hw FB BSB Be = S

28

BRYDON
Huco & PARKER
15 Maun staser
10" ROGER,

Sur Francisco, CA 84305

California Labor Code §§ 3600, et seq.
FORTH-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Offset for Workers’ Compensation Benefits

This answering defendant alleges that to the extent plaintiff herein recovered, or in
the future may recover, any monies in connection with any claim for workers’
compensation benefits, any amounts recovered in this action aresubject to a claim by
defendant for a credit or offset.

FORTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Express Contractual Indemnity

This answering defendant alleges that if plaintiff claims exposure to asbestos or
asbestos-containing products at a TEICHERT premises, TEICHERT contracted with
plaintiff and/or plaintiff's employer(s) for them to fully assume all responsibility for
insuring plaintiff's safety, to guarantee that no hazardous condition existed, and/or to
warn and protect against any such conditions, during the performance of plaintiffs work,
and, further, to fully indemnify TEICHERT, and to hold TEICHERT harmless, for all
responsibility and liability arising out of said work, and/or any injuries allegedly incurred
by plaintiff as a result of any of said work. TEICHERT reserves all rights to assert these
provisions of contractual indemnity.

FORTY-FOURTH APFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Consent

This answering defendant alleges that at all times mentioned, plaintiff consented
to the alleged acts or omissions of TEICHERT.

PORTY-FIFTH AFPIMATIVE DEFENSE

Unusual Susceptibility

This answering defendant-alleges that each of plaintiff's injuries and damages, if

any, were proximately caused or contributed to by plaintiff's unforeseeable idiosyncratic
condition, unusual susceptibility, or hypersensitivity reactions for which TEICHERT is

not liable.

12

UU TANSWER OF A, TEICHERT & SON, INC. TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS,oO OD RW RW RR RB Ww Dom

mot

BRYDON
HuGo & PARKER
SS.MAWN STREET
20 GR
Sau Franeiavg, CA 24105

Good Faith
This answering defendant alleges that plaintiff's claim for punitive damages is
barred because TEICHERT at all times and places mentioned in the Complaint acted
reasonably and in good faith, and without malice or oppression towards the plaintiff.
FORTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Sophisticated User
This answering defendant alleges that TEICHERT was under no legal duty to

warn plaintiff of the hazard associated with the use of products containing asbestos or
their existence at any premises owned, operated, controlled or otherwise by TEICHERT.
The purchasers of said products, the plaintiff, plaintiff’s employers, his unions or certain,
thitd parties yet to be identified, were knowledgeable and sophisticated users and were
in a better position to warn plaintiff of the risk associated with using products containing
asbestos and, assuming a warning was required, it was the failure of such persons or
entities to give such a warning that was the proximate and superseding cause of
plaintiff's damages, if any.

FORTY-FIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Work Hazard Precautions

This answering defendant alleges that plaintiff's employer(s) was/were advised
and warned of any potential hazards and/or dangers associated with the normal and
foreseeable conduct with, or storage and disposal of the products referred to in the
Complaint, in a manner which was adequate notice to an industrial user of such product
to enable it to inform its employees to take appropriate work precautions to prevent
injurious exposure.

PFORTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Failure to Join Indispensable Parties

Plaintiff herein has failed to join indispensable parties (California Code of Civil

Procedure, § 389) and the Complaint is thereby defective, and plaintiff is thereby

ANSWER OF A. TEICHERT & SON, INC. TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL ENTURY - ASBESTOSwe

Oo ee YW AD

BRyDON
Huco & Parner,

precluded from any recovery whatsoever as prayed for herein.

FIFTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
No Standing Under California Civil Code §§ 1708-1710

Plaintiff has no standing nor right to sue for fraud and conspiracy, breach of
warranty, deceit, or any cause of action under California Civil Code, §§ 1708-1710, and
therefore the Complaint and each cause of action thereof fails to state facts sufficient to

constitute a cause of action against this answering defendant.

FIPTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff is not a Real Party in Interest

Plaintiff, and each of them, herein lacks legal capacity to sue and is not a real party

in interest and is thereby precluded from any recovery whatsoever as prayed for herein.

FIFTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEBENSE

Exaud and Conspiracy are Not Separate Forms of Damages

Fraud and conspiracy do not constitute a separate and distinct form of damages
from general damages, and, therefore, the prayer for fraud and conspiracy in addition to
general damages does not sufficiently support or constitute a separate claim for damages
against this answering defendant, but is simply cumulative and included in general
damages.

FIFTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Failure to Allege with Particularity

This answering defendant alleges that plaintifi’s Complaint fails to set out its
claims with sufficient particularity to permit defendant to raise all appropriate defenses
and, thus, defendant reserves the right to add additional defenses as the factual basis for

these claims becomes known.

ELPTY-POURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Punitive Damage Prohibited
This answering defendant alleges that plaintiff's Complaint fails to state facts

sufficient to support an award of punitive or exemplary damages against TEICHERT.

4

ANSWER OF A. TEICHERT & SON, INC. TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS ™~20

BRYyDON

HuGo & PARKER

138 Maun Seater

Sea Francisca, CA 94105

The Complaint, to the extent that it seeks exernplary or punitive damages, violates
TEICHERT’s right to procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the
United States Constitution, and the Constitution of the State of California, and fails to
state a cause of action upon which either punitive or exemplary damages can be
awarded.

PIFTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEBENSE

Punitive Damages Prohibited

This answering defendant alleges that the Complaint, to the extent that it seeks
punitive or exemplary damages, violates TEICHERT’s right to protection from excessive
fines as provided in the Fighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article
I, Seetion 17 of the Constitution of the State of California, and violates TEICHERT’s right
to substantive due process as provided in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the
United States and California Constitutions, and thus fails to state a cause of action
supporting an award of punitive or exemplary damages.

FIETY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Punitive Damages Prohibited

The causes of action asserted herein by plaintiff fail to state facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action in that plaintiff has asserted claims for punitive damages
which, if granted, would violate the prohibition against laws impairing the obligation of
contracts set forth in Article I, Section 10, of the United States Constitution.

BIETY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Punitive Damages Prohibited

Plaintiff's claim for punitive or exemplary damages, if any, alleged by Plaintiff is
barred by the “double jeopardy” clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.

EIFTY-EIGHTH APFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Negligent Hiring Claim Invalid

An employee of an independent contractor may not pursue a claim for negligent

151 || hiring against a hirer of the independent contractor. See Camargo v. Tjaarda Dairy, 25 Cal.
2 || 4th 1235 (2001).

3 RBIPTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
4 Right to Amend

This defendant will assert any and all additional defenses that arise during the

course of this litigation and reserves the right to amend its answer to assert such

SIXTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Altemate Unknown Cause

5
6
7 |) defenses.
&
9

10 The alleged injuries and damages, if any, may be in whole or in part due to injury,

11 || disease or cause other than as alleged.

2 SIXTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

13 No Concert of Action
There is no concert of action between defendant and any of the other named

defendants. Defendants are not joint tortfeasors and accordingly, defendant may not be

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, this answering defendant prays for judgment as follows:

4
5
16 || held jointly and severally liable with the other named defendants.
7
&
9

1. That Plaintiffs take nothing by reason of their Complaint or any claims
20 |) stated therein;
24 2, That Plaintiffs’ Complaint and each cause of action contained therein be

22 |, dismissed with prejudice against TEICHERT;

23 3. For costs of suit; and
244 f/f
254 fis
264 I //
27 fi
284 I t/ ,

BRYDON

Hoco & Parcer 16
as Mans Simet
20" F.00R

Senfandes Cag 1) ANSWER OF A. TEICHERT & SON, INC. TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS1 4, For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate in
2 || the circumstances,
3
4}) DATED: February 7, 2011 BRYDON HUGO & PARKER
3
6 By: /s/ Edward R, Hugo
Edward R. Hugo
7 P.M. Bessette
Attorneys for Defendant

8 A. TEICHERT & SON, INC.
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

20

ai

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

neo Paar 17
‘De haan syneC ec RR He Be YP ON

16

Ross, Robert & Jean
San Francisco County Superior Court Case No. CGC-10-278731
LexisNexis Transaction No. 35799751

PROOE OF SERVICE

Lam a resident of the State of California, over the age of 18 years, and not a
party to the within action. My electronic notification address is
service@bhplaw.com and my business address is 135 Main Street, 20" Floor, San
Francisco, California 94105. On the date below, I served the following:

ANSWER OF A, TEICHERET & SON, INC. TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL.
INJURY - ASBESTOS

on the following:

Brayton Purcell Lexis Nexis Service List
222 Rush Landing Road

P.O” Box 6169

Novato, CA 94945

Fax: (415) 898-1247

X By transmitting electronically the document(s) listed above as set forth
on the electronic service list on this date before 5:00 p.m.

o By transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax
number(s) set forth above on this date before 5:00 p.m.

o By placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope and placing
the envelope for collection and mailing on the date below following the
firm’s ordinary business practices. Lam readily familiar with the firm’s
practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under
that practice it would be deposited with U.S. Postal service on the same
day with postage thereon fully prepaid at San Francisco, California in
the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of party
served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage
meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in
affidavit.

o By placing, the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope designated
for Federal Express overnight delivery and depositing same with fees
thereupon prepaid, in a facility regularly maintained by Federal Express,
addressed as set forth above.

I declare under penalty of perry that the above is true and correct.
Executed on February 7, 2011, at San Francisco, California.

dabsraun

Josh Tabisaura

PROOF OF SERVICE