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

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                28

‘Waleworth,
Feanldin,
Bevins &

‘McCall, LLP

ATTORNEYS ATLA

LISA R. ACKLEY, State Bar No. 162427

lackley@wfbm.com
DANA L. BURCH, State Bar No. 224713
dburch@wfbm.com ELECTRONICALLY
WALSWORTH FRANKLIN BEVINS & McCALL, LLP FILED
601 Montgomery Sireet, Ninth Floor Superior Court of California,
San Francisco, California 94111-2612 County of San Francisco
Telephone: (415) 781-7072
Facsimile: (415) 391-6258 MAR 05 2012
BY: JUDITH NUNEZ
Attorneys for Defendant Deputy Clerk
DURO DYNE CORPORATION
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS, Case No. CGC-10-275731
Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT DURO DYNE
CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO
vs. PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY
C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS; et al., AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM -
ASBESTOS
Defendant.

Defendant DURO DYNE CORPORATION ("Defendant") answers Plaintiffs’ Second
Amended Complaint ("Complaint"), San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. CGC-11-
275731, for itself alone, and for no other defendant, and alleges as follows:

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 431.30, this answering Defendant
generally denies each and every allegation of the unverified Complaint on file herein and each and
every paragraph thereof and each and every cause of action thereof and further denies that Plaintiffs
sustained any damages in the sum or sums alleged or in any other sum or sums whatsoever, or at
all, and further denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any damages by way of this action in any
amount whatsoever, and further denying that Defendant was negligent in any manner, and as for
affirmative defenses to each and every cause of action of the Complaint, this answering Defendant
alleges:

Mt

-1-
DEFENDANT DURO DYNE CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED
vrengs) COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM - ASBESTOS

3413-3.294128

Walsworth,
Franklin,
‘Bevins &

McCall, LLP

ATTORNEYS ATLAW

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
1. Each and every cause of action in the Complaint on file herein fails to state facts
sufficient to state a claim or cause of action upon which relief can be granted.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2. Each and every cause of action of the Complaint is barred in whole or in part by the
applicable statutes of limitations including, but not limited to, § 312, 335.1, 337.1, 338, 338.1, 340,
340.2, 340.8 and 343 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and § 2725 of the California Commercial
Code.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
3. This answering Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that
Plaintiffs were careless and negligent and, due to this carelessness and negligence, proximately
caused and contributed to the injuries and damages complained of, if any. Accordingly, the pro
rata share of fault of Plaintiffs reduces the recovery of damages, if any, by Plaintiffs against this
answering Defendant.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
4. This answering Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the
negligence, carelessness and other acts or omissions of other defendants in this lawsuit as well as
other persons and entities not parties to this lawsuit proximately caused or contributed to Plaintiffs’
injuries or damages, if any. The negligence, carelessness and other acts or omissions of the other
defendants in this lawsuit and/or other persons and entities not parties to this lawsuit account for all
or a portion of the causal or contributory factors relating to Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages, if any,
and/or constitute supervening and/or intervening causes of Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages, if any.
Thus, such conduct of said other parties reduces the recovery of damages, if any, by Plaintiffs
against this answering Defendant.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
3. This answering Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that
Plaintiffs are barred from asserting any claim against this answering Defendant by reason of the

fact that Plaintiffs impliedly and voluntarily assumed the risk of the matters causing the injuries

2.
DEFENDANT DURO DYNE CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM - ASBESTOS

17631851
3413-3.294128

Walrworth,
Franklin,
Bevins &

McCall, LLP

ATroasersaTiaw

and damages incurred, if any.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

6. This answering Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that this
action is barred by laches as Plaintiffs unreasonably delayed in the bringing of this action and
thereby prejudiced the rights of this answering Defendant.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

7. This answering Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that as a
result of the acts, conduct and omissions of Plaintiffs, each and every cause of action of Plaintiffs’
Complaint has been waived.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

8. This answering Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that
Plaintiffs’ unreasonable conduct herein taints Plaintiffs with unclean hands as to the incidents
complained of by Plaintiffs.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

9. This answering Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that any and
all causes of action for breach of warranty are barred because there is no privity of contract
between this answering Defendant and Plaintiffs, because Plaintiffs failed to give timely notice of
any claim for breach of warranty, and because Plaintiffs did not reasonably rely on the claim of
warranty.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

10. This answering Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that

Plaintiffs failed to take reasonable efforts to mitigate the damages that allegedly were incurred.
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

11. This answering Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that if
Plaintiff was injured by products and/or equipment manufactured or distributed by this answering
Defendant, which is hereby expressly denied, such products and/or equipment were intended for
and sold in bulk to a knowledgeable and sophisticated distributor or user over whom this answering

Defendant had no control and who was fully informed as to the risks and dangers, if any, associated

3-
DEFENDANT DURO DYNE CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM - ASBESTOS

1763185.1
3413-3.294128

Walsworth,
Franklin,
Bevins &

‘McCall, LLP

ATTORNEYEAT LAW

with those products and/or equipment and the precautions, if any, required to avoid those risks and

dangers.
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12. This answering Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff
is a member of a sophisticated group of users of Defendant’s products, materials, and/or
equipment.
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13. This answering Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff
possessed the level of knowledge and skill based upon his training, education and/or experience
such that he should be categorized as a sophisticated user of Defendant’s products, materials,
and/or equipment.
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

14. This answering Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that
specially Plaintiff was trained to perform the tasks he claims caused him to contact with
Defendants products, materials, and/or equipment.

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

15. This answering Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff
would reasonably be expected to know of the hazards of working with and/or around Defendant’s
preducts, materials, and/or equipment.

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

16. This answering Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff
was employed by and trained by a company who is a member of a sophisticated group of users of
Defendant’s products, materials, and/or equipment.

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

17. This answering Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff
was employed and was entitled to and received or will receive worker’s compensation benefits
from Plaintiffs employers; that Plaintiff's employers were negligent in and about the matters

referred in said Complaint, and that such negligence on the part of said employers proximately and

4.
DEFENDANT DURO DYNE CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM - ASBESTOS

1763185.1
3413-3.2941_

concurrently contributed to the happening of the accident and to the loss and damage complained
of by Plaintiffs, if any; and that by reason thereof, this answering Defendant is entitled to set off
any such benefits received or to be received by Plaintiffs against any judgment which may be
rendered in favor of Plaintiffs herein.
EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18. This answering Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the
injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiffs, if any, were proximately caused and/or contributed to

by misuse of the products in question by Plaintiff and/or by other parties to this action and/or other

Co em IN DH HW BF WwW HN

persons not presently parties to this action. This answering Defendant further alleges that if

—
Oo

Plaintiffs sustained injuries or damages attributable to the use of any products manufactured,

=

labeled or sold by this answering Defendant, which allegations are expressly denied, then the

me
Ne

injuries and damages, if any, were solely caused by and attributable to their unreasonable,

e
w

unforeseeable, and improper use of the product by the Plaintiff and/or by parties to this action other

5

than this answering Defendant and/or by other persons not presently parties to this action.

w

NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

—
n

19. This answering Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that

_
a

Plaintiffs and/or others modified, altered and changed the products, equipment, chemicals and

_
oo

compounds referred in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, so that such changes in said products, equipment,

=
wo

chemicals and compounds proximately caused the injuries, loss and damages complained of, if any.

TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Nn wv
—_

20. This answering Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that any

N
no

product, equipment, chemical or compound manufactured, labeled or sold by it as alleged in

N
oO

Plaintiffs’ Complaint conformed to all applicable industry standards and met the state-of-the-art

nN
a

existing at the time of the sale and of the alleged exposure.
TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Ny N
DA wn

21. This answering Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the

Nw
x

benefits of the products, equipment, chemicals, compounds and elements referred to in Plaintiffs’

y
oo

Complaint outweighed the risk of danger, if any, inherent in said products, chemicals, compounds

Frankdin, ~5-
McCall LLP DEFENDANT DURO DYNE CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED
aronsorcarae COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM - ASBESTOS

1763185.t
3413-32941Oo Oo YN DA WH F WN

BR NY NY NY KN ND RD a
SN DB UW FB wWwN KF§ DBD G6 Oo DW DH FF BW YY &

28

Walsworth,
Franklin,
Bevins &

‘McCall, LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

and elements,
TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

22. This answering Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that any and
all products and/or equipment manufactured, labeled or sold by this answering Defendant was
accompanied by good and sufficient labeling when such products and/or equipment left the
custody, possession and control of this answering Defendant which gave conspicuous, reasonable
and adequate warnings and directions to the users of such products and/or equipment concerning
the purpose for which, and manner in which, and precautions with which, such products and/or
equipment were to be used and concerning the risks and dangers, if any, attendant to said use. This
answering Defendant thereby fulfilled its duty, if any, to Plaintiffs. If Plaintiff sustained injuries or
damages attributable to the use of any products and/or equipment manufactured by this answering
Defendant, which allegations are expressly denied, then the injuries and damages, if any, were
solely caused by and attributable to, the unreasonable, unforeseeable and improper use of the
product by the Plaintiff and by parties to this action other than this answering Defendant and by
other parties not presently parties to this action. The injuries and damages sustained by the
Plaintiffs, if any, were proximately caused and/or contributed to by the use of the alleged products
and/or equipment in disregard of warnings and directions, which use was not reasonably
foreseeable to this answering Defendant.

TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

23. This answering Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that if
Plaintiff was injured by products and/or equipment manufactured, labeled or sold by this answering
Defendant, which this answering Defendant expressly denies, then Plaintiffs injuries were
proximately caused by allergies, sensitivities, and idiosyncrasies peculiar to Plaintiff, not found in
the general public, and unknown, ignorable and unforeseeable to this answering Defendant.
Accordingly, such injuries were not reasonably foreseeable to this answering Defendant and this
answering Defendant is not liable for any portion of Plaintiffs’ damages.
Mt

Me

-6-
DEFENDANT DURO DYNE CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM - ASBESTOS

1763185.)
3413-3,2941Walsworth,
Franidin,
Bevins é&

‘McCall, LLP
aTronneysar awe

TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

24. This answering Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that if
Plaintiff was injured by any product and/or equipment manufactured, labeled or sold by this
answering Defendant, such product bore a label when it left the custody, possession and control of
this answering Defendant which was accepted, approved and mandated by and under the laws and
regulations of the United States and its duly constituent agencies. By reason thereof, the causes of
action alleged in the Complaint are barred under the doctrine of federal preemption because
granting the relief prayed for in the Complaint would impermissibly infringe upon and conflict with
federal laws, regulations and policy in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the United States
Constitution.

TWENTIETH-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

25. This answering Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that
Plaintiff's employer was advised and warned of any potential hazards and/or dangers associated
with the normal and/or foreseeable use, storage or disposal of the products and/or equipment which
were allegedly supplied or produced by this answering Defendant, in a manner which was adequate
to notify said user and enable it to inform its employees to take appropriate precautions to prevent
injurious exposure.

TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

26. This answering Defendant denies any and all liability to the extent that Plaintiffs
assert this answering Defendant’s alleged liability as a successor, successor in business, successor
in product line or a portion thereof, assign, predecessor, predecessor in business, predecessor in
product line or a portion thereof, parent, alter ego, subsidiary, wholly or partially owned by, or the
whole or partial owner or member in an entity in which there has been research, study,
manufacturing, fabricating, designing, labeling, assembling, distributing, leasing, buying, offering
for sale, selling, inspecting, servicing, installing, contracting for installation, repairing, marketing,
warranting, rebranding, manufacturing for others, packaging and advertising of any and all of the
products, equipment, chemicals or compounds as alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

Mt

-T-
DEFENDANT DURO DYNE CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM - ASBESTOSOo SC YN DBD WH FF Ww HN

N BN NNN NR DR me
NI A A FB YN =—§ SO He IW DAH BP WH & Do

28

Walworth,
Franklin,
Beyins &

McCall, LLP
arronvessar Law

TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

27. This answering Defendant alleges, on information and belief, that Plaintiffs’

Complaint and each cause of action therein are barred by the doctrine of estoppel.
TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

28. In the event Plaintiffs are entitled to non-economic damages including, but not
limited to, pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental suffering, emotional distress, loss of society and
companionship, loss of consortium, and/or injury to reputation and humiliation, this answering
Defendant shall be liable only for the amount of non-economic damages, if any, allocated to this
answering Defendant’s percentage of fault, and a separate judgment shall be rendered against this
answering Defendant for that amount pursuant to California Civil Code § 1431.2.

TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

29. This answering Defendant alleges on information and belief that the defect in the
products, materials, and/or equipment purportedly sold by this answering Defendant as alleged in
the Complaint herein, if they existed at all, were patent and the danger of Plaintiff using the
products in the allegedly defective condition was obvious. Plaintiff knew that the products,
materials, and/or equipment were defective and that to use the products in that condition would
expose Plaintiff to the risk of the very injuries of which he complains. This use was negligent, and
that negligence was a cause of any injuries, and Plaintiff thereby incurred the risk of injury by
knowingly encountering the risk of injury caused by the defective product and/or equipment.

THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

30. This answering Defendant did not suppress or otherwise conceal any facts regarding
the products, materials, and/or equipment alleged in the Complaint which it was bound to disclose
or provide misleading information with an intent to deceive Plaintiffs and/or other persons or
parties which resulted in any injuries or damages to Plaintiffs as alleged in the Complaint.

THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

31. This answering Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, in light

of all relevant factors, on balance with the benefits of the design of any product(s), materials,

and/or equipment alleged to have caused any injuries to Plaintiff, if any, outweigh the risk and

-8-
DEFENDANT DURO DYNE CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM - ASBESTOS

1763185.1
3413-3.294128

‘Walsworth,
Franklin,
Bevins &

McColl, LLP

ATIORNESS ATLA

danger, if any, inherent in the said design of any said product(s) and/or equipment.
THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
32. This answering Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that
Plaintiffs did not reasonably rely on any act, omission, or representation of this answering
Defendant, if any.
THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
33. Any products and/or equipment purportedly supplied by this answering Defendant
as alleged in the Complaint herein, consisted of inherently safe raw material which was
subsequently subjected to substantial processing prior to and/or at the time of Plaintiffs’ claimed
exposure thereto, if any, and this answering Defendant was not involved, in any way, in such
processing referenced herein.
THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
34. This answering Defendant alleges that it was not the agent of any other defendant
with respect to any of the acts alleged in Plaintiffs’ complaint.
THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
35. This answering Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that if
Plaintiff was injured by any product and/or equipment manufactured, labeled or sold by this
answering Defendant, such product and/or equipment was not in a defective condition when it left
this answering Defendant’s possession, custody and control.
THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
36. This answering Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that
Plaintiff's exposure, if any, to the product and/or equipment alleged to have been manufactured or
distributed by this answering Defendant was so minimal as to be insignificant and insufficient to
establish a reasonable degree of probability that said product caused any alleged injury, damage, or
loss to Plaintiff.
THIRTY-SEVENETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
37. This answering Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that

Plaintiff, persons, or entities other than this answering Defendant failed to inspect the products

-9-
DEFENDANT DURO DYNE CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM - ASBESTOS28

Walswort,
FranWia,
Bevins &

McCall, LLP

ATTORNEYS ATLAW

identified in the Complaint prior to their use.
THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

38. Any foreseeable and unreasonable risk of personal injury or death that is the subject
of this litigation was a risk which this answering Defendant did not create or could not reduce or
eliminate.

THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

39. This answering Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the
work, including the means and methods and operative details of such work, which Plaintiffs claim
caused his injuries, were controlled by entities other than this answering Defendant.

FOURTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

40. Any losses or damages, allegedly caused by this answering Defendant and sustained

by Plaintiffs are de minimis, remote, speculative, or transient and hence, not cognizable by law.
FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

41. Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that if Plaintiffs were
injured by any product(s) and/or equipment distributed by Defendant, Defendant, irrespective, did
not breach any duty to Plaintiffs and is not liable for those injuries or for Plaintiffs’ claimed
damages as the product(s) and/or equipment when manufactured and distributed conformed to the
then current state-of-the-art specifications and because the then current state-of-the-art medical,
scientific, and industrial knowledge, art and practice were such that Defendant did not and could
not know that the product(s) and/or equipment might pose a risk of harm in normal and foreseeable
use.

FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

42. | The complaint and the separate causes of action are barred on the grounds that the
Plaintiffs failed to join indispensable parties and the complaint and separate causes of action are
thereby defective.

FORTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
43. Plaintiffs work and Plaintiffs injuries occurred predominately if not entirely

outside of the State of California and therefore the laws of those other state(s), including the statute

-10-
DEFENDANT DURO DYNE CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM - ASBESTOS28

Watsworth,
Franklin,
Bevins &

McCall, LLP

ATTOANENE ATLA

of limitations, should apply.
FORTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

44. Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ complaint and each and every cause of action
therein fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause or causes of action for punitive damages
against Defendant.

FORTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

45. Defendant alleges that insofar as the instant complaint is an attempt to recover
punitive or exemplary damages from Defendant, it violates the following United States
Constitutional and California State Constitutional principles:

a. Excessive fines clause of the United States Constitution, Eighth Amendment
and Fourteenth Amendment;

bd The contract clause, Article I, Section 10, clause 1, and the Fourteenth
Amendment of the United States Constitution;

c The due process clause of the United States Constitution, Fourteenth
Amendment;

d. The equal protection clause of the United States Constitution;

e. The California Constitution due process and equal protection clauses, Article
1, Section 7(a);

f The California Constitution excessive fines clause, Article 1, Section 17.
FORTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

46. | The complaint and each and every cause of action are barred by the applicable

statutes of repose.
FORTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

47. Plaintiffs’ action is barred by the exclusive remedy afforded under the provisions of
the Worker's Compensation Act including but not limited to the Labor Code § 3600, et seq., and
the similar laws of other states where Plaintiff claims he was injured. Defendant is entitled to a set-
off for any such benefits Plaintiffs have received.

FORTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
48. | The complaint and the separate causes of action are barred on the grounds that the

conduct of this Defendant referred to in the complaint and the separate causes of action, if any,
-11-

DEFENDANT DURO DYNE CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED
1763185.1 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM - ASBESTOS
3413-3.2941Oo Oe IN DW RB Ww NY

BW KRY NY YW NY DY Qe ee a a i
Hn wA F&F Bw NH —-§ SD OD 6S ID DH HW FF YW NY | S&S

27

‘Walsworth,

were not a substantial factor in bringing about the injuries and damages complained of by

Plaintiffs.
FORTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

49. This answering Defendant alleges that it cannot fully anticipate all affirmative
defenses that may be applicable to the within action. Accordingly, the right to assert additional
affirmative defenses, if and to the extent that such affirmative defenses are applicable, is hereby
reserved.

WHEREFORE, this answering Defendant prays for judgment as follows:

1, Plaintiffs take nothing from this answering Defendant by virtue of the Complaint
herein;

2. This answering Defendant be awarded costs of suit and attomeys’ fees herein; and
This answering Defendant be granted such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and

proper.

Dated: March me , 2012 WALSWORTH FRANKLIN BEVINS & McCALL, LLP

wy. Lf ack,

LISA R. A@KLEY

DANA L. BURCH

Attomeys for Defendant

DURO DYNE CORPORATION

-12-

DEFENDANT DURO DYNE CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM - ASBESTOSPROOF OF SERVICE

] am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of 18
and not a party to the within action. My business address is 601 Montgomery Street, Ninth Floor,
San Francisco, California 94111-2612.

On March___, 2012, I served the within document(s) described as:

DEFENDANT DURO DYNE CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND
RPDS COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM -
A

on the interested parties in this action as stated below:

Brayton Purcell LLP
222 Rush Landing Road
P.O. Box 6169

Novato, CA 94948

(BY ELECTRONIC FILING/SERVICE) I provided the document(s) listed above
electronically to the LexisNexis File & Serve Website to the parties on the Service List
maintained on the LexisNexis File & Serve Website for this case. If the document is
provided to LexisNexis electronically by 5:00 p.m., then the document will be deemed
served on the date that it was provided to LexisNexis. A copy of the "LexisNexis File &
Serve Filing Receipt" page will be maintained with the original document(s) in our office.

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

Executed on March Z-, 2012, at San Francisco, Califo.

Hiromi Nagayama
(Type or print name)

-13-

DEFENDANT DURO DYNE CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM - ASBESTOS