Answer: PAUL VAN DEGRIFT VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP) AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                ~~

FRANK D. POND (BAR NO. 126191)
JENNIFER C. RASSMUSSEN (BAR NO. 194358)

EDWARD MARTINOVICH (BAR NO. 237844) ELECTRONICALLY
POND NORTH LLP

350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2850 cutee Poona
Los Angeles, CA 90071 County of San Francisco
Telephone: (213) 617-6170 J

Facsimile: (213) 623-3594 G ot, 952009
Attorneys for Defendant BY NUDITH ae epuly Clerk

TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNTA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

PAUL VAN DEGRIFT, Case No: CGC-09-275076
Plaintiff, TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC.’S
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL
vs. INJURY — ASBESTOS

ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P),
Case Filed: February 18, 2009
Defendants.

COMES NOW Defendant Temporary Plant Cleaners, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as
“TPC” or “Answering Defendant”), and, answering Plaintiff's unverified Complaint for Personal
Injury—Asbestos (“Complaint”) on file herein, alleges as follows:

GENERAL DENIAL

Under the provisions of Section 431.30(d), California Code of Civil Procedure,
Answering Defendant denies each and every allegation of the Complaint and the whole thereof,
and denies that Plaintiff has been damaged in any sum or amount whatsoever, or at all, and
denies that Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages of any kind in any amount whatsoever from
Answering Defendant.

RESERVATION OF RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY

Answering Defendant reserves the right to a trial by jury.
Md

1

TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY — ASBESTOS
4435-402 15:446020.1~~

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to State a Cause of Action)
Answering Defendant alleges that the Complaint, and each of the causes of action for
relief alleged therein, fails to state a cause of action against Answering Defendant.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Contravention of Answering 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 disturbing the alleged
injury-causing product, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in that
Plaintiff has asserted a claim for relief which, if granted, would contravene Answering
Defendant’s constitutional rights to substantive and procedural due process of law as
preserved for Answering Defendant by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution and by Article I, Section 7, of the Constitution of the State of California.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Denial of Answering 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 Plaintiff has asserted claims for relief which, if granted, would
constitute a denial by this Court of Answering 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 of, and contractor using or disturbing the alleged injury-
causing product, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in that Plaintiff has
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
iif

2

TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY — ASBESTOS
4435-402 15:446020.1~~

to the United States Constitution and by Article I, Sections 7 and 19, of the Constitution of the
State of California, and the applicable California statutes.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Comparative Fault)

Answering Defendant alleges that the damages, if any, complained of by Plaintiff, were
proximately caused by the negligence, fault, breach of contract and/or strict liability of Plaintiff
or other defendants, firms, persons, corporations, unions, employers and entities other than TPC,
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 liability for which TPC is legally
responsible, if any be found, which liability TPC expressly denies.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Contributory Negligence)

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 Plaintiff.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Uncertainty)

Answering Defendant alleges that the Complaint and all purported causes of action
therein are vague, ambiguous and uncertain.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Laches)

Answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiff unreasonably delayed in bringing this action
and that such delay substantially prejudiced TPC, and that this action is therefore barred by the
Doctrine of Laches.
iif
Mf
iif

3

TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY — ASBESTOS
4435-402 15:446020.1~~

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Statute of Limitations)

Answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ Complaint and the purported causes of
action therein are barred by all statutes of limitation, including, but not limited to, the provisions
of California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 338, 338.1, 339(1), 340, 340.2, 343, 366.1,
377.34, and California Commercial Code Section 2725.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Statutes of Limitations/Repose of Other States)

Answering Defendant asserts that California Code of Civil Procedure Section 361 is a bar
to this action because Plaintiff's claims arose in the State of Alabama and by the laws of that
state an action cannot be maintained by reason of the lapse of time, and as a consequence, cannot
be maintained in this state.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Plea In Abatement/Other Action)

Answering Defendant alleges that another action is pending or has been adjudicated
between the parties on the same claims alleged in this action, and therefore, pursuant to Section
430.10(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, this action is duplicative and vexatious and cannot be
maintained.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Forum Non Conveniens}

Answering Defendant alleges that substantial justice requires that, pursuant to Section
410.30 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this action be dismissed or stayed because the facts
alleged in the Complaint occurred outside of California and California is not the appropriate
forum for the action.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Choice of Law)

Answering Defendant alleges that all of some of the claims and/or legal issues raised in

the Complaint are governed by the substantive laws of the State of Alabama.

4

TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY — ASBESTOS
4435-402 15:446020.1~~

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to Mitigate)

Answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiff failed to mitigate damages which Plaintiff
contends he suffered, and Plaintiff is therefore barred from any recovery whatsoever, or
alternatively, any damages found must be reduced in proportion to Plaintiff's failure to mitigate.

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Estoppel)

Answering Defendant alleges that as a result of the acts, conduct and/or omissions of
Plaintiff and his agents, or any of them, each cause of action presented in the Complaint is barred
under the Doctrine of Estoppel.

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Waiver)

Answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiff, by his acts, conduct and omissions, has

waived the claims alleged in his Complaint and in each purported cause of action alleged therein.
SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
{Acquiescence)

Plaintiff acknowledged, ratified, consented to, and acquiesced in the alleged acts or
omissions, if any, of TPC, thus barring Plaintiff from any relief as prayed for herein.
EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Advised, Informed and Warned)

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, and storage of the

products, substances, equipment and at premises in which exposure is claimed, as well as to

asbestos “in-place,” all as is described in the Complaint, and Plaintiff is therefore barred from
any relief prayed for therein.

Hf

Mt

iif

5

TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY — ASBESTOS
4435-402 15:446020.1~~

NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Compliance With Statutes)

Answering Defendant alleges that all of its conduct and activities as alleged in the
Complaint conformed to statutes, government regulations, and industry standards based upon the
state of knowledge existing at all relevant times.

TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Compliance With Specifications)

Answering Defendant alleges that the asbestos products or asbestos used or in place at
any premises at issue herein were manufactured, packaged, distributed or sold in accordance
with contract specifications 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.

TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(No Control of Premises)

Answering Defendant alleges that during the relevant time and/or times, TPC did not

own, control, maintain, lease, rent, occupy or exercise control over the subject premises.
TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(No Control of Work)

Answering Defendant alleges that during the relevant time and/or times, TPC did not

supervise or exercise control over Plaintiff or his employers’ work at any premises.
TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(No Right to Control)

Answering Defendant alleges that any loss, injury, or damage incurred by Plaintiff was
proximately and legally caused by the negligent or willful acts or omissions of parties which
TPC neither controlled, nor had the right to control, and was not proximately caused by any acts,
omissions, or other conduct of TPC.
iif
Mt
iif

6

TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY — ASBESTOS
4435-402 15:446020.1~~

TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Action for Relief)

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 California Code of Civil Procedure
and/or other statutes of the State of California, including without limitation Code of Civil
Procedure § 338(d).

TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Misuse and Improper Use of Products)

Answering Defendant alleges that if Plaintiff allegedly suffered injuries attributable to the
disturbance or use of any product, 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 Answering Defendant, and for which
Answering Defendant has no liability.

TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Due Care and Diligence)

Answering Defendant alleges that it exercised due care and diligence in all of the matters
alleged in the Complaint, and no act or omission by TPC was the proximate cause of any
damage, injury or loss to Plaintiff.

TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Other Parties’ Liability and Negligence)

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 TPC.

TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Apportionment and Offset)

Answering Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff's acts
and omissions, including the acts and omissions of Plaintiffs agents, servants, and/or employees
acting within the course and scope of their employment, and others, contributed to the alleged

7

TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY — ASBESTOS
4435-402 15:446020.1~~

damages, injury, or loss, if any, sustained by Plaintiff. Answering 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 Answering Defendant a corresponding offset
against any damages awarded to Plaintiff.
TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Contribution/Equitable Indemnity)

Answering Defendant alleges that in the event it is held liable to Plaintiff, which liability
is expressly denied herein, and any other co-defendants are likewise held liable, Answering
Defendant 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.

THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Assumption of Risk by Plaintiff's Employers)

Answering Defendant alleges that the Complaint and each cause of action alleged therein.
are barred on the grounds that Plaintiff's 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 times and places mentioned in
the Complaint.

THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Assumption of Risk)

Answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiff assumed the risk of the matters referred to in
the Complaint and that Plaintiff knew and appreciated the nature of the risk and that Plaintiff
voluntarily accepted this risk.

THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Not a Substantial Factor)

Answering Defendant alleges that the Complaint and each cause of action therein
presented are barred on the grounds that the conduct of Answering Defendant as referred to in
the Complaint, if any, was not a substantial factor in bringing about the injuries and damages
Ul

8

TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY — ASBESTOS
4435-402 15:446020.1~~

complained of by Plaintiff and did not increase the risk that Plaintiff would suffer the injuries
and damages complained of therein.
THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Insufficient Exposure)

Any exposure of Plaintiff to Answering Defendant’s activities, or exposure to asbestos or
asbestos-containing products, was so minimal as to be insufficient to establish by a reasonable
degree of probability that any such activity or product caused any alleged injury, damage, or loss
to Plaintiff.

THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(No Successor Liability)

Answering Defendant alleges that it has no liability for the acts, omissions or otherwise
of any other defendant or any other entity because Answering Defendant did not become legally
responsible for the acts of any such defendant or entity given the facts and circumstances of the
pertinent transactions and never was, nor is, a successor-in-interest, a successor-in-liability or an
alternate entity for any other user, manufacturer, supplier, seller, distributor or premises holder
relating to asbestos or asbestos-containing products.

THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Lack of Privity)

Answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action in that the
Complaint fails to allege that there was privity between TPC on the one hand, and Plaintiff on
the other, and furthermore, such privity did not exist between TPCon the one hand, and Plaintiff
on the other.

THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Civil Code §1431.2)

Answering Defendant alleges that the provisions of California Civil Code §1431.2
(commonly referred to as “Proposition 51”) are applicable to the Complaint and to each cause of
action therein.

Ul

9

TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY — ASBESTOS
4435-402 15:446020.1~~

THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Workers’ Compensation Exclusive Remedy)

Answering Defendant alleges that the Complaint is barred by the exclusivity provisions
of the California workers’ compensation laws, including, but not limited to, California Labor
Cade §§3600, et seg.

THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Offset for Workers’ Compensation Benefits)

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 are subject to a claim by Answering Defendant for a credit or
offset.

THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Contractual Indemnity)

Answering Defendant alleges that if Plaintiff claims exposure to asbestos or asbestos-
containing products at any premises for which Answering Defendant is allegedly liable, which is
expressly denied herein, Answering Defendant 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 Plaintiff's work and, further, to fully indemnify Answering
Defendant, and to hold Answering Defendant harmless, for all responsibility and liability arising
out of said work and/or for any injuries allegedly incurred by Plaintiff as a result of any of said
work. Answering Defendant reserves all rights to assert these provisions of contractual
indemnity.

FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Consent)

Answering Defendant alleges that at all times mentioned, Plaintiff consented to the
alleged acts or omissions of Answering Defendant.
iif

10

TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY — ASBESTOS
4435-402 15:446020.1~~

FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Unusual Susceptibility)

Answering Defendant alleges that each of Plaintiff's injuries and damages, if any, was
proximately caused or contributed to by Plaintiff's unforeseeable idiosyncratic condition,
unusual susceptibility, or hypersensitivity reactions for which Answering Defendant is not liable.

FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Good Faith)

Answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages is barred
because Answering Defendant at all times and places mentioned in the Complaint acted
reasonably and in good faith, and without malice or oppression toward Plaintiff.

FORTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Sophisticated User - Employer)

Answering Defendant alleges that it was under no legal duty to warn Plaintiff of the
hazard associated with the use of products containing asbestos. The purchasers of said products,
Plaintiff, Plaintiff's employers, his unions or certain third 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 herein, if any.

FORTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Sophisticated User — Plaintiff)

Answering Defendant alleges that it was under no legal duty to warn Plaintiff of the
hazards associated with the use or handling of products containing asbestos, or of their existence
at any premises owned, operated, controlled by TPC, or where products were otherwise claimed
to be provided by TPC. Answering Defendant further alleges that Plaintiff was a knowledgeable
and sophisticated user and had or should have had knowledge of the potential hazards associated
with using products containing asbestos. Plaintiff's knowledge of the potential hazards
associated with using products containing asbestos resulted in Plaintiff assuming the risk and

u

TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY — ASBESTOS
4435-402 15:446020.1~~

being the proximate and superseding cause of Plaintiff's damages, if any. Johnson v. American
Standard (2008) 43 Cal.4” 56,
FORTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Work Hazard Precautions)

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 contact 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.

FORTY-SIXTH 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 precluded from
any recovery whatsoever as prayed for therein.

FORTY-SEVENTH 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 Answering Defendant.

FORTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to Allege With Particularity)

Answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's Complaint fails to set out his claims with
sufficient particularity to permit Answering Defendant to raise all appropriate defenses and, thus,
Answering Defendant reserves the right to add additional defenses as the factual basis for these
claims becomes known,

Mf
Ul

12

TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY — ASBESTOS
4435-402 15:446020.1~~

FORTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Punitive Damage Prohibited)

Answering Defendant alleges that the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to support
an. award of punitive or exemplary damages against Answering Defendant. The Complaint, to
the extent that it seeks exemplary or punitive damages, violates Answering Defendant’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.

FIFTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Punitive Damages Prohibited)

Answering Defendant alleges that the Complaint, to the extent that it seeks punitive or
exemplary damages, violates Answering Defendant's right to protection from excessive fines as
provided in the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 17 of
the Constitution of the State of California, and violates Answering Defendant’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.

FIFTY-FIRST 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,

FIFTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Punitive Damages Prohibited)

Plaintiff's claims for punitive or exemplary damages against Answering Defendant, if
any, are barred by the “double jeopardy” clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.

3

TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY — ASBESTOS
4435-402 15:446020.1~~

FIFTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Fraud 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 damages for fraud and conspiracy in addition to
general damages does not sufficiently support or constitute a separate claim for damages against
Answering Defendant, but is simply cumulative and included in general damages.

FIFTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Insufficient Facts to Show Conspiracy of this Answering Defendant)

To the extent the Complaint asserts this Answering Defendant’s alleged conspiracy, the
Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Answering
Defendant.

FIFTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Independent, Intervening or Superseding Cause}

Answering Defendant alleges that if Plaintiff suffered any injuries attributable to the use
of any product containing asbestos which was used, disturbed or sold by Answering 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 Answering Defendant. Answering Defendant’s actions, if any, were
superseded by the negligence and wrongful conduct of others.

FIFTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Borrowed Servant Doctrine)

Answering Defendant alleges that at all times mentioned in the Complaint on file herein,
Answering Defendant is informed and believes that the Borrowed Servant Doctrine applies to
preclude any claim of liability, damages, and/or injury as against Temporary Plant.

FIFTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Insufficient Facts to Show Alternate Entity of Answering Defendant)

To the extent the Complaint asserts an “alternate entity theory” as including TPC, it fails

to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Answering Defendant.

4

TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY — ASBESTOS
4435-402 15:446020.1~~

FIFTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(No Concert of Action)

There is no concert of action between TPC and any of the other named defendants.
Defendants are not joint tortfeasors and accordingly, TPC may not be held jointly and severally
liable with the other named defendants.

FIFTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Right to Amend)

Answering Defendant reserves the right to 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
defenses.

WHEREFORE, TPC prays for judgment as follows:

1. That Plaintiff take nothing by reason of his Complaint or any claims stated
therein;

2. That Plaintiff's Complaint, and each cause of action contained therein, be

dismissed with prejudice against TPC;

3. For costs of suit; and,
4, For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate in the
circumstances.
DATED: June 5, 2009 POND NORTH LLP
By: /s/ Edward Martinovich
EDWARD MARTINOVICH
Attorneys for Defendant
TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC.

15

TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY — ASBESTOS
4435-402 15:446020.1~~

PROOF OF SERVICE

I declare that | am over the age of eighteen (18) and not a party to this action. My
business address is 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2850, Los Angeles, CA 90071.

On June 5, 2009, I served the following document(s): TEMPORARY PLANT
CLEANERS, INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY ~ ASBESTOS
on the interested parties in this action as follows:

By E-Service: I electronically served the above document(s) via LexisNexis File & Serve
on the recipients designated on the Transaction Receipt located on the LexisNexis File &
Serve website.

Executed: June 5, 2009

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

Oo (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court
at whose direction the service was made.

fs/ Susan M. Combs
Susan M. Combs
4435,0215

TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY — ASBESTOS
4435-402 15:446020.1