Preview
27
28
MORGAN, Lewis &
Bockius LLP
Arronniys AT Lal
SAN FRANCISCO
MORTIMER H. HARTWELL, State Bar No. 154556
AMY J. TALARICO, State Bar No, 209112 ELECTRONICALLY
MERIDITH A. MILLER, State Bar No. 259650 FILED
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Superior Court of California,
One Market, Spear Street Tower County of San Francisco
San Francisco, CA 94105-1126 MAY 07 2009
Tel: 415.442.1000 GORDON PARK-LI, Clerk
BY: WILLIAM TRUPEK
Fax: 415.442.1001 Depuly Clerk
Attomeys for Defendant
GRINNELL LLC, erroneously sued
as GRINNELL CORPORATION
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
PAUL VAN DEGRIFT, Case No. CGC-09-275076
Plaintiff. DEFENDANT GRINNELL LLC’S
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFE’S UNVERIFIED
vs. COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY ~
ASBESTOS
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS, et al.
Defendants.
DBY21105350.1
— DEFENDANT GRINNELL LLC'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL |
INJURY — ASBESTOS27
MORGAN, LEWIS &
Bockius LLP
ATTORNEYS AT Law
SAN PRANcIsco
Grinnell LLC (“Defendant or “Grinnell”), answers Plaintiff's Unverified Complaint for
Personal Injury — Asbestos (“Complaint”) as follows:
Under the provisions of Section 431.30(d), California Code of Civil Procedure, Defendant
denies each and every allegation of Plaintiff's Complaint and the whole thereof, and denies that
Plaintiff has been damaged in any sum or amount whatsoever, or at all.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Complaint and each of its purported causes of action fails to state facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action against Defendant.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff's Complaint, and each alleged cause of action, is barred by the applicable statute
of limitations, including, but not limited to, Code of Civil Procedure, Sections 337.15, 340.2 and
343, and California Commercial Code, Section 2725.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff is barred from recovery herein by virtue of the application of the Doctrine of
Laches (inexcusable delay and prejudice to Defendant).
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
‘The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the matters alleged in the Complaint
because the Complaint and each alleged cause of action against Defendant is barred by the
provisions of California Labor Code, Sections 3600, et seq.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
No conduct by or attributable to Defendant was the cause in fact or the proximate cause of
the damages, if any, sustained by Plaintiff, nor a substantial factor in bringing about said
damages.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That any and all events and happenings in connection with the allegations contained in
Plaintiffs complaint and the resulting injuries and damages, if any, referred to therein, were
proximately caused and contributed to by the negligence of the Plaintiff thereby barring or
reducing Plaintiffs recovery herein.
DB2/21105350,4 1
INJURY — ASBESTOS27
2:
MorcAN, Lewis 6
Bockius LLP
ATTORNEYS ATLAW
SAN FRANCISCO
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk of any then-existing conditions alleged in the
Complaint with full knowledge thereof, thereby proximately causing the injuries and damages, if
any, complained of by Plaintiff and Plaintiff is thereby barred from recovery herein.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff acknowledged, ratified, consented to, and acquiesced in the alleged acts or
omissions, if any, of this Defendant, thus barring Plaintiff from any relief as prayed for herein.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Any loss, injury or damage to Plaintiff was proximately caused or contributed to by the
negligent or other tortious acts, omissions, conduct or products of persons, entities or parties other
than Defendant, and that each, any, and all damages recoverable by Plaintiff must be diminished
in proportion to the amount of fault attributable to said other persons, entities or parties, and there
must be apportioned among all such persons, entities and parties the amount of damages
attributed to them as an offset against damages, if any, awarded against Defendant.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Any loss, injury, or damage, if any, incurred by Plaintiff was the result of superseding or
intervening causes arising from the negligent or willful acts or omissions of other parties which
Defendant neither controlled nor had the right to control, and that said loss, injury or damage was
not proximately or legally caused by any act, omission, or other conduct of Defendant.
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
If Plaintiff sustained any injury or illness attributable to the use of any product
manufactured by Defendant, which allegations are expressly denied, the injuries were solely
caused by and attributable to the unreasonable and improper use which was made of said
products, and each of them.
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff was advised, informed, and wamed of any potential hazards and/or dangers, if
any there were, associated with the normal or foreseeable use, handling, and storage of the
products, substances, and equipment described in the Complaint.
DB2/21105350.1 2
DEFENDANT GRINNELL LLC'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL
INJURY — ASBESTOS27
MorGAN, Lewis &
Bockius LLP
ATTORNEYS AT Law
SAN Feancisco
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages, if any, in that they failed to use reasonable
diligence in caring for their injuries and reasonable means to prevent their aggravation or to
accomplish their healing.
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Complaint, and each cause of action thereof, which is admittedly based upon a lack of
identification of the manufacturer of 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 Defendant’s constitutional rights to substantive and procedural due
process of law as preserved for Defendant by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and by Article {, Section 7, of the Constitution of the State of California.
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The product involved was materially altered or changed by a party or parties other than,
and without the permission of, Defendant, its employees, servants, or other agents, and such
alteration or change created the alleged defect, if any, which was the proximate or legal cause of
Plaintiff's injuries, or damages, if any.
SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
‘The asbestos-containing products, if any, for which Defendant had legal responsibility
were installed, labeled, assembled, serviced, supplied, manufactured, designed, packaged,
distributed, marketed and/or sold in accordance with contract specifications imposed by its co-
defendants, by the U.S. Government, by Plaintiff's employers and by third parties yet to be
identified.
SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff's Complaint and cach purported cause of action therein are barred under the
government contractor defense.
EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The products, substances, and equipment referred to in the Complaint were properly
designed and manufactured, and safe for the purpose intended. Said products, substances, and
DB221105350.1 3
DEFENDANT GRINNELL LLC'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL
INJURY — ASBESTOS27
28
MorGAN, Lewis &
Bockius LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAM
San PRANcasco |
equipment were modified, altered, misused, abused and/or improperly maintained by Plaintiff or
others, and said conduct was not reasonably foreseeable to Defendant and proximately caused or
contributed to the injuries, losses, and damages complained of, if any there were, thus barring
Plaintiff's recovery herein.
NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff failed to give Defendant reasonably prompt notice of the breaches of warranty, if
any, alleged in the Complaint.
TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff was not in privity of contract with Defendant and said lack of privity bars
Plaintiff's recovery herein upon any theory of warranty.
TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Any exposure of Plaintiff to Defendant’s products 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.
TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
This Defendant’s products were not a substantial factor in bringing about the injuries and
damages complained of by Plaintiff, and, therefore, Defendant may not be held liable to Plaintiffs
as alleged.
TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
‘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 their product(s) presented a foreseeable risk of harm to Plaintiff in the
normal and expected use of such product(s).
TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Any products, substances, or equipment manufactured, formulated, sold or distributed by
Defendant were made consistent with the state of the art applicable to said products, substances,
or equipment at the time of their manufacture, sale, formulation, or distribution.
1B2/21105350.1 4
DEFENDANT GRINNELL LLC'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL
INJURY — ASBESTOS2.
Morcan, Lewis &
oN nw
9
10
iW
2 |
13
14
15 |
16
i7|
18
19
20
21
22 |
23 |
24
25
26
2 |
BOCKIUS LLP
Artoaneys AT La!
SAN FRANCISCO
TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
If Defendant is responsible to Plaintiff, which responsibility is expressly denied,
Defendant shall be liable to Plaintiff only for the amount of non-economic damages allocated to
each defendant in direct proportion to each defendant’s percentage of fault, if any. (California
Civil Code, Sections 1431, ef seq.)
TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
At the time and place of the happening of the occurrences and injuries alleged in the
Complaint, and all times material thereto, Plaintiff was employed by various employers, the
names of which are unknown to this Defendant, and working within the course and scope of their
employment and/or employments. Said employer and/or employers and Plaintiff was subject to
the provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act of the State of California and Plaintiff was
entitled to receive Workers’ Compensation benefits from his employers. Certain sums have been
paid to or on behalf of Plaintiff herein under the applicable provisions of the Labor Code of the
State of California. Said employer and/or employers and each of them were negligent, careless,
and at fault in and about the matters referred to in the Complaint and such negligence,
carelessness, and fault proximately and concurrently contributed to and caused the happening of
the incidents complained of by Plaintiff, if any there were. By these premises, any judgment
rendered in favor of Plaintiff herein must be reduced by any benefits or payments made or to be
made to Plaintiff by Plaintiff's employer’s or employers’ compensation carrier under the
authority of Witt vs. Jackson (1961) $7 Cal.2d 57 [17 Cal Rpt. 369, 360 P.2d 641].
TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff has received, or in the future may receive, Workers’ Compensation benefits from
Defendant under the Labor Code of the State of California as a consequence of the alleged
industrial injury referred to in the complaint, and, in the event Plaintiff is awarded damages
against Defendant, Defendant claims a credit against this award to the extent that Defendant is
barred from enforcing its rights to reimbursement for Workers’ Compensation benefits that
Plaintiff has received or may in the future receive.
DB2/21105350.1 5
DEFENDANT GRINNELL LLC'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL
INJURY — ASBESTOS27
MaRGAN, LEWIS &
Bockius LLP
ATTORNEYS ATLA
San Francisco
TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff herein have failed to join indispensable parties (California Code of Civil
Procedure, Section 389) and the Complaint is thereby defective, and Plaintiff is thereby precluded
from any recovery whatsoever as prayed for herein.
TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
To the extent the complaint asserts Defendant’s alleged “alternative,” “market share,” or
“enterprise” liability, the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action
against Defendant.
THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Complaint, and each cause of action thereof, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute
a cause of action against Defendant, in that Plaintiff has failed to join a substantial market share
of the producers of the product or products to which Plaintiff was allegedly exposed.
THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant did not and does not have a substantial percentage of the market for the
asbestos-containing products which allegedly caused Plaintiff's injuries. Therefore, Defendant
may not be held liable to Plaintiff based on Defendant’s alleged percentage share of the
applicable market.
THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff's alleged cause of action secking punitive damages against Defendant does not
state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this Defendant.
THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff's claim for punitive or exemplary damages, if any, alleged by Plaintiff is barred
by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff's claim for punitive or exemplary damages, if any, alleged by Plaintiff is barred
by the proscription of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the
States through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibiting the imposition of excessive fines.
DB2/21105350.4 6
DEFENDANT GRINNELL LLC'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL
INJURY — ASBESTOS27
MORGAN, Lewis &
BocKius LLP
ATTORNEYS AT Law
SAN FRANCISCO
THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
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.
THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff has no standing or right to sue for fraud and conspiracy, breach of warranty,
deceit, or any cause of action under California Civil Code, Sections 1708-1710, and therefore the
Complaint and each cause of action thereof fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of
action against this Defendant.
THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
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
Defendant, but is simply cumulative and included in general damages.
THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As between Plaintiff and Defendant, the law applicable to this action is the law as it
existed during the period Defendant engaged, if at all, in the manufacture, sale, or distribution of
asbestos-containing products to which the Plaintiff claims exposure. It is unlawful, inequitable,
and in violation of Defendant’s contractual, statutory, and constitutional rights to apply principles
of law other than or in a manner different from those which existed for the period in which
Defendant manufactured, sold, or distributed products to which Plaintiff claims exposure.
THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant denies any and all liability to the extent that Plaintiff asserts Defendant’s
alleged liability as a successor-in-interest, 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 of or member in an entity researching, studying, manufacturing, fabricating, designing,
labeling, assembling, distributing, leasing, buying, offering for sale, selling, inspecting, servicing,
DB221105350.1 7
DEFENDANT GRINNELL LUC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL
INJURY — ASBESTOSMokcan, Lewis & |
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS ATLA}
SAN FRANCISCO
w
—<———
oD mom WH
27
installing, contracting, or installation, repairing, marketing, warranting, re-branding,
manufacturing for others, packaging and advertising a certain substance, the generic name of
which is asbestos.
FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff's Complaint and each purported cause of action alleged therein are barred by the
equitable Doctrine of Unclean Hands,
FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff's Complaint and each purported cause of action alleged therein are barred by the
equitable Doctrine of Waiver.
FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff's Complaint and each purported cause of action alleged therein are barred by the
equitable Doctrine of Estoppel.
FORTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
If Defendant provided the products alleged to have been defective, and without admitting
that it did so or that any product was defective, Defendant provided such products to distributors
or other intermediaries, including Plaintiffs’ employers, who were knowledgeable, informed and
sophisticated concerning the use of the products and the alleged risks to the health of ultimate
users, such as Plaintiffs, from the use of the products.
FORTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
EZ ES etiam
Plaintiff's causes of action are barred pursuant to Johnson v. American Standard, Inc.
(2008) 43 Cal. 4th 56 because Plaintiff and/or his employer are sophisticated users.
FORTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff's causes of action are barred pursuant to Taylor v. Elliot T urbomachinery Co., Inc., No.
A116816 and A117648 (Ca. Ist App. Dist., filed February 25, 2009) because Plaintiff have not
pled and cannot show that Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos-containing products that were
manufactured, sold or distributed by Defendant or that were original to any equipment alleged to
be manufactured, sold or distributed by Defendant.
DB2/21105350.1 8
DEFENDANT GRINNELL LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL
INJURY — ASBESTOSa aD uw kB WN
27
Morcan, Lewis &
Bocktus LLP
ATTORNEYS AT Late
‘SAN FRANCISCO
Each denial of Plaintiff's allegations, together with each of Defendant’s allegations,
defenses and factual contentions, all as set forth herein, are hereby specifically identified as
denials, allegations, defenses and factual contentions subject to reasonable opportunity for further
investigation and discovery, as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7(b)(3)(4).
WHEREFORE, this Defendant prays that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed and that
Plaintiff take nothing by virtue of this complaint on file herein, for its costs of suit herein
incurred, for appropriate credits and setoffs arising out of any payment of Workers’
Compensation benefits alleged herein, and for any other and further relief as the Court may deem
proper.
Dated: May 7, 2009 Respectfully submitted,
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
By ft ath f mle
eridith A. Miller
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105
415/442-1000
SBN 259650
DB2/21105350.1 9
DEFENDANT GRINNELL LLC'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL
INJURY — ASBESTOS27
Moran, Lewis &
Bocxius LLP
ATHORNENS ATLA
SAN FRANCISCO
PROOF OF SERVICE
Paul Van Degrift v. Asbestos Defendants, et al.,
San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. CGC-09-27: 5076
Lam a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years, and not a
party to the within action; my business address is One Market, Spear Street Tower, San
Francisco, CA 94105-1126. On May 7, 2009, I served the within documents:
DEFENDANT GRINNELL LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS
ix by transmitting via E-Filed by Lexis Nexis File & Service the document(s) listed above
to the person(s) designated on the Transaction Receipt located on the LexisNexis
File & Serve website.
Executed on May 7, 2009 at San Francisco, California.
1 declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California and the United
States of America, that the foregoing is true and correct.
Kristin Olson
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105
415/442-1000
PROOF OF SERVICE
| DB2/21105350.1 10