Answer: CHARLES HUSBAND VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P) AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                ~~ OD A FB WwW

28

MCKiNNA LONG &
ALDRIDGE LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

LISA L. OBERG (BAR NO. 120139)
SARA M. PARKER (BAR NO. 238448)

MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP ELECTRONICALLY
101 California Street
4) st Floor FILE D /
San Francisco, CA 94111 Superior Court of California,
Telephone: (415) 267-4000 County of San Francisco
Facsimile: (415) 267-4198 APR 08 2009
GORDON PARK-LI, Clerk
Attomeys for Defendant BY: JUDITH NUNEZ
PLANT INSULATION COMPANY Deputy Clerk

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

County OF SAN FRANCISCO

CHARLES HUSBAND, CASE No. 275098
Plaintiff, ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, PLANT
INSULATION COMPANY, TO
v. PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR

DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURY
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P), ef al.,

Defendants.

COMES NOW DEFENDANT, PLANT INSULATION COMPANY (hereinafter
“DEFENDANT”, for itself and for no other defendant, to answer plaintiffs complaint on file
herein as follows:

1, Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30(d), answering
DEFENDANT denies, both generally and specifically, each and every allegation contained in the
complaint, and each cause of action therein, and each paragraph of each cause of action, and
denies that, as a direct and proximate result or any result of any tortious conduct on the part of
this DEFENDANT, plaintiff has been or will be injured or damaged in the manner and amount
alleged or in any manner or amount whatsoever.

2. Answering DEFENDANT denies that, by reason of any act or omission, fault,
conduct, or lability on the part of answering DEFENDANT, plaintiff has been injured or

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, PLANT INSULATION COMPANY, TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL
INJURY

30016.5693 SP:27354103.128

MCKaNNa LONG &
ALDRIDGE LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

damaged in the manner and amounts alleged or in any manner or amount whatsoever, and denies
that this answering DEFENDANT or any of its agents, servants or employees, or anyone acting
for or on its behalf was negligent, careless, reckless, or otherwise breached any duty owed to
plaintiff, whether as alleged or otherwise.
For A First, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT:

3. Alleges that the complaint, and each and every cause of action therein, is barred by
the applicable statute of limitations, California Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1,

For A SECOND, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT:

4. Alleges that the complaint, and each and every cause of action therein, is barred by

the applicable statute of limitations, California Code of Civil Procedure section 340.2.

For A THIRD, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT:

5. Alleges that the product involved was materiaily altered or changed by a party or
parties other than, and without the permission of, this answering DEFENDANT, its employees,
servants, or other agents, such alteration or change creating the alleged defect, if any, which was
the proximate or legal cause of plaintiff’ injuries, or damages, if any.

For A FourTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT:

6. Alleges that the defect in the product, if any, was known to plaintiff, who used said

product after full knowledge of said alleged defect; that, as a result, plaintiff is barred from

recovery herein, proportionately or totally, in that plaintiff voluntarily exposed himself or herself

and bis or her property to a known danger and thereby assumed the risk of any injury or damage
resulting from that injury.
For A Firru, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT:

7. Alleges that plaintiff's complaint and each and every cause of action therein based
upon warranty or breach thereof, is barred as a result of failure of plaintiff to give notice required
under Commercial Code section 2607(3)(a).

For A Sixru, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT:
8. Alleges that the product was improperly maintained and cared for by plaintiff or

his or her employer or their agents; that such improper maintenance and care created the defect, if
-2-

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, PLANT INSULATION COMPANY, TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL
INJURY
SE:27354 103.1cou ew

12

14

28

MCKENNA LONG &
ALDRIDGE LLP,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

any, that was the proximate or legal cause of plaintiff's injuries and damages, if any; that such
improper maintenance and care was unforeseeable to this answering DEFENDANT; and that
plaintiff's claim is thereby reduced by the percentage of all responsibility attributable to plaintiff,
his or her employer or other agents by virtue of said improper maintenance and care.
For A SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT:

9. Alleges that the complaint, and each and every cause of action therein, is barred by

the applicable statute of limitations, Code of Civil Procedure section 338(d).

For AN EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT:

10. Alleges that the loss, injury, or damage, if any, incurred by plaintiff was the result
of superseding or intervening causes arising from negligent or willful acts or omissions by parties
which DEFENDANT neither controlled nor had the right to control, and said losses, injuries, or
damages were not proximately or legally caused by any act, omission, or other conduct of
DEFENDANT.

For A Ninth, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT:

11. Alleges that the plaintiff failed to mitigate his or her damages, if any, in that he
failed to use reasonable diligence in caring for his or her injuries and reasonable means to prevent
their aggravation or to accomplish their healing.

For A TENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT:

12. Alleges that, if this DEFENDANT is responsible to plaintiff, which responsibility
is expressly denied, this DEFENDANT shall be liable to plaintiff only for the amount of non-
economic damages allocated to this DEFENDANT in direct proportion to this DEFENDANT’s
percentage of fault, if any.

For AN ELEVENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT:

13. Alleges that plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrine of laches.
FoR A TWELFTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT:

14. Alleges that, if the products described in the complaint were manufactured or
distributed by DEFENDANT, they were manufactured or distributed in accordance with

specifications and requirements supplied to DEFENDANT by persons other than DEFENDANT
-3-

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, PLANT INSULATION COMPANY, TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL |
INJURY
SF27354103.1HW
12

28

MCKENNA LONG &

including, but not limited to, the government of the United States of America. Any defect in said
products was caused by deficiencies in said mandatory specifications and requirements supplied
to DEFENDANT, which deficiencies were neither known to DEFENDANT nor discoverable by
DEFENDANT with the exercise of reasonable care.
FoR A THIRTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT:

15. Alleges that plaintiff was not in privity with DEFENDANT and, therefore, may
not rely upon the theory of any alleged breach of express or implied warranty.

For A FOURTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT:

16. Alleges that any exposure of plaintiff to DEFENDANT’s products was so minimal
as to be insufficient to establish to a reasonable degree of probability that any such product
caused any alleged injury, damage, or loss to plaintiff.

For A Fir TEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT:

17. Alleges that, if DEFENDANT has purportedly been named or served in this action
as a Doe DEFENDANT, such effort by plaintiff is invalid on the ground that plaintiff knew or
should have known of the identity of the DEFENDANT and the plaintiff's alleged causes of
action against DEFENDANT at the time of the filing of the complaint.

FoR A SIXTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT:

18. Is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief alleges that
plaintiff was negligent, careless, reckless, and acted unlawfully in the use, control, direction and
application of his or her bodily movements and the equipment, safety devices, and other facilities
supplied to him, and existing as a part of his or her environment, and the injuries, if any, and
damages, if any, were directly and proximately caused and contributed to by his or her own
negligence.

For A SEVENTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT:
19. Is informed and believes and upon such information and belief alleges that

plaintiff misused the product and used same after knowledge of defect, if any, existing therein.

4.

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, PLANT INSULATION COMPANY, TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL
INJURY
SF:27354103.1For AN EIGHTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT:

20. Alleges that the plaintiffs employer so negligently, carelessly, recklessly, and
unlawfully directed, controlled, and supplied plaintiff and plaintiff's co-employees with a
working environment, including safety and protective equipment, clothing or the lack thereof, so
as to directly and proximately cause and contribute to the injuries in question, if the same do
exist, and to the extent that any sum or sums have been paid to plaintiff by said employer, this
claim is barred thereby.

For A NINETEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT?

21. Alleges that the complaint, and each and every cause of action therein, fails to

SO Oe BBD A BR YW WN

state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against DEFENDANT and is barred by the

11 | provisions of Labor Cede section 3600.

12 | For A TWENTIETH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT!

13 22. Alleges that the complaint, and each and every cause of action therein, fails to
14 || state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against DEFENDANT and is barred by the
15 | provisions of Labor Code section 3601.

16 | For A Twenty-First, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT:

7 23. Alleges that the complaint, and cach and every cause of action therein, fails to
18 || state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against DEFENDANT and is barred by the
19 | provisions of Laber Code section 3602.

20 | For A TWENTY-SECOND, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT:

2 24. — Alleges that the complaint, and each and every cause of action therein, fails to
22 || state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against answering DEFENDANT upon which
23 || relief can be granted.

24 | For A TwEenty-Tirp, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT:

25 25, Alleges that the statutory authority, including but not limited to California Civil
26 || Code section 3294, pursuant to which plaintiff claim punitive damages is invalid on its face

27 || and/or as applied to this DEFENDANT pursuant to the First, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth

28
MCKENNA 5.
apebaece Lu ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, PLANT INSULATION COMPANY, 10 PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL
SAN FRANCISCO INJURY,

SP:27354103.128

MCKENNA LONG &
ALDRIDGE,
APTORNIYS J
SAN FRANCISCO

Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and Article I of the Constitution of the State
of California.
For A TWENTY-FOURTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT:

26. — Alleges that plaintiff's action is barred by the provisions of California Code of
Civil Procedure section 361 in that plaintiff's claims arose in another state or foreign country, and
by the laws thereof an action cannot be maintained against this answering defendant.
For A TWENTY-FIFTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT:

27. Alleges that the instant action is barred by the rule against splitting a cause of
action.

For A TWENTY-SIXTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT:

28. — Alleges that plaintiff is collaterally estopped or barred by the doctrine of res

judicata from maintaining this action and/or seeking damages against this answering defendant.

For A TWENTY-SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT:

29, Alleges that defendant is not a successor, successor in business, successor in

product line or portion thereof, assign, predecessor in product line or portion thereof, parent,
alter-ego, subsidiary, wholly or partially owned by, or the whole or partial owner of or member in
any entity owning property, maintaining premises, researching, studying, manufacturing,
fabricating, designing, labeling, assembling, distributing, leasing, buying, offering for sale,
selling, inspecting, servicing, installing, contracting for installation, repairing, marketing,
warranting, re-branding, manufacturing for others, packaging or advertising any asbestos-
containing or silica-containing products, Defendant is therefore not liable for any acts, whether
they be active or passive, or omissions of any entities to which defendant is or may be alleged to
be a successor-in-interest, predecessor-in-interest, alter-ego or the like.
For A TWENTY-EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT:

30. Alleges plaintiff's claims, causes of action, theories of liability and matters alleged
in this complaint are barred by the doctrine of accord and satisfaction as plaintiff has reached an

accord with defendant regarding this litigation.

-~6-

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, PLANT INSULATION COMPANY, TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL
INJURY
SP:27354103.5oO 20 6 IW Dw BW WY

12

28

MCKENNA LONG &
ALDRIDGE LLP.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

For A TWENTY-NINTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT:

31, Alleges that plaintiff has released, settled, entered into an accord and satisfaction,
or otherwise compromised the claims herein, and accordingly, said claims are barred.
For A THIRTIETH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT:

32. Alleges that plaintiff and/or the purchaser or user of the product at issue was
sufficiently knowledgeable, informed and or trained and knew or should have known of the
potential danger associated with the risk of exposure to asbestos from the course of his/her work,
and the claims are therefore barred under the sophisticated user doctrine, pursuant to the
California Supreme Court’s opinion in William Johnson v. American Standard, Inc, (2008) 43
Cal.4th 56.

WHEREFORE, DEFENDANT prays for judgment herein, for costs of suit incurred

herein, and for such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.

Dated: uso. 3/04 MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP

By:

ASA L. OBERG
SARA M. PARKER

Attorneys for Defendant
PLANT INSULATION COMPANY

-7-

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, PLANT INSULATION COMPANY, TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL
INJURY,
SP:27354103.1op eM I HR OH BRB YW NY

28

MCKENNA LONG &
ALDRIDGE LLP
ASTORNEYS Av Law
SAN FRANCISCO

PROOF OF SERVICE VIA LEXISNEXIS FILE & SERVE

Lam a citizen of the United States and employed in San Francisco County, California. I
am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within-entitled action. My business
address is 101 California Street, 41% Floor, San Francisco, California 94111.

On April 8, 2009, I electronically served the document(s) via LexisNexis File & Serve
described as:

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, PLANT INSULATION

COMPANY, TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR
DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURY

on the recipients designated on the Transaction Receipt located on the LexisNexis File & Serve
website. I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California that the

foregoing is true and correct and was executed on April 8, 2009, at San Francisco, California.

nu) wit

‘CARY ANN ROSKO

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, PLANT INSULATION COMPANY, TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL.
INJURY

30016.5693 SF:27354103.1