Answer: LAURANCE HAGEN VS. ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                a A nA & &Y

Ce ow

10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Douglas G. Wah, Esq. SBN 64692

Kristi L.K, Okumoto, Esq. SBN 247404 ELECTRONICALLY
Foley & Mansfield P.L.L.P.

300 Lakeside Drive, 19" Floor sopekr IL ED.
Oakland, CA 94612 County of San Francisco
Telephone: (510) 590-9500 OCT 13 2010

Facsimile: (510) 590-9595 Clerk of the Court

BY: CHRISTLE ARRIOLA
Attorneys for Defendant Deputy Clerk

VAN-MULDER SHEET METAL, INC,

SUPERTOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

LAURANCE HAGEN, Case No. CGC-10-275582

Plaintiff, “Asbestos-Related Case”

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT VAN-MULDER
SHEET METAL, INC. TO PLAINTIFF’S.
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND
REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL - ASBESTOS

VS.

ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF
CALIFORNIA, et al.
Defendants.

eee

Defendant VAN-MULDER SHEET METAL, INC. ("Defendant"), in answer to the complaint of
Plaintiff, LAURANCE HAGEN (“Plaintiff”) admits, denies and alleges as follows:

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 431,30(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, Defendant denies
each and every, all and singular, both generally and specifically, the allegations of Plaintiff's unverified
complaint, and further denies that Plaintiff has been damaged as alleged, or at all, by reason of any act or
omission on the part of Defendant or its agents, servants or employees.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action
against Defendant.

Lif
iit

I
ANSWER OF VAN-MULDER SHEET METAL. INC. TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSa A nA & &Y

Ce ow

10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that Plaintiff has failed to join all persons and parties needed for a just adjudication of
this action.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that Plaintiff s claim is barred by laches, waiver and/or estoppel.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this action or
alternatively that the Court lacks jurisdiction due to insufficiency of process or the service thereof and/or
improper venue,

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that Plaintiff has failed to commence this action within the time required by the
applicable statute of limitations, including but not limited to California Code of Civil Procedure Sections
337.1, 337.15, 338(a), 338(d), 340.2, 343 and 361.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,

Defendant alleges that Plaintiff was careless and negligent in and about the matters alleged in the

complaint and said carelessness and negligence of Plaintiff proximately contributed to the happening of
the accident, incident and occurrence alleged in the complaint, and to the injuries, losses and damages
complained of therein, if any there were, and said contributory negligence bars a recovery or
proportionately reduces any potential verdict.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that Plaintiff failed to mitigate his alleged damages, if any there were.

Wt

2
ANSWER OF VAN-MULDER SHEET METAL. INC. TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSa A nA & &Y

Ce ow

10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that if Plaintiff was injured by products used or installed at Defendant's premises,
which is denied, such injury occurred after the expiration of the useful safe life of such products.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that if Plaintiff suffered any damages, which is denied, such damages were the sole
and proximate result of an unavoidable accident.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that if Plaintiff suffered any damages, which is denied, such damages were caused
and/or contributed to by Plaintiff's misuse of the product or products and Plaintiff's recovery should be
barred or reduced accordingly.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that if Plaintiff suffered any damages, which is denied, such damages were solely and
proximately caused by material modifications or alterations of the product or products involved in this
action after it or they left the custody and control of Defendant.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that any asbestos-containing product or products alleged to have caused Plaintiff's
injuries were manufactured, used, installed and/or distributed in mandatory compliance with

specifications promulgated by the United States government under its war powers, as set forth in the

U.S. Constitution, and that any recovery by Plaintiff is barred as a consequence of the exercise of those
sovereign powers.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,

Defendant alleges that any product or products alleged by Plaintiff to have caused his injuries were

3
ANSWER OF VAN-MULDER SHEET METAL. INC. TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSa A nA & &Y

Ce ow

10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

manufactured, installed, used or distributed in compliance with specifications provided by third parties
to Defendant and/or in compliance with all applicable health and safety statutes and regulations.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that if Plaintiff suffered any damages, which is denied, the risk of any such damages
was not foreseeable to Defendant. Defendant at all times material hereto acted in accordance with the
industry custom and practice and the state of scientific knowledge available to manufacturers, installers
and/or users of asbestos-containing products.

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that it received no notice of any dangerous, hazardous or defective condition or any
breach of warranty, either expressed or implied.

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's claim against Defendant is barred by the holding of Privette v.
Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689.

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that Plaintiff s exposure to any asbestos-containing product or products allegedly used
or installed at Defendant's premises was minimal and insufficient to establish the probability that said
product or products were a legal cause of Plaintiff's alleged injuries.

EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,

Defendant alleges that this action is barred by the applicable state and/or federal industrial insurance

and/or Workers! Compensation laws, including, but not limited to, California Labor Code sections 3601
and 3602, and 33 U.S.C. section 905.

iit

it

4
ANSWER OF VAN-MULDER SHEET METAL. INC. TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSa A nA & &Y

Ce ow

10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that at the time of the injuries alleged in Plaintiff's complaint, Plaintiff was employed
by persons other than Defendant; was entitled to receive and did receive Workers’ Compensation
benefits from said employer(s) or their insurers; and that said employer(s) were negligent and careless in
and about the matters referred to in Plaintiff's complaint, Defendant is, therefore, entitled to set-off any
such benefits received by Plaintiff against any judgment rendered in Plaintiff's favor and said
employer(s) are barred from any recovery by lien or otherwise against Defendant in connection with this
matter.

TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that Plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly assumed the alleged risks and hazards
incident to the alleged operations, acts and conduct at the times and places alleged in Plaintiff's
complaint and that Plaintiff's said acts proximately caused and contributed to the alleged damages, if
any there were

TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that at all times relevant to the matters alleged in Plaintiff's complaint, Plaintiff's
employers were sophisticated users of asbestos-containing products and said employers’ negligence in
providing said products to its employees was a superseding and/or intervening cause of Plaintiff's
injuries, if any there were.

TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that there was no concert of action among Defendant and other defendants to this
action and that any alleged liability or responsibility of Defendant, which is denied, is minimal in
proportion to the alleged liability and responsibility of this person and entities including the other
defendants herein. Plaintiff should therefore be limited to seeking recovery from Defendant for a

proportion of the alleged injuries and damages for which Defendant is allegedly liable or responsible, all

a
ANSWER OF VAN-MULDER SHEET METAL. INC. TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSa A nA & &Y

Ce ow

10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

such alleged liability and responsibility being denied.
TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, to the
extent the complaint alleges that Defendant has “market share" liability or “enterprise liability", the
complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant.

TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that it is entitled to set-off any settlement, judgments, or similar amounts received by
Plaintiff, against any judgment rendered against it in Plaintiff's favor.

TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges, in accordance with section 1431.2 of the Civil Code, known as the Fair
Responsibility Act of 1986, that if Plaintiff's complaint states a cause of action, each defendant is liable,
if at all, only for those non-economic damages allocated to each defendant in direct proportion to each
defendant's percentage of fault, if any. Defendant requests a judicial determination of the amount of
non-economic damages, if any. Defendant also requests a judicial determination of the amount of non-
economic damages, if any, allocated to Defendant in direct proportion to Defendant's percentage of
fault, if any, and a separate judgment in conformance therewith.

TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that the damages and injuries, if any, were proximately caused or contributed to, in
whole or in part, by the negligence or fault or other acts and/or omissions of persons or entities other
than Defendant, for which Defendant is not responsible.

TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that neither the complaint nor any purported causes of action alleged therein state

facts sufficient to entitle Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages against Defendant.

Wt

6
ANSWER OF VAN-MULDER SHEET METAL. INC. TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSa A nA & &Y

Ce ow

10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's instant action is barred or, alternatively, merged into a prior cause of
action for which Plaintiff has previously sued upon, recovered, and dismissed with prejudice, thereby
requiring a complete extinguishment of the instant action due to the doctrines of res judicata and
collateral estoppel.

TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's instant action is barred and discharged, pursuant to Title 11 U.S.C.
section 1141(d), and that Plaintiffs action violates the pending injunction against such claims that
exists, by operation of law, pursuant to Title 11 U.S.C. section 524(a)(2).

THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that its products were manufactured, produced, supplied, sold and distributed pursuant
to contract with the United States government, and that any recovery by Plaintiff is barred by
consequence of the judicially recognized doctrine of immunity conferred upon that contractual
relationship and any occurrences arising therefrom.

THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that the allegations of the complaint, are uncertain, vague and ambiguous.

THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that the allegations of the complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Sections 583.210
through 583.250, and 583.410 through 583.430 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, and other
applicable code sections.

THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,

Defendant alleges that it does not have and never has had a successor, successor-in-business, successor-

7
ANSWER OF VAN-MULDER SHEET METAL. INC. TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSa A nA & &Y

Ce ow

10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

in-product line or portion thereof, successor-in-interest, assignee, predecessor, predecessor-in-business,
predecessor-in-product line or portion thereof, predecessor-in-interest, partner, subsidiary, whole or
partial or ownership or membership relationship with the entity upon which Plaintiff bases his
allegations of liability.

THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that it did not have a sufficient market share with respect to products and materials
which Plaintiff allegedly caused the alleged injuries and damages. Defendant may not be held liable to
Plaintiff for any alleged share of said market or upon any theory premised upon market-share liability.

THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that if Plaintiff sustained injuries or damages attributable to the use of any product
researched, tested, studied, manufactured, fabricated, inadequately researched, designed, inadequately
tested, labeled, assembled, distributed, leased, bought, offered for sale, sold, inspected, serviced,
installed, contracted for installation, repaired, marketed, warranted, arranged, rebranded, manufactured
for others, packaged, advertised and/or which contained or lacked warnings by Defendant, which
allegations are expressly denied, the injuries or damages were proximately caused by the unreasonable
and unforeseeable misuse, abuse, alteration, or improper maintenance of the product by Plaintiff or by
others.

THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that at all times mentioned, Plaintiff consented to the alleged acts of Defendant.

THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that all claims asserted by Plaintiff was proximately caused by a superseding,
intervening cause.
iit
it

8
ANSWER OF VAN-MULDER SHEET METAL. INC. TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSa A nA & &Y

Ce ow

10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that the entire complaint and each cause of action thereof, is barred on the grounds
that the products or materials referred to in the complaint, if any, were not a substantial factor in
bringing about the injuries and damages alleged by Plaintiff.

THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,

Defendant alleges that the Plaintiff is not entitled to an award of punitive or exemplary damages in this

action. Such an award would be unconstitutional unless Defendant is accorded the safeguards provided
under the Constitution of the State of California and the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution.

FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that to the extent Plaintiff’s claims arise out of contract, Plaintiff’s claims do not state
facts sufficient to entitle Plaintiff to an award of punitive or exemplary damages against Defendant.

FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that Plaintiff, at all times mentioned, was not in privity of contract with Defendant,
and that said lack of privity bars any recovery by Plaintiff against Defendant under any theory of breach
of warranty.

FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that Plaintiff failed to give adequate and timely notice of any alleged breach of
warranty.

FORTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's entire complaint, is barred by the Statute of Frauds to the extent that

any such causes of action are based on alleged oral agreements.

9
ANSWER OF VAN-MULDER SHEET METAL. INC. TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSa A nA & &Y

Ce ow

10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

FORTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that all products and materials researched, tested, studied, manufactured, fabricated,
inadequately researched, designed, inadequately tested, labeled, assembled, distributed, leased, bought,
offered for sale, sold, inspected, serviced, installed, contracted for installation, repaired, marketed,
warranted, arranged, rebranded, manufactured for others, packaged, advertised and/or which contained
or lacked warnings by Defendant which allegations are expressly denied, were not defective in any
manner, as said products and materials conformed with the state-of-the-art in existence at all times
mentioned in the complaint.

FORTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

1

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that its alleged actions, which are the subject of the complaint, were lawful.

FORTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

1

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,

Defendant alleges that its alleged actions, which are the subject of the complaint, were justified.

FORTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

1

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,

Defendant alleges that Plaintiff lacks standing to sue Defendant.

FORTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

1

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,

Defendant alleges that any danger or defect on the premises was obvious or could have been observed
by Plaintiff's exercise of reasonable care.

FORTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that it warned Plaintiffs employers of all dangers on the premises known to
Defendant.
iit
it

10
ANSWER OF VAN-MULDER SHEET METAL. INC. TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSa A nA & &Y

Ce ow

10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

FIFTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that Plaintiff has improperly split his causes of action and seeks to maintain a
duplicative lawsuit based on the same facts and circumstances as a lawsuit previously filed.

FIFTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that it presently has insufficient knowledge or information on which to form a belief
as to whether it may have additional, as yet unstated, defenses available. Defendant reserves the right to
assert additional defenses in the event discovery indicates that they would be appropriate.

FIFTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that at all times relevant to the matters alleged in Plaintiff's complaint, Plaintiff knew
or should have known about the hazards of asbestos containing products, and therefore Plaintiff was a
sophisticated user of asbestos-containing products within the meaning of William Johnson v. American
Standard, Inc. (2008) 74 Cal.Rptr.3d 108.

FIFTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs claims against Defendant are barred by the holding of Hooker v. Dept.
of Transportation (2002) 24 Cal. 4" 198, in that Defendant did not retain control over any independent
contractor sufficient to affirmatively contribute to Plaintiff's alleged injuries.

FIFTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that it did not manufacture, sell, or distribute the product(s) at issue in Plaintiffs
complaint. Strict liability is precluded against Defendant, a contractor/service provider, because “strict
product liability theories apply only to sales or other commercial transfers of goods and not to services.”
Hyland Therapeutics vy. Superior Court (1985) 175 Cal. App. 3d 509, 592. See also Ferrari v. Grand
Canyon Dories (1995) 32 Cal. App. 4t 248, 258; Pena v. Sita World Travel, Ine. (1978) 88 Cal. App. 3d

642, 644; Barton v. Owen (1977) 71 Cal. App. 3d 484, 498; Silverhart v. Mount Zion Hospital (1971) 20

I
ANSWER OF VAN-MULDER SHEET METAL. INC. TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS1

a A nA & &Y

Ce ow

10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Cal. App, 3d 1022, 1027.
WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for judgment as follows:

e Re NR

mn

an

_

That Plaintiff takes nothing by reason of their complaint herein;

That judgment be entered in favor of Defendant,

For costs of suit incurred herein;

For appropriate credits and set-offs arising out of any payment of Workers’
Compensation benefits as alleged above;

For a judicial determination of the amount of non-economic damages, if any, allocated to
Defendant in direct proportion VAN-MULDER SHEET METAL, INC.’S percentage of
fault, if any, and a separate judgment in conformance therewith; and

For appropriate credits and set-offs arising from allocation of liability to other named and
unnamed tort feasors; and

For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

VI. NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 631 VAN-MULDER SHEET METAL,

INC. hereby gives Notice Of Its Request For Trial By Jury.

Dated: October 13, 2010 FOLEY & MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P.

BY

Douglas G.“Wah
Kristi L.K. Okumoto
Attorneys for Defendant
VAN-MULDER SHEET METAL, INC.

12

ANSWER OF VAN-MULDER SHEET METAL. INC. TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSa Ae YB Dm

Se se se = Be Be Se
IY A A RB WB YM = SF FC we A

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Laurance Hagen vs. Associated Insulation of California, et al.
San Francisco County Superior Case No.: CGC-10-275582
Our Client: Van-Mulder Sheet Metal. Inc.

PROOF OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION
I, the undersigned, declare as follows:
1am employed in the County of Alameda, California, and | am over the age of 18 years and not a
party to the within action. My business address is 1111 Broadway, 10th Floor, Oakland, California,
94607.

On the date executed below, I electronically served the documents(s) via LexisNexis File &
Serve described as:

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT VAN-MULDER SHEET METAL, INC, TO PLAINTIFF'S
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL - ASBESTOS

on the recipients designated on the Transaction Receipt located on the LexisNexis File& Serve website.

1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and cgrrect and that this declaration

was executed on October 13, 2010, at Oakland, California.

TAMMY LEE

13
Prool of Service