Answer: LAURANCE HAGEN VS. ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                Oo OP MW DH BF BW YN &

BPR eee ttt
Ww Sf VB BP m= S GC we WA RU B Oo HY | S

26
27
28

MICHAEL J, PIETRYKOWSKI (SBN: 118677)

Mpietrykowski@gordonrees.com

GORDON & REES LUP ELECTRONICALLY
Embareadero. Center West

275 Battery Street, Twentieth Floor sopehr IL ED. ja
San Francisco, CA 94111 County of San Francisco
Telephone: (415) 986-5900 DEC 08 2010
Faesimile: (415) 986-8054 Clerk of the Court

BY: ANNIE PASCUAL
Deputy Clerk

Attorneys for Defendant
ABERTHAW CONSTRUCTION CO

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO — UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION
LAURANCE HAGEN, CASE NO. GCG-10-275582

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR
PERSONAL INJURY — ASBESTOS

Plaintiff,
vy.

ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF

CALIFORNIA., et al., Complaint Filed: June 2, 2010

Defendants.

Nee Ne Sa NS See ea

COMES NOW defendant, ABERTHAW CONSTRUCTION CO and in answer to
plaintiff's complaint on file herein, and each and every cause of action allegedly set forth therein,
answers, alleges and denies as follows:

L

‘This answering defendant denies each and every, all and singular, generally and
specifically, the allegations contained in the complaint, and each and every cause of action
allegedly set forth therein, as they may apply to this answering defendant.

TE

Further answering said unverified complaint, and each and every cause of'action
allegedly set forth therein, this defendant denies that it was legally responsible in some.manner
for the circumstances and happenings as alleged therein, or-at all, and denies that plaintiff has

~f-

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSbeen. damaged in the manner set forth in said unverified.complaint and each and every cause of
action allegedly set forth therein.
iL

Further answering said unverified complaint, and each and every cause of action
allegedly set forth therein, this. defendant denies that it was negligent and/or careless in any
respect whatsoever, as alleged therein, or at all, and denies that plaintiff has been damaged in the
manner set forth in said unverified complaint and each and every.cause of action allegedly set
forth therein.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS. AND FOR A FIRST, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO SAID

COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that the complaint and causes-of action therein
fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this answering defendant.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS. AND FOR A SECOND, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO SAID

COMPLAIN’, this answering defendant alleges that the plaintiff was himself careless and
negligent in and about the matters referred to in.the complaint and that such negligence and
carelessness.on the part of the plaintiff proximately caused and contributed to the damages
complained of, if any there were.

/ THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A THIRD, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO SAID

COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that the plaintiff knew, or in the exercise of

ordinary care, should have known of the risks and hazards involved in the undertaking in which

plaintiff engaged, but‘nevertheless and with full knowledge of these things, did fully.and
voluntarily consent to assume the risks and hazards involved in the undertaking,
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS AND FOR A FOURTH, SEPARATE AND. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO SAID

COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that the plaintiff was himself solely and totally

negligent in and about the matters referred to in the complaint and that such negligence and

2.
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOScarelessness on the part of the plaintiff proximately amounted to One Hundred Percent (100%) of
the negligence involved in this case and was the sole cause:of the injuries and damages
complained of, ifany there were.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS AND FOR A FIFTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO SAID

COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that if there is any negligence or liability of any
of the parties named herein, it is the sole and exclusive negligence and liability of the other
defendants, and not of this answering defendant.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS AND.FOR A SIXTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO SAID

COMPLAINT, defendant alleges that the asbestos-containing products, if any, for which it may

have legal responsibility, were manufactured, produced, supplied, sold and distributed in

mandatory conformity with specifications promulgated by the United States-government under
its war powers, as set forth in the United States Constitution, and that any recovery by plaintiffs
on.the complaint on file herein is barred in consequence of the exercise of those.sovereign
powers.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS AND FOR A SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO SAID

COMPLAINT, defendant alleges that the asbestos-containing products, if any, for which it may
have 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 US. government, by others and by third parties.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND-FOR AN EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO SAID
COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that at the time of the injuries alleged in the
complaint plaintiff was employed and was entitled to-and did receive workers’ compensation
benefits from said employer. This defendant is informed and believes, and on the basis of said

information and belief alleges that, if the conditions as alleged in the plaintiff's complaint are

36
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSfound to exist, the plaintiff's employer was negligent and careless in and about the matters
referred to in said complaint and that said negligence on the part of the employer proximately
caused or contributed to the injuries and damages, if any, complained of by the plaintiff, and
further, that the plaintiff's employer assumed.the:risk of injury to the plaintiff, if any there was,
in that atthe time and place of the incident such conditions, if any, were open and apparent and
were fully known to the plaintiff's employer; and that by reason thereof, this defendant is entitled
to set. off any compensation benefits received or to be received by the plaintiff against any
judgment which maybe rendered in favor of the plaintiff herein.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS AND FOR A NINTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO SAID

COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that.the complaint and the causes of action
therein are barred by the statutes of limitation and repose of California and any other relevant
state, including but not limited to the limitations set forth under sections 340.2.and 361 of the
Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS. AND FOR A TENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO SAID

COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that the plaintiff unreasonably delayed in
bringing this action against defendant and that such delay substantially prejudiced this answering
defendant. Therefore, this action is barred by the doctrine of laches.
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS AND FOR AN ELEVENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO.
SAID COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges. that the complaint and the causes of

action therein fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this answering
defendant pursuant to sections 3600, et seq., of the California Labor Code:

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A TWELFTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO SAID
COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that third parties were contributorily negligent

and careless in and about the matters alleged in the complaint, and that such negligence and

4.
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOScarelessness was 4 proximate cause of any injuries and damages suffered by plaintiff, if any there
were.
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS AND FOR. A THIRTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO

SAID COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that third parties voluntarily and
knowingly entered into and engaged in the operations, acts and conduct alleged in said
complaint, and voluntarily and knowingly assumed all of the risks incident to said operation, acts
and conduct alleged in said complaint, and-voluntarily and knowingly assumed all of the risks
incident to said operations, acts. and conduct at the time and place mentioned in the complaint.
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS. AND FOR A FOURTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO

SAID COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that the plaintiff acknowledged, ratified,

consented to and acquiesced in the alleged acts or omissions, if any, of this answering defendant,
thus barring plaintiff from any relief as prayed for herein.
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS AND FOR A FIFTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO
SAID COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that at all times alleged in the’complaint

the asbestos-containing products, if any, for which it may have legal responsibility, alleged to
have caused plaintiff's injuries were designed, manufactured, sold, distributed, labeled and
advertised in compliance with the then existing state of the art in the industry to which this
defendant belonged and furthermore, that the benefits of any such product design outweighed
any risk of danger in the design and that any such product met the safety expectations of plaintiff
and the general public.

SEXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND-FOR A’SIXTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO
SAID COMPLAINT, the plaintiff has released, settled, entered into.an accord and satisfaction or
otherwise compromised his claims herein, and accordingly, said claims are barred by operation

of law; alternatively, plaintiff has accepted compensation as partial settlement of those claims for

5e
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSwhich this defendant is entitled to.a set-off.
SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS AND FOR A SEVENTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO

SAID COMPLAINT, there was no negligence, gross negligence, willful, wanton, or malicious
misconduct, reckless indifference or reckless disregard of the rights of the plaintiff, or malice
(actual, legal, or otherwise) on the part of this defendant as to’ the plaintiff herein,
EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS AND FOR AN EIGHTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. TO

SAID COMPLAINT, at all times and places mentioned in the complaint, plaintiff has failed to
make reasonable efforts to mitigate injuries and damages, if any.
NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS AND FOR A NINETEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO
SAID COMPLAINT, the plaintiff, prior to the filing of this complaint, never informed this

defendant, by notification or otherwise, of any breach of express and/or implied warranties;
consequently, his claims.of breach of express and/or.implied warranties against this defendant.
are barred,
TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS AND FOR A TWENTIETH, SEPARATE AND. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO

SAID- COMPLAINT, the injuries to, and damages of plaintiff, if any, were directly caused by the
conduct of JOHNS-MANVILLE SALES CORPORATION, its predecessors and successors in
interest, its parent company or companies, its affiliates, subsidiaries, or related companies and

enterprises.

TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A TWENTY-FIRST, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO
SAID COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that to the extent the amount of punitive
damages sought is unconstitutionally excessive under the United States Constitution, it violates
the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment, U.S..Const. amend. VII, and the Due

Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Const. amend XIV, section 1.

6.
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSTWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS FOR A TWENTY-SECOND, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO

SAID COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that the plaintiff's claim for punitive
damages impermissibly seeks a multiple award of punitive damages as against this defendant in
violation of the following clauses: the Contracts Clause of Article I, section 10 of the United
States Constitution; the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment of the United States
Constitution; the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution and its counterpart under the California Constitution; the Equal Protection of the
laws and Due Process provision of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States
Constitution and Article I, section 7 of the California Constitution; and the Equal Protection of

the laws and defendant's right to be free of Cruel and Unusual Punishment and Excessive Fines

as guaranteed under the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution and Article I, section 7 and 17, Article IV, section 16 of the California Constitution.

TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR.A TWENTY-THIRD, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that punitive damages are barred bythe
Constitutions of the United States and California by virtue of their violation of one or more of
the following clauses: the Contracts Clause of Article I, section 10 of the United States
Constitution; the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment of the United States
Constitution; the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution and its counterpart under the California Constitution; the Equal Protection of the
laws and due process provision of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.of the United States
Constitution and Article I, section 7 of the California Constitution; and the Equal Protection of
the laws and defendant's right to be free of Cruel and Unusual Punishment and Excessive Fines
as guaranteed under the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution and Article I, section 7 and 17, and Article IV, section 16 of the California

Constitution.

7.
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSHD nw f WwW Ww

TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS AND FOR A TWENTY-FOURTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND

DEFENSE, this answering defendant.alleges that plaintiff has failed to join a party or the parties
necessary for a just adjudication of this matter and has further omitted to state any reasons for
such failure.
TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS AND FOR A TWENTY-FIFTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND

DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff's claims are.a nullity for failure of
commencement of suit.
TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS AND FOR A TWENTY-SIXTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND

DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff failed to exercise ordinary care for his
own safety and well-being, and that failure to exercise ordinary care proximately and directly
caused and/or contributed to the alleged illness and injury pled-in the complaint, Consequently,
this defendant is entitled to the full protection afforded by law.
TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS AND FOR A TWENTY-SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND

DEFENSK, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff's injuries or illness, if any, were due to
the acts or-omissions of a person or persons over whom this defendant had neither control nor the
right of control.

TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A TWENTY-EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that while specifically and vigorously denying the
allegations of the plaintiff concerning liability, injuries and damages, to the extent that plaintiff
may be able to prove those allegations, this defendant states that they were the result of
intervening acts of superseding negligence on the part of the person or persons over whom this

defendant had neither control nor the tight of control.

-8-18

TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS. AND. FOR A TWENTY-NINTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND

DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that at all times and places. mentioned in the
complaint, plaintiff and/or other persons used the asbestos-containing products, if any, for which
it may have legal responsibility, in an unreasonable:manner, not reasonably foreseeable to this
defendant, and for a purpose for which the:products were not intended, manufactured or
designed. Plaintiff's injuries and damages, if any, were therefore directly and proximately
caused by his misuse and abuse of such products.
THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS AND FOR A THIRTIETH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND

DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that any exposure of plaintiff to asbestos-containing
products, if' any, for which this defendant may have legal respensibility, and which exposure is
vigorously denied, was so minimal as to be insufficient to establish a reasonable degree of
probability that the product.or. products caused his claimed injuries and illness.

THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A THIRTY-FIRST, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT.ANSWER AND
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that at the time of this filing, there was no good
ground to support the complaint as to:this defendant. There-is now no good ground to support
the complaint as to this defendant.

THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS AND FOR'A THIRTY-SECOND, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND

DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff has waived any and all claims sought
in this action and is estopped both to assert and to recover upon such claims.

THIRTY-THIRD APFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FORA THIRTY-THIRD, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that the doctrine of joint and several liability has
been abolished in a case such as this, and should plaintiff prevail against this defendant, this

defendant's liability is several and is limited to its own actionable segment of fault, which fault is
9.vigorously denied.

THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A THIRTY-FOURTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that the causes of action asserted by plaintiff fail to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or, if relief be granted, this defendant's
Constitutional right to substantive and procedural due process of law would be contravened,

THIRTY-FIFTU AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS AND FOR A THIRTY-FIFTH, SEPARATE AND. DISTINCT ANSWER AND

DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that the causes of actions asserted by the plaintiff
fail to state a.claim upon which relief can be granted, for if relief be granted, such relief would
constitute a taking of this defendant's property for.a public.use without just compensation, a
violation of this defendant's Constitutional rights.
THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS. AND FOR A‘ THIRTY-SIXTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND

DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that the causes of action asserted by plaintiff fail to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted because.such relief would constitute a denial by
this court of defendant's Constitutional right to equal protection under the law.
THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND.FOR A THIRTY-SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND

DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that‘to the extent any claim for relief in the.
complaint seeks to recover damages against this defendant for alleged acts or. omissions of
predecessors or successors-in-interest to this defendant-of any kind or description, said defendant
asserts that it is not legally responsible and cannot legally be held liable for any such acts-or
omissions, This defendant further asserts that it cannot be held Hable’for punitive damages
and/or exemplary damages which are or may be attributable to the conduct of any predecessor.or

suceessor-in-interest. Further, this defendant asserts that the conduct.of any predecessor or

successor-in-interest cannot, as.a matter of law, provide a legal basis for liability or the
imposition of damages against this defendant.

-10-
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT POR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSTHIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS AND. FOR A THIRTIETH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND

DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that the asbestos-containing products, if any, for
which it may have legal responsibility, were manufactured and/or distributed in accordance with
specifications and requirements supplied to this defendant by individuals or entities including,
but not limited to, the United States of America, The alleged defect, if any, in said products was
therefore caused by the mandatory specifications and requirements, and the alleged defect was
neither known to nor discoverable by this defendant with the.exercise of reasonable care.

THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A THIRTY-NINTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that California is not proper forum in which to
Htigate this matter pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure ‘section 410.30 and applicable
case law. :

PORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A FORTIETH SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO SAID

UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff was a sophisticated
user of any products that caused him injury, meaning that this. answering defendant can have no
liability pursuant to Johnson v. American Standard, Inc. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 56.
FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS AND FOR A FORTY-FIRST SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO SAID

UNVERIFIED. COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff’ s employer(s)
was/were sophisticated users of any. products that caused him injury; meaning that this answering
defendant can have no liability pursuant to Johnson v. American Standard, Inc. (2008) 43 Cal.4th
56.
FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS AND FOR A FORTY-SECOND SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO
SAID UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff is barred

from recovering on his Complaint, and each cause of action therein, because this answering
-li-defendant was under no legal duty to warn plaintiff-of the hazards associated with the use of the
products containing asbestos, if any. This answering defendant further alleges thatthe
purchasers. of the products alleged in the Complaint, and their unions, or certain third-parties,
were knowledgeable and sophisticated users and were in a better position to warn plaiatiff of the
risks associated with using products containing asbestos, if any, assuming a-warning was
required. Therefore, it was the failure of these persons or entities to-give a warning thal.was the
proximate and superseding cause of plaintiff's damages, if any.
FORTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A FORTY-THIRD SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO SAID

UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff is barred from

recovering on. his Complaint, and each cause-of action therein, because the premises on which
plaintiff worked were owned, controlled, or operated by entities other than this answering
defendant.
FORTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS AND FOR A FORTY-FOURTH SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEPFENSE.TO
SAID UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that.it-was not on notice

and could not have been on notice of any dangerous or defective condition about which plaintiff
was or could have been warned and as such, this answering defendant did not breach any legal
duty over to plaintiff.

PORTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND. FOR A FORTY-FIFTH SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE-TO SAID
UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff is barred from
recovering on his Complaint, and cach cause of action therein, because this answering defendant
acted in good faith and did not directly or indirectly perform any.acts whatsoever which would
constitute a breach of any duty owed to plaintiff.

FORTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS AND FOR.A FORTY-SIXTH SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO SAID

-12-

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS28

ABERT/10668527878850fy.1

UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that itis informed and believes
and on that basis alleges that any and all products, fabrics and/or materials manufactured, sold,
distributed, supplied, installed or existing on third parties’ premises, if any, conformed to the

existing state of the art.

WHEREFORE, this answering defendant-prays that plaintiff takes nothing by his actions,
that this answering defendant be dismissed with costs of suit incurred herein, and for such other

and further relief as this court deems just and proper.

Dated: December LK r10 GORDON & REES LLP

Michael’, Pietrykowski

Attorneys for Defendant
ABERTHAW CONSTRUCTION CO

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSABER TAUSORSUSTRESE EY 1

PROOF OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION

Re: Laurance Hapen v. Associated Insulation of California., et al,
San Francisco County Superior Court Case No. CGC-10-275582

1, Silvia Escobar, declare: that | am, and was at the time of service of the
documents herein referred to, over the age of 18-years, and not a party to the. action; and |
am employed in the County of San Francisco, California. My business address is Gordon
& Rees LLP, Embareadero.Center West, 275 Battery Street, 20th Floor, San Francisco,
California 941 11.

On the date executed below, | electronically served the document(s) via LexisNexis File

& Serve described as:
Answer To Complaint For Personal Injury.—Asbestos

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 truc and correct and was executed on

J

Silvia Fscobar, case assistant to Michael J. Pietrykowski.