Answer: LAURANCE HAGEN VS. ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                JENNIFER JUDIN (SBN 256973)

ijudin@dehav.com
ERIC D. SENTLINGER (SBN 215380) ELECTRONICALLY
esentlinger@dehay.com FIL E D
OETA & ELLIST eee Superior Court of California,
Oaklan tC eG County of San Francisco
Telephone: (510) 285-0750 NOV 08 2010
Facsimile: (510) 285-0740 Clerk of the Court
BY: WILLIAM TRUPEK
Deputy Clerk

Attorneys for Defendants

KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC., and
HANSON PERMANENTE CEMENT, INC., fik/a
KAISER CEMENT CORPORATION

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

LAURANCE HAGEN, CASE NO.: CGC-10-275582

Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS KAISER GYPSUM
COMPANY, INC. AND HANSON

v. PERMANENTE CEMENT, INC., f/k/a
KAISER CEMENT CORPORATION’S
ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR
CALIFORNIA; Defendants as Reflected on PERSONAL INJURY — ASBESTOS;
Exhibit 1 attached to the Summary Complaint, | JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

and DOES 1-8500, et al.

Defendants.

COMES NOW defendants KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC ., AND HANSON
PERMANENTE CEMENT, INC., f/k/a KAISER CEMENT CORPORATION (hereinafter
referred to as “DEFENDANTS?”) for itself alone, and in answer to the unverified Complaint of
Plaintiff herein, as amended, now or in the future, or otherwise, admit, deny, and allege as
follows:

Pursuant to the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure § 431.30, these
answering DEFENDANTS deny each, every and all of the allegations of the unverified

complaint, and each and every cause of action contained therein, and the whole thereof, and deny

DEFENDANTS KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC., AND HANSON PERMANENTE CEMENT, INC., f/k/a
KAISER CEMENT CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSthat Plaintiff has sustained damages in the sum or sums alleged, in any other sum or sums
whatsoever, or at all.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
1. The Complaint and each and every cause of action alleged therein fails to state
facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against these answering DEFENDANTS, and fails
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

2. The Complaint and every cause of action alleged therein is/are barred by
California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 335, 338(1), 338(4), 339(1), 340(3), 340.2, 343, 353, by
Commercial Code § 2725, and by all other applicable statute of limitations provisions, and
Plaintiff is thereby precluded from recovering the damages and other relief sought in the
Complaint.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,

3. The applicable laws, rules, statutes or regulations, including but not limited to,
Code of Civil Procedure §§ 340(3) and 340.2, and sister state statutes of limitations and statutes
of repose borrowed by Code of Civil Procedure 361, requiring the institution of suit within a
certain period of time following its accrual, were not complied with, and, therefore, Plaintiff's
claims are barred as a matter of law and equity.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

4. Plaintiff unreasonably delayed in bringing this action, without good cause, and has
thereby prejudiced the rights of these answering DEFENDANTS. The Complaint and all claims
alleged therein are therefore barred by the doctrine of laches.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

5. Plaintiff has waived any and all claims which he/she seeks to assert in this action,
and/or are estopped by his/her conduct from asserting or recovering on such claims.
fil
fil

fil
De

DEFENDANTS KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC., AND HANSON PERMANENTE CEMENT, INC., fik/a
KAISER CEMENT CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSeI DH A FB WY WY

Oo

10
i
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2
3
24
25
26
27
28

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

6. Prior to the filing of this action, Plaintiff fully, completely and unequivocally

settled and compromised his/her claims for relief against these answering DEFENDANTS.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

7. At all times and places mentioned in the Complaint, as amended, now or in the
future, Plaintiff was negligent and careless and failed io exercise that degree of care and caution
for his own safety which a reasonably prudent person would have used ‘under the same or similar
circumstances, in that, among other things, Plaintiff so negligently and carelessly stationed,
conducted and maintained him/herself, failed to utilize safety devices and other equipment or
facilities supplied to them and/or existing as part of their environment, and failed to observe open
and obvious conditions, so as to directly and proximately cause and contribute to Plaintiff's
injuries and damages, if any. Plaintiff is therefore precluded from obtaining any recovery against
these answering DEFENDANTS. Alternatively, any negligence or other legal fault attributable to
Plaintiff thereby comparatively reduces the percentage of negligence or fault, if any, attributable
to these answering DEFENDANTS, which these answering DEFENDANTS expressly deny.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

8. These answering DEFENDANTS allege that no act, omission, conduct or product
attributable io it caused or contributed to any injuries or damages sustained by Plaintiff, if any,
and that if Plaintiff's injuries and damages, if any, were not solely caused by Plaintiff's own acts,
omissions and other conduct then said injuries and damages were proximately caused and
contributed to by the negligence and/or other tortious acts, omissions, conduct and products of
persons or entities other than these answering DEFENDANTS, and that said negligence and/or
other legal fault was an intervening and superseding cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages, if
any. Any damages recoverable by Plaintiff must therefore be diminished in proportion to the
amount of fault attributable to these other persons and entities, and there should be an
apportionment of the harm and damage claimed by Plaintiff, if any.
‘it

Mt
-3-

DEFENDANTS KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC., AND HANSON PERMANENTE CEMENT, INC., fik/a
KAISER CEMENT CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSoD em ID AW KR He De

_
noe

Bw

I Hw

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

9, That at all times and places referred to in the Complaint, as amended, now or in
the future, Plaintiff was, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have been, aware of all
circumstances and conditions then and there existing and prevailing, but nonetheless knowingly,
voluntarily, and in full appreciation of the potential consequences thereof, exposed him/herself to
whatever risks and dangers may have been attendant to such circumstances and conditions,
thereby freely and voluntarily assuming any and all risk(s) incident thereto, and thereby barring
Plaintiff from recovery herein.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

10. At all times and places relevant to this action, Plaintiff failed to make reasonable

efforts to mitigate his injuries, loss and/or damages, if any.
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

i. At all times material to this action, Plaintiff failed to use the products alleged in
the complaint in a foreseeable, proper and safe manner which would have otherwise been
anticipated and expected of an ordinary user. Such misuse of the products described in the
Complaint by Plaintiff was the sole, proximate and legal cause of Plaintiff's injuries and
damages, if any, thereby barring Plaintiff from recovery herein.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

12. At all times material to this action, the products described in the Complaint which
allegedly injured Plaintiff was, without these answering DEFENDANTS’ knowledge, approval or
consent, and contrary to instructions and/or the custom and practice in the industry, altered, re-
designed, modified, or subjected to other treatment which substantially changed their character,
such that they were not being used, functioning and/or performing in a manner intended by their
manufacturer, and/or were not in substantially the same or similar condition as when they left the
manufacturer’s possessions. If there was a defect in said products, which supposition is
specifically denied by these answering DEFENDANTS, such defect resulted solely from such
alteration, re-design, modification, treatment or other change therein, and not from any act or

Hit
4-

“DEFENDANTS KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY. INC., AND HANSON PERMANENTE CEMENT, INC,, fik/a
KAISER CEMENT CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSomission by these answering DEFENDANTS, thereby barring Plaintiff from recovery herein as
against these answering DEFENDANTS.
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

13. Plaintiff is barred from recovery herein in that any and all products allegedly
supplied or distributed by these answering DEFENDANTS were manufactured and/or produced
in conformity with specifications established and provided by the United States Government
pursuant to its War powers as set forth in the United States constitution, and that any defect in
said products was caused by deficiencies in said specifications, and not by any action or conduct
on the part of these answering DEFENDANTS.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

14. Plaintiff is barred from recovery herein in that all products allegedly
manufactured or distributed by these answering DEFENDANTS were in conformity with the
existing state of the medical, scientific, and industrial knowledge, art, and practices and, as a
result, said products were not defective in any manner.

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

15. At all times and places mentioned in the Complaint, as amended, now or in the
future, Plaintiff was not in privity of contract with these answering DEFENDANTS, and said lack
of privity bars Plaintiffs recovery herein upon any theory of warranty.

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

16. Plaintiff failed to give these answering DEFENDANTS timely and reasonable
notice of any alleged breach of contract or warranty, thereby barring Plaintiff from recovery
herein.

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

17. At all times and places relevant to this action, Plaintiff waived whatever right
he/she might otherwise have had to claim a breach of warranty, in that Plaintiff failed to notify
these answering DEFENDANTS of any alleged breach of warranty, express or implied, and if
any alleged defects existed in any product(s) manufactured or distributed by these answering

Hi
“Se

DEFENDANTS KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC., AND HANSON PERMANENTE CEMENT, INC., f/k/a
KAISER CEMENT CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSoD em MN DH BF YW NY

DEFENDANTS, Plaintiff discovered or should have discovered said defect or non-conformity, if
any existed, and failure to do so within a reasonable period of time prejudices these answering
DEFENDANTS from being able to fully investigate and defend the allegations made against it in
the Complaint, as amended now or in the future.

EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

18. Plaintiff's breach of warranty claims are barred by written disclaimers and /or

exclusions contained on or in the labels or packaging of the products at issue in this action.
NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

19. ‘The Complaint, as amended now or in the future, and each and every cause of
action contained therein, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute “fraud,” “oppression,” or
“malice,” as these terms are used in Civil Code § 3294, and therefore fails to a cause of action for
punitive damages.

TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

20. The imposition of punitive/exemplary damages against these corporate
DEFENDANTS for acts of a former and/or predecessor corporate entity would be a violation of
due process of law, and against public policy, under the various laws of the State of California
and the United States.

TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

21. . These answering DEFENDANTS allege that California Civil Code § 3294
violates the Due Process and/or Equal Protection clauses of the California and/or United States
Constitutions, is void because it is vague and ambiguous, constitutes an undue burden on
interstate commerce, and violates the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is barred from any recovery thereunder.

TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

22. The liability of these answering DEFENDANTS, if any, shall be apportioned in
accordance with the provisions of Civil Code §§ 1431, et seg., commonly known as the Fair
Responsibility Act of 1986.

fit
b=

DEFENDANTS KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC., AND HANSON PERMANENTE CEMENT, INC., f/k/a.
KAISER CEMENT CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSSo OD wm IR DH

TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

23. These answering DEFENDANTS allege on information and belief that at all times
and places relevant to this action, Plaintiff was an employee of an employer or employers whose
names are presently unknown, and that any injuries or damages alleged in the Complaint, as
amended now or in the future, occurred while Plaintiff was acting within.the course of scope of
such employment. These answering DEFENDANTS further allege on information and belief that
Plaintiff's employer or employers provided Plaintiff with certain benefits in compliance with the
terms and provisions of the Workers’ Compensation laws of the State of California. The nature
and extent of such Workers’ Compensation benefits that may have been provided is unknown, but
when said benefits are determined, leave to amend this Answer and to set forth the details of said
benefits will be sought. It is further alleged that any and all injuries or damages complained of by
Plaintiff were solely and proximately caused by, or resulted from, the negligence and carelessness
of Plaintiff's employer, his co-workers, and/or his employer’s agents, servants or employees.
Therefore, these answering DEFENDANTS are entitled to an offset of any such benefits received

or to be received by Plaintiff against any judgment which may be rendered in favor of said

Plaintiff, pursuant to the doctrine of Witt v. Jackson (1961) 57 Cal.2d 57.
TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

24. Plaintiff is barred from recovery herein if, at any time, past or present, Plaintiff
was or is an employee of these answering DEFENDANTS, including any of these answering
DEFENDANTS’ divisions or subsidiaries, thereby creating conditions of compensation. The
right to recover Workers’ Compensation benefits is Plaintiff's sole and exclusive remedy as
against these answering DEFENDANTS, pursuant to the provisions of California Labor Code
§§3300, et seq., and/or §§3600, et seq. These answering DEFENDANTS are entitled to a judicial
determination of any such employer-employee relationship establishing such exclusive remedy
and bar to recovery prior any hearing or trial on the merits in this matter.

TWENTY -FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

25. Even if Plaintiff was exposed to any asbestos-containing products manufactured

or distributed by these answering DEFENDANTS, which supposition is expressly denied,
~J~

DEFENDANTS KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC., AND HANSON PERMANENTE CEMENT, INC., fik/a
KAISER CEMENT CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSNu

Plaintiff's exposure to said products would have been so minimal as to be insufficient to
constitute a “substantial contributing factor” in the causation of Plaintiff's alleged injuries or
disease, if any.
TWENTY -SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

26. These answering DEFENDANTS are not liable for any alleged failure to warn of
any risks, dangers or hazards in the use of any asbestos-containing products or other goods that it
allegedly distributed, sold, supplied or delivered to Plaintiff's employer(s), because said
employer(s) had as great, if not greater, knowledge about the nature of any risks, dangers or
hazards than did these answering DEFENDANTS, and, unlike these answering DEFENDANTS,
said employer(s) were in a position to warn persons exposed to such products of any such risks,
dangers or hazards.

TWENTY -SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

27. These answering DEFENDANTS allege that at all times relevant to the matters
alleged in the Complaint, as amended now or in the future, all of Plaintiff’s employers, other than
these answering DEFENDANTS, were sophisticated and knowledgeable users of asbestos
products and said employers’ negligence in providing said product(s) to their employees in a
negligent, careless and reckless manner was a superseding cause of Plaintiffs injuries, if any.

TWENTY -EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

28. To the extent the Complaint, or any cause of action alleged therein, is based upon
an allegation of strict products liability as against these answering DEFENDANTS, said cause of
action cannot be maintained as these answering DEFENDANTS were not a “seller” within the
meaning of § 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, and consequently any claim of strict
liability against these answering DEFENDANTS is barred pursuant to Monte Vista Development
Corporation vs. Superior Court (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1681.

TWENTY -NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

29. These answering DEFENDANTS deny that it was a successor, successor in
business, successor in product line or a portion thereof, assign, predecessor, predecessor in

iff
-8-

DEFENDANTS KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC., AND HANSON PERMANENTE CEMENT, INC., fik/a
KAISER CEMENT CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSaD WwW

business, predecessor in product line or a portion thereof, parent, alter-ego subsidiary, wholly or
partially owned by, or the while 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 and advertising any asbestos/silica products. These
answering DEFENDANTS are therefore not liable for any acts, whether they be active or passive,
or omissions of any entities to which these answering DEFENDANTS are or may be alleged to be
a successor-in-interest, predecessor-in-interest, alter ego, or the like.
THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

30. These answering DEFENDANTS did not and do not have a substantial percentage
of the market for any asbestos-containing products which allegedly caused the injuries and
damages claimed by Plaintiff. Furthermore, the asbestos-containing products which allegedly
caused the injuries and damages claimed by Plaintiff are not “fungible” in nature. As such, these
answering DEFENDANTS may not be held liable to Plaintiff based upon any “market-share” or
“enterprise” theories of liability.

THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

31. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10(c), there is another

action pending between the same parties on the same causes of action.
THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

32. The Complaint, as amended now or in the future, and any and all claims and.
causes of action alleged therein, are preempted by the Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act, 49
US.CS. §§ 20701, et seg., the Federal Safety Appliances Act, 49 U.S.C. § 20301, ef seg., and all
other applicable federal statutes, laws or regulations.

THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

33. The Complaint, as amended now or in the future, and any and all claims and

causes of action alleged therein, is/are barred by the rule against splitting a cause of action.

Mtl
~9-

DEFENDANTS KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC., AND HANSON PERMANENTE CEMENT, INC., fik/a
KAISER CEMENT CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY ~ ASBESTOSTHIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

34, The Complaint, as amended now or in the future, and any and all claims and
causes of action alleged therein, is/are barred by Plaintiff's failure to timely join one or more
parties that are indispensable and/or necessary to a resolution of the matters alleged in the
Complaint, as required by Code of Civil Procedure § 389.

THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

35. The Complaint, as amended now or in the future, and any and all claims and
causes of action alleged therein, is/are barred pursuant to the doctrines of res judicata and/or
collateral estoppel.

THIRTY-SIX AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

36. The Complaint, as amended now or in the future, and any and all claims and
causes of action alleged therein, is/are barred because there is a defect and misjoinder of parties
plaintiff and/or defendant.

THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

37. These answering DEFENDANTS allege that at all times relevant to the matters
alleged in the Complaint, as amended now or in the future, Plaintiff(s) knew or should have
known of the inherent hazards, risks or potential dangers of the product(s) alleged to be at issue,
and was therefore a sophisticated and knowledgeable user of each such product. As such, these
answering DEFENDANTS are not liable to Plaintiff for any alleged failure to warn of such
hazards, risks or dangers.

THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

38. The Complaint, as amended now or in the future, and any and all claims and
causes of action alleged therein, is/are barred by the “sophisticated user” and/or “sophisticated
intermediary” doctrine pursuant to Johnson v. American Standard (2008) 43 Cal.4™ 56.

THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

39. These answering DEFENDANTS allege that the instant action is barred or,
alternatively, was merged into a prior cause of action for which Decedent and/or Plaintiff has

it}
-10-

DEFENDANTS KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC., AND HANSON PERMANENTE CEMENT, INC., fk/a
KAISER CEMENT CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSpreviously 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.
FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
40. These answering DEFENDANTS allege that this Court lacks jurisdiction over this
action. ,
FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

41, These answering DEFENDANTS allege that the damages alleged by Plaintiff, if

any, were caused, either in whole or in part, by persons, firms or entities other than

DEFENDANTS and over which DEFENDANTS had neither control nor the right of control.
FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

42. These answering DEFENDANTS allege that if it is determined to be liable to

Plaintiff, such liability is based on conduct which is passive and secondary to the active and

primary wrongful conduct of the other defendants to this action. These answering
DEFENDANTS ate, therefore, entitled to total, equitable indemnity from such other defendants.
FORTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

43. These answering DEFENDANTS allege that Plaintiff lacks standing to sue

DEFENDANTS.
FORTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

44. These answering DEFENDANTS allege that if it 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 these answering DEFENDANTS and the
alleged caused of action against these answering DEFENDANTS at the time of the filing of the
complaint.

FORTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

45. These answering DEFENDANTS allege 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. DEFENDANTS reserve the right to assert additional defenses in the

event that they would be appropriate.
-1l-

DEFENDANTS KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC., AND HANSON PERMANENTE CEMENT, INC,, f/k/a
KAISER CEMENT CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS=

CS em NIN DHA BF WN

10

FORTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
46. This action should be dismissed or transferred to another court pursuant to the
doctrine of forum non conveniens, or because of improper venue in this court.
FORTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
47. Plaintiff is not the real party in interest to pursue all or a portion of the claims
made in the Complaint for Damages and therefore is barred from suing these DEFENDANTS.
FORTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

48. Whatever damages Plaintiff may have suffered, if any, were the sole and
proximate result of an unavoidable accident.

FORTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

49. DEFENDANTS allege that Plaintiff's tobacco use is an assumption of a known
risk, and that said conduct of Plaintiff proximately caused and contributed to Plaintiff's injuries
and damages, if any, and therefore the recovery of Plaintiff, if any, is barred or proportionately
reduced,

FIFTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

50. DEFENDANTS allege that consumption of tobacco products is negligent per se
because it is inherently unsafe and consumed with the ordinary community knowledge of its
danger. Thus, the said negligence of Plaintiff in consuming tobacco products proximately caused
and contributed to Plaintiff's injuries and damages, if any, and therefore, Plaintiffs recovery, if
any, is barred or proportionately reduced.

FIFTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

51. DEFENDANTS expressly deny that Plaintiff inhaled injurious quantities of
asbestos fibers from products for which DEFENDANTS are liable. Any products for which
DEFENDANTS might be held legally accountable and which Plaintiff allegedly used or was
exposed to, if any, were not in the same condition as when sold, having been materially altered
after the sale and prior to the use or exposure as alleged.

‘tl

Mt
~12-

DEFENDANTS KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC., AND HANSON PERMANENTE CEMENT, INC., fik/a
KAISER CEMENT CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSWDM BF WN

FIFTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

52. If it is proven at the time of trial that products for which DEFENDANTS are
responsible were manufactured, furnished, distributed, supplied and/or sold as alleged in
Plaintiff's Complaint, and if said products were used in the fashion alleged, all of which is
specifically denied except as otherwise set forth above, then any such product was so
manufactured, furnished, distributed, supplied and/or sold in conformity with the prevailing state-
of-medical-art and the prevailing standards of the industry. DEFENDANTS’ conduct, and any
product for which it bears responsibility, was at all times in conformity with the prevailing
standard of medical science and the prevailing standards of the industry. The state of the medical,
scientific and industrial knowledge, art and practice was at all material times such that
DEFENDANTS neither breached any duty owed to the Plaintiff, nor knew or could have known,
that the products for which it bears responsibility presented a foreseeable risk of harm to the
Plaintiff in connection with asbestos exposure form the normal and expected use of such
products.

FIFTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

53. If itis proven at the time of trial that products for which DEFENDANTS are
responsible were manufactured, furnished, distributed, supplied and/or sold as alleged in
Plaintiff's Complaint, and if said products were used in the fashion alleged, all of which is
specifically denied except as otherwise set forth above, then any harm to Plaintiff which may
have been caused by Plaintiff's exposure to such products was caused after the expiration of the
useful safe lives of such products, for which DEFENDANTS are not subject to liability.

FIFTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

54. The imposition of punitive damages constitutes a denial of due process and equal
protection of the laws in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States
Constitution, and comparable provisions of the California Constitution.

FIFTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

55, DEFENDANTS incorporate by reference any additional defenses interposed by

any other defendants herein to the extent such defenses are applicable to it.
~]3-

DEFENDANTS KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC., AND HANSON PERMANENTE CEMENT, INC., fik/a
KAISER CEMENT CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSRESERVATION OF RIGHTS
These answering INEFENDANTS hereby reserve the right, upon completion of its
investigation and discovery, to amend this Answer to include such additional defenses as may be
appropriate.
WHEREFORE, DEFENDANTS KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC., and HANSON
PERMANENTE CEMENT, INC., f/k/a KAISER CEMENT CORPORATION pray as follows:
1. That Plaintiff takes nothing by reason of the operative Complaint on file herein;

2. That DEFENDANTS be awarded its costs and expenses of suit incurred herein;

3. That if DEFENDANTS are found liable, that the degree of responsibility and
liability for the resulting damages be determined and apportioned in accordance with California
Civil Code §§ 1431, et seq.; and

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

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

COMES NOW, DEFENDANTS KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC., and HANSON
PERMANENTE CEMENT, INC., f/k/a KAISER CEMENT CORPORATION and hereby
demand a trial by jury in the above-entitled action and estimate that the length of trial will be six
to eight weeks in duration.

DATED: November 8, 2010 DEHAY & ELLISTON, LLP

By: —
JENNIFER JUDIN |
ERIC D. SENTLINGER
Attorneys for Defendants
KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC. and
HANSON PERMANENTE CEMENT, INC.,
fik/a KAISER CEMENT CORPORATION

“14.

DEFENDANTS KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC., AND HANSON PERMANENTE CEMENT, INC., fik/a
KAISER CEMENT CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSoC Dm NY DA A BF WwW DP

A FF WY ON

PROOF OF SERVICE
Laurance Hagen y. Associated Insulation Of California, et al.
San Francisco County Superior Court Case Number: CGC-10-275582

I, MARY K. BARLE, declare:

1am a citizen of the United States and employed in Alameda County, California. | am
over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within-entitled action. My business address
is 1300 Clay Street, Suite 840, Oakland, California 94612. On the date shown below, I served a
copy of the within document(s):

DEFENDANTS KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC, AND HANSON
PERMANENTE CEMENT, INC., f/k/a KAISER CEMENT CORPORATION’S
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY — ASBESTOS;

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

BJ By electronically transmitting the document(s) listed above to LexisNexis File and Serve, an
electronic filing service provider, at www. fileandserve.lexisnexis.com pursuant to the
Court’s June 1, 2007 Order mandating electronic service. See Cal. R. Ct. R. 2053, 2055,
2060, The transmission was reported as complete and without error.

TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES TO THIS ACTION DESIGNATED ON THE
TRANSACTION RECEIPT LOCATED ON THE LEXIS NEXIS FILE & SERVE
WEBSITE.

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

Executed on November 8, 2010, at Oakland, California.

MARY K. EARLE

PROOF OF SERVICE