Answer: LAURANCE HAGEN VS. ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                1 || Edward R. Hugo [Bar No. 124839]
Paul M. Bessette [Bar No. 127588]

2 |! Lisa M. Rickenbacher [Bar No. 203291]
BRYDON HUGO & PARKER ELECTRONICALLY
3 || 135 Main Street, 20 Floor .
San Francisco, California 94105 Su JE IL ED mia,
4|) Telephone: (415) 808-0300 County of San Francisco
ile: 3
5 Facsimile: (415) 808-033. AUG 30 2010
Attorneys for Defendant aClerk of the Court
6 || PERIN/ CORPORATION Cain Clerk
7
8
SUPERIOR COURT - STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ~ UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
0
t
LAURANCE HAGEN, (ASBESTOS
2 Case No. CGC-10-275582
Plaintiff,
B ANSWER OF PERINI CORPORATION,
vs. TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL
14 INJURY - ASBESTOS
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B“P},
3
Defendants.
16
7 COMES NOW Defendant PERINI CORPORATION (’PERINI” or “Defendant’)

18 |, denying liability for itself and any alternate entities named in the complaint, and answers
19 || plaintiff's Complaint for Personal Injury — Asbestos (hereinafter the “Complaint”) on file.
20 || Plaintiff and Defendant have stipulated to dismiss PERINI from 3“ cause of action and

21 || punitive damages; therefore, defendant answers the remainder of the complaint as

22 || follows:
23 GENERAL DENIAL
24 Under the provisions of Section 431,30(d), California Code of Civil Procedure,

25 |) this answering defendant denies each and every allegation of plaintiff's Complaint and
26 || the whole thereof, and denies that plaintiff has been damaged in any sum or amount
27 || whatsoever, or at all, and denies that plaintiff is entitled to recover damages of any

28 || kind in any amount whatsoever from PERINI.

ele

PERINI CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURYto

RESERVATION OF RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY
PERINI reserves the right to a trial by jury.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEPENSE

Failure to State a Cause of Action

This answering defendant alleges that plaintiff's Complaint and each of the causes
of action for relief alleged therein, fails to state a cause of action against this answering

defendant.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Contravention of Defendant’s Constitutional Rights to Due Process of Law

The Complaint and each cause of action thereof, which is admittedly based upon a
lack of identification of the manufacturer of, and contractor using or distributing the
alleged injury-causing product, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action
in that plaintiff has asserted a claim for relief which, if granted, would contravene
defendant's constitutional rights to substantive and procedural due process of law as
preserved for defendant by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution

and by Article I, Section 7, of the Constitution of the State of California.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Denial of Defendant’s Constitutional Rights to Equal Protection of the Laws

The Complaint, and each cause of action thereof, fails to state facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action in that plaintiff has asserted claims for relief which, if granted,
would constitute a denial by this Court of defendant's constitutional right to equal
protection of the laws as preserved by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution and by Article I, Section 7, of the Constitution of the State of California.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Unconstitutional Taking of Private Property for Public Use Without Just Compensation

The Complaint, and each cause of action thereof, which is admittedly based upon

a lack of identification of the manufacturer, and contractor using or distributing the

2.

PERINI CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURYalleged injury-causing product, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action
in that plaintiff has asserted claims for relief which, if granted, would constitute the
taking of private property for public use without just compensation in contravention of
the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and by Article L,
Section 7 and 19, of the Constitution of the State of California, and the applicable

California statutes.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Comparative Fault
This answering defendant alleges that the damages, if any, complained of by

plaintiff, were proximately caused by the negligence, fault, breach of contract and/or
strict Hability of plaintiff or other defendants, firms, persons, corporations, unions,
employers and entities other than PERINI, and that said negligence, fault, breach of
contract and/or strict liability comparatively reduces the percentage of any negligence,
fault, breach of contract or strict liability for which PERINI is legally responsible, if any
be found, which liability this defendant expressly denies. Further, this answering
defendant alleges that plaintiff did not exercise ordinary care, caution or prudence to
avoid the incidents complained of herein, and said incidents and the injuries and
damages, if any, sustained by plaintiff, were directly and proximately caused and
contributed to by the carelessness and negligence of said plaintiff.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Contributory Negligence
This answering defendant alleges that plaintiff did not exercise ordinary care,

caution or prudence to avoid the incidents complained of herein, and said incidents and
the injuries and damages, if any, sustained by plaintiff, were directly and proximately
caused and contributed to by the carelessness and negligence of said plaintiff.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Uncertainty
This answering defendant alleges that plaintiff's Complaint and all purported

3-
PERINI CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURYcauses of action therein are vague, ambiguous and uncertain, and fail to state a cause of
action on any theory.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Laches
This answering defendant alleges that plaintiff unreasonably delayed in bringing
this action and that such delay substantially prejudiced defendant, and that this action is

therefore barred by the Doctrine of Laches.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Statute of Limitations
This answering defendant alleges that plaintiff's Complaint and the purported
causes of action therein are barred by all statutes of limitation, including, but not limited
to, the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 338, 338.1, 339(1), 340, 340(3)
and 340.2, 343, 352, 366.1, 366.2 and California Commercial Code § 2725. Plaintiff's
claims are further barred by the statute of limitations of states other than California

pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 361.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Failure to Mitigate
This answering defendant alleges that plaintiff failed to mitigate damages which

plaintiff contends he suffered, and plaintiff is therefore barred from any recovery
whatsoever, or alternatively, any damages found must be reduced in proportion to such

failure to mitigate.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Estoppel
This answering defendant alleges that as a result of the acts, conduct and/or

omissions of plaintiff and his agents, or any of them, and each cause of action presented

therein, is barred under the Doctrine of Estoppel.

PERINI CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURYsD

oa 2

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Waiver
This answering defendant alleges that plaintiff, by his acts, conduct and
omissions, has waived the claims alleged in his Complaint and in each purported cause

of action alleged therein.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Acquiescence
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.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Notice of Dangers

Plaintiff was advised, informed, and warned of any potential hazards and/or
dangers, if there were any, associated with the normal or foreseeable use, handling,
storage and in place asbestos of the products, substances, equipment and at premises in
which exposure is claimed as is described in the Complaint and is therefore barred from
any relief prayed for.

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Compliance with Statutes
This answering defendant alleges that all of its conduct and activities as alleged in

the plaintiff's Complaint conformed to statutes, government regulations, and industry

standards based upon the state of knowledge existing at all relevant times.

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Compliance with Specifications

This answering defendant alleges that the asbestos products or asbestos used or in
place at any premises, if any, for which PERINI had any legal responsibility, were
manufactured, packaged, distributed or sold in accordance with contract specifications

imposed. by its co-defendants, by the U.S. Government, by the State of California, by

Se

PERINI CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURYyD iw

o0

plaintiff’s employers, or by third parties yet to be identified.
SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

No Conspiracy
This answering defendant alleges that PERINI has no liability for the acts,

omissions or otherwise of any other defendant or entity because PERINI did not become

legally responsible for the acts of any such defendant, nor entity, by any communication,

alleged, implied, or actual, nor act, action, or activity, and never was, nor is, a conspirator
nor co-conspirator with any other defendant or entity.

EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

State-of-the-Art
This answering defendant alleges that all of its activities, products, materials and
its premises at issue here at all times were conducted, used, produced, marketed, and
operated in conformity with the existing scientific, medical industrial hygiene and

consumer knowledge, art and practice and state-of-the-art.

NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

No Foreseeable Risk to Plaintiff

The state of the medical, scientific, and industrial knowledge and practice was at
all material times such that defendant neither breached any alleged duty owed plaintiff,
nor knew, nor could have known, that its activities, materials, products, activities or
premises presented a foreseeable risk of harm to plaintiff in the normal and expected
course of such activities and use of such materials and products.

TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

No Right to Control
This answering defendant alleges that any loss, injury, or damage incurred by

Plaintiff was proximately and legally caused by the negligent or willful acts or omissions
of parties which PERINI neither controlled, nor had the right to control, and was not

proximately caused by any acts, omissions, or other conduct of PERINL

-6-
PERINI CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURYTWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Action for Relief

This answering defendant alleges the causes of action, if any, attempted to be
stated and set forth in the Complaint, are barred by the provisions of the Code of Civil
Procedure of the State of California and/or other statutes of the State of California,
including without limitation C.C.P. § 338(d).

TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Misuse and Improper Use of Products

This answering defendant alleges that if the plaintiff allegedly suffered injuries
attributable to the disturbance or use of any product for which PERINI had any legal
responsibility, which allegations are expressly herein denied, the injuries were solely
caused by, and. attributable to the unreasonable, unforeseeable, and inappropriate
purpose and improper use and abuse which was made of said product by persons or

entities other than PERINI.

TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Due Care and Diligence
This answering defendant alleges that PERINI exercised due care and diligence in

all of the matters alleged in the Complaint, and no act or omission by PERINI was the

proximate cause of any damage, injury or loss to plaintiff.

TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Alteration and Misuse of Product

This answering defendant alleges that an insubstantial amount, if any at all, of the

products containing asbestos distributed, used, supplied by defendant or used or in place

at any premises owned or controlled by defendant, were not disturbed or used in the
presence of plaintiff and not supplied to the plaintiff, and if so, were substantially altered

by others and/or used in a manner inconsistent with the labeled directions.

-7-

PERINI CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURYTWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Equal or Greater Knowledge of Hazards

This answering defendant alleges that any and all products containing asbestos
used, distributed or supplied by defendant were distributed or supplied to, or for,
persons or entities who had knowledge with respect to the hazards, if any, resulting from
exposure to products containing asbestos, which knowledge is equal to or greater than

the knowledge of PERINI.

TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Other Parties’ Liability and Negligence

This answering defendant alleges that if there was any negligence or any other
form of liability on the part of any of the parties named herein, it was the sole and

exclusive negligence and liability of the other persons or entities and not of PERINI.

TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Apportionment and Offset
This answering defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that

plaintiff's acts and omissions, including plaintiff's agents, servants, and employees acting
within the course and scope of their employment, and others, contributed to the alleged
damages, injury, or loss, if any, sustained by plaintiff. Defendant requests that the Court
apply the principles of apportionment and offset so as to permit the Court or jury to
apportion liability according to fault and to grant defendant a corresponding offset

against any damages awarded to plaintiff.

TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Contribution/Equitable Indemnity

This answering defendant alleges, in the event it is held liable to Plaintiff, any such
liability is expressly herein denied, and any other co-defendants are likewise held liable,
PERINI is entitled to a percentage contribution of the total liability from said co-
defendants in accordance with the principles of equitable indemnity and comparative

contribution.

-8-

PERINT CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURYTWENTY-NINTH APFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Assumption. of Risk by Plaintiff’s Employer(s)

This answering defendant alleges that the Complaint and each cause of action
alleged therein are barred on the grounds that plaintiff's employer or employers
knowingly entered into and engaged in the operations, acts and conduct alleged in the

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.

THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Assumption of Risk
This answering defendant alleges plaintiff assumed the risk of the matters referred

to in his Complaint and that plaintiff knew and appreciated the nature of the risk and
that the plaintiff voluntarily accepted this risk.

THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

No Market Share
This answering defendant alleges that PERINI did not have an appreciable share
of the market for the asbestos-containing products which allegedly caused plaintiff's
injuries, which occurrence PERINI expressly denies. Accordingly, PERINI may not be
held liable to plaintiff based on its alleged share of the applicable product market.

THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff Fails to Join a Substantial Market Share

[he Complaint, and each cause of action thereof, fails to state facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action against this answering defendant, in that defendant has failed

to join a substantial market share of the producers or products to which plaintiff was

allegedly exposed.

THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Insufficient Facts to Show Substantial Market Share of this Defendant

aoa.

To the extent the Complaint asserts defendant’s alleged “alternative,” “market

share,” or “enterprise” liability, the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a

9-
PERINI CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURYcause of action against this defendant.

THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Independent, Intervening or Superseding Cause

This answering defendant alleges that if plaintiff suffered any injuries attributable
to the use of any product containing asbestos which was used, distributed or sold by
defendant, which allegations are expressly denied herein, the injuries were solely caused
by an unforeseeable, independent intervening and/or superseding event beyond the
control and unrelated to any conduct of defendant. Defendant's actions, if any, were

superseded by the negligence and wrongful conduct of others.

THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Not a Substantial Factor

This answering defendant alleges that the Complaint and each cause of action
therein presented are barred on the grounds that the products, conduct, materials or
premises of defendant as referred to in plaintiff's Complaint, if any, were not a
substantial factor in bringing about the injuries and damages complained of by plaintiff
and did not increase the risk that plaintiff would suffer the injuries and damages
complained of.

THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Insufficient Exposure
Any exposure of plaintiff to defendant's activities, products or exposure to

asbestos or asbestos-containing products at PERINI’s premises was so minimal as to be
insufficient to establish by a reasonable degree of probability that any such product
caused any alleged injury, damage, or loss to plaintiff.

THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

No Successor Liability
This answering defendant alleges that PERINI has no liability for the acts,

omissions or otherwise of any other defendant or any other entity because PERINI did
not become legally tesponsible for the acts of any such defendant or entity given the facts

~LO-
PERINI CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURYaI nA A

10 8

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

and circumstances of the pertinent transactions and never was, nor is, a successor-in-
interest, a successor-in-liability or an alternate entity for any other user, manufacturer,
supplier, seller, distributor or premises holder relating to asbestos or asbestos-containing
products.

THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Lack of Privity

This answering defendant alleges that plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action

in that the Complaint fails to allege that there was privity between defendant on the one
hand, and plaintiff on the other, and furthermore, such privity did not exist between

defendant on the one hand, and plaintiff on the other.

THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Secondary Assumption of Risk

This answering defendant alleges that any and all products containing asbestos
used, distributed or supplied by defendant were used, distributed or supplied to, or for,
persons or entities who had knowledge with respect to the hazards, if any, resulting from
exposure to products containing asbestos, which is equal to or greater than, the
knowledge of PERINI, ie. PERINI's liability should be reduced in proportion to the
knowledge of plaintiff.

FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Civil Code Section 1431.2

This answering defendant alleges that the provisions of California Civil Code §
1431.2 (commonly referred to as “Proposition 51”) are applicable to plaintiff's Complaint
and to each cause of action therein.

FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Workers’ Compensation Exclusive Remedy

This answering defendant alleges that the Complaint is barred by the exclusivity
provisions of the California Workers’ Compensation laws, including, but not limited to,

California Labor Code §§ 3600, et seq.

-il-

PERINI CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURYDn & WwW WV

=

B WwW oh

FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Offset for Workers’ Compensation Benefits

This answering defendant alleges that to the extent plaintiff herein recovered, or in
the future may recover, any monies in connection with any claim for workers’
compensation benefits, any amounts recovered in this action are subject to a claim by

defendant for a credit or offset.

FORTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Express Contractual Indemnity

This answering defendant alleges that if plaintiff claims exposure to asbestos or
asbestos-containing products at a PERINI premises, PERINI contracted with plaintiff
and/or plaintiff's employer(s) for them to fully assume all responsibility for insuring
plaintiff's safety, to guarantee that no hazardous condition existed, and/or to warn and
protect against any such conditions, during the performance of plaintiff’s work, and,
further, to fully indemnify PERINI, and to hold PERINI harmless, for all responsibility
and liability arising out of said work, and/or any injuries allegedly incurred by plaintiff
as a result of any of said work. PERINI reserves all rights to assert these provisions of

contractual indemnity.

FORTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Consent

This answering defendant alleges that at all times mentioned, plaintiff consented

to the alleged acts or omissions of PERINI.
FORTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Unusual Susceptibility

This answering defendant alleges that each of plaintiff's injuries and damages, if

any, were proximately caused or contributed to by plaintiff's unforeseeable idiosyncratic
condition, unusual susceptibility, or hypersensitivity reactions for which PERINI is not

liable.

-12-

PERINI CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURYFORTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Good Faith
This answering defendant alleges that plaintiffs claim for punitive damages is
barred because PERINI at all times and places mentioned in the Complaint acted

reasonably and in good faith, and without malice or oppression towards the plaintiff.

FORTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Sophisticated User
This answering defendant alleges that PERINI was under no legal duty to warn

plaintiff of the hazard associated with the use of products containing asbestos or their
existence at any premises owned, operated, controlled or otherwise by PERINI. The
purchasers of said products, the plaintiff, plaintiff's employers, his unions or certain third
parties yet to be identified, were knowledgeable and sophisticated users and were in a
better position to warn plaintiff of the risk associated with using products containing
asbestos and, assuming a warning was required, it was the failure of such persons or
entities to give such a warning that was the proximate and superseding cause of
plaintiff's damages, if any.
FORTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Work Hazard Precautions

This answering defendant alleges that plaintiff's employer(s) was/were advised
and warned of any potential hazards and/or dangers associated with the normal and
foreseeable conduct with, or storage and disposal of the products referred to in the
Complaint, in a manner which was adequate notice to an industrial user of such product
to enable it to inform its employees to take appropriate work precautions to prevent

injurious exposure.

FORTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Failure to Join Indispensable Parties

Plaintiff herein has failed to join indispensable parties (California Code of Civil
Procedure, § 389) and the Complaint is thereby defective, and plaintiff is thereby

~13-

PERINI CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURYprecluded from any recovery whatsoever as prayed for herein.
FIFTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
No Standing Under California Civil Code §§ 1708-1710

Plaintiff has no standing nor right to sue for fraud and conspiracy, breach of

warranty, deceit, or any cause of action under California Civil Code, §§ 1708-1710, and
therefore the Complaint and each cause of action thereof fails to state facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action against this answering defendant.

FIFTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff is not a Real Party in Interest

Plaintiff, and each of them, herein lacks legal capacity to sue and is not a real party
in interest and is thereby precluded from any recovery whatsoever as prayed for herein.

FIFTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Fraud and Conspiracy are Not Separate Forms of Damages

Fraud and conspiracy do not constitute a separate and distinct form of damages
from general damages, and, therefore, the prayer for fraud and conspiracy in addition to
general damages does not sufficiently support or constitute a separate claim for damages
against this answering defendant, but is simply cumulative and included in general
damages.

FIFTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Failure to Allege with Particularity

This answering defendant alleges that plaintiff's Complaint fails to set out its
claims with sufficient particularity to permit defendant to raise all appropriate defenses
and, thus, defendant reserves the right to add additional defenses as the factual basis for
these claims becomes known.

FIFTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Punitive Damage Prohibited

This answering defendant alleges that plaintiff's Complaint fails to state facts

sufficient to support an award of punitive or exemplary damages against PERINL The

~14-

PERINI CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURYOo NO

Oo

20
21
2
2B
24
25
26
27
28

Complaint, to the extent that it seeks exemplary or punitive damages, violates PERINI’s
right to procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution, and the Constitution of the State of California, and fails to state a cause of
action upon which either punitive or exemplary damages can be awarded.

FIFTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Punitive Damages Prohibited
This answering defendant alleges that the Complaint, to the extent that it seeks
punitive or exemplary damages, violates PERINI’s right to protection from excessive
fines as provided in the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article
1, Section 17 of the Constitution of the State of California, and violates PERINI’s right to
substantive due process as provided in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the
United States and California Constitutions, and thus fails to state a cause of action

supporting an award of punitive or exemplary damages.

FIFTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Punitive Damages Prohibited

The causes of action asserted herein by plaintiff fail to state facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action in that plaintiff has asserted claims for punitive damages
which, if granted, would violate the prohibition against laws impairing the obligation of

contracts set forth in Article I, Section 10, of the United States Constitution.

FIFTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Punitive Damages Prohibited

Plaintiff's claim for punitive or exemplary damages, if any, alleged by Plaintiff is
barred by the “double jeopardy” clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.
it
it

-15-
PERINI CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURYFIPTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Negligent Hiring Claim Invalid

An employee of an independent contractor may not pursue a claim for negligent
hiring against a hirer of the independent contractor. See Camargo v. Tjaarda Dairy, 25 Cal.
4th 1235 (2001).

FIFTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Right to Amend
This defendant will assert any and all additional defenses that arise during the

course of this litigation and reserves the right to amend its answer to assert such

defenses.

SIXTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Alternate Unknown Cause
The alleged injuries and damages, if any, may be in whole or in part due to injury,

disease or cause other than as alleged.

SEXTY-FIRST APFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

No Concert of Action

There is no concert of action between defendant and any of the other named
defendants. Defendants are not joint tortfeasors and accordingly, defendant may not be
held jointly and severally liable with the other named defendants.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, this answering defendant prays for judgment as follows:

1. That Plaintiff take nothing by reason of their Complaint or any claims
stated therein;

2. That Plaintiff's Complaint and each cause of action contained therein be
dismissed with prejudice against PERINT,

3. For costs of suit; and
Mt
il

-16-

PERINI CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY4, For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate in

the circumstances.

DATED: August 30, 2010 BRYDON HUGO & PARKER

By:__/s/ Edward R. Hugo
Edward R. Hugo
Attorneys for Defendant
PERINI CORPORATION

-17-

PERINI CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURYmm OS Cm WD HA BW Nm

CS me QR AA BF Bo

Noo
= 3S

22

Hagen, Laurance
San Francisco County Superior Court Case No. CGC-10-275582

LexisNexis Transaction No. 32937097
PROOF OF SERVICE

lam a resident of the State of California, over the age of 18 years, and not a
party to the within action. My electronic notification address is
service@bhplaw.com and my business address is 135 Main Street, 20% Floor, San
Francisco, California 94105. On the date below, I served the following:

ANSWER OF PERINI CORPORATION TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL
INJURY - ASBESTOS

on the following:

BRAYTON PURCELL LLP LexisNexis Service List
222 Rush Landing Road

Novato, CA 94945

Fax: (415) 898-1247

X By transmitting electronically the document(s) listed above as set forth
on the electronic service list on this date before 5:00 p.m.

o By transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax
number(s) set forth above on this date before 5:00 p.m.

o By placing the documeni(s) listed above in a sealed envelope and placing
the envelope for collection and mailing on the date below following the
firm’s ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with the firm’s
practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under
that practice it would be deposited with us. Postal service on the same
day with postage thereon fully prepaid at San Francisco, California in
the ordinary course of business. | am aware that on motion of party
served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage
meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in
affidavit.

o By placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope designated
for Federal Express overnight delivery and depositing same with fees
thereupon prepaid, in a facility regularly maintained by Federal Express,
addressed as set forth above,

o By causing personal delivery of the document(s) listed above to the
person(s) at the address(es) set forth above.

I declare under Penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct.
Executed on August 30, 2010, at San Francisco, California.

2.

Wanda D. Claudio

PROOF OF SERVICE