On June 02, 2010 a Answer was filed involving a dispute between Hagen, Laurance, and 3M Company, 4520 Corp., Inc.,, A & A Mechanical Contractors Inc., A & A Sheet Metal, Aberthaw Construction Company, Acco Engineered Systems, Inc., A.E. Knowles Corporation, Aire Sheet Metal Inc., Air Systems Mechanical Contractor, A.J. Peters & Son, Aladdin Heating Corporation, Albay Construction Company, Allied Painters, Inc., Allied Sprinkler Company, Inc., Anderson, Rowe & Buckley, Inc., Applied Support Systems, Inc., A.R.B. Mechanical, Armaral Plumbing, Associated Insulation Of California, Atlas Heating And Ventilating Company, Ltd., Bailey Plumbing, Heating & Sheet Metal, Barnes Construction Co., Bay Cities Crane And Rigging, Inc., Bayer Cropscience Inc., Bayer Cropscience, Inc.,, B H P Minerals International, Inc., Bigge Crane And Rigging Co., Bragg Investment Company, Inc., B.T. Mancini Co., Inc., Buttner Corp., Cahill Contractors, Inc., Carrier Corporation, Cbs Corporation, A Delaware Corporation, Fka, Cbs Corporation (F K A Viacom Inc., F K A, C.C. Moore & Co. Engineers, Certainteed Corporation, Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, Chicago Bridge & Iron Company,, Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., Coastal West Ventures, Inc., Commair Mechanical Services, Conocophillips Company, Consolidated Insulation, Inc., Cooper Brothers, Inc., Corey Contractors, Cosco Fire Protection, Inc., Coscol Petroleum Corporation, Coscol Petroleum Corporation Erroneously Named And, Crane Co., Crowley Plumbing, Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., C & R Plastering, Inc., Cupertino Electric, Inc., Dana Companies, Llc, Devcon Construction, Inc., Dillingham Construction, N.A., Inc., Does 1-8500, Domco Products Texas Inc. Erroneously Sued, Domco Products Texas, L.P., Dome Construction Corporation, Douglass Insulation Company, Inc., D.W. Nicholson Corporation, D. Zelinsky & Sons, Inc., Early Engineering Corporation, Incorporated, East Bay Sheet Metal Works, East Bay Sheet Metal Works, A Dissolved Corp., E.C. Braun Company, Inc., Emerick Sheet Metal Co., Emil J. Weber Electric Co., E. Mitchell, Inc., Enterprise Plumbing, Inc., Erwin Mechanical Inc., Ex- Fm, Inc. (Fka Fischbach And Moore Electric,, Exxon Mobil Corporation, Faye Plumbing, Fdcc California, Inc., Finzel Plumbing Company, Fischbach And Moore, Incorporated, Nka Ex-Fm, Inc., Fluor Corporation, Foley-Pmi, Inc., Foster Wheeler Llc, Foster Wheeler Llc (Fka Foster Wheeler, F.P. Lathrop Construction Company, F.P. Lathrop Construction Company,, Frank Bonetti Plumbing, Inc., Frederick Meiswinkel, Inc., F.W. Spencer & Son, Inc., Garlock Sealing Technologies, Llc, General Cable Corporation, General Electric Company, George F. Schuler, Inc., George M Robinson & Co., George Townsend & Associates, George Wilson Company, Inc., Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Georgia-Pacific Llc, Giampolini & Co., Golden Gate Drywall, Inc., Granite Rock Company, Grinnell Corporation, Grinnell Llc,, Haas And Haynie Corporation, Haas & Haynie Corporation, Hamilton Materials, Inc., Hansen Plumbing And Heating, Hanson Permanente Cement, Inc. Formerly Known As, Harry Lee Plumbing & Heating, H.B. Fuller Company, H & C Investment Associates, Inc., Hensel Phelps Construction Co, Hensel Phelps Construction Co., Herrick Iron Works, Honeywell International, Inc., Honeywell International Inc., Fka Alliedsignal,, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., H.T.R. Enterprises, Inc., Ingersoll-Rand Company, Jacobs Constructors, Inc., James A. Nelson Co., Inc., James Nelson, Johnson Controls, Inc., J.R. Simplot Company, J.T. Thorpe, Inc., J.T. Thorpe & Son, Inc., J.W. Mcclenahan Company, Inc., Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc., Kentile Floors, Inc., Kent M. Lim & Company, Inc., Kinetic Systems, Inc., Kramer Acoustics, Laub Sheet Metal Works, Leonard Construction Company, Lewis Air & Refrigeration, L.J. Kruse Company, Macarthur Company, Madlem Mechanical, Inc., Marcal Associates, Ltd., Marconi Plastering Company, Inc., Marina Heating & Air Conditioning, Marina Plumbing Company, Mauch Sheet Metal, Mayta & Jensen, Mcguire & Hester Corporation, Mckeon Construction, Mcmillan Brothers Electric, Inc., Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Monterey Mechanical Company, Norcal Scaffolding, N. P. I. Corporation, N.V. Heathorn, Inc., Oakfabco, Inc., Ocean Shore Iron Works, O.C. Mcdonald Co., Inc., O H I Company, Inc., Oscar E. Erickson, Inc., Owens-Illinois, Inc., Owens Mckeon Construction, Pacific Coast Builders, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Pacific Mechanical Corporation, Parker-Hannifin Corporation, Parsons Infrastructure & Technology Group Inc., Peerless Stucco Co., Perini Corporation, Perini Land And Development Company, Peter Kiewit Sons, Inc., Peter Lim Construction, Pierce Enterprises, Pierce Lathing Company Dba Pierce Enterprises, Power Refrigeration Company, Powers Process Controls, Quality Air Conditioning, Inc., Quintec Industries, Inc., Raphael Company, Raymond Interior Systems-North, Ray Oil Burner Co., A Dissolved Corporation,, Ray Oil Burner Company, Inc., Republic Supply Company, Rmc Pacific Materials, Inc., Robertshaw Controls Company, Rodoni Becker, Rosendahl Corporation, Rountree Plumbing & Heating Inc., Rudolph And Sletten, Inc., Santa Fe Braun, Inc. As Successor-In-Interest To, Schneider Electric Usa, Inc. (Fka Square D, Scott Co. Of California, Scott Norman Mechanical Company, Scott Technologies, Inc., Sequoia Ventures Inc., S F L, Inc., Shell Oil Company, Sierra Pacific Industries, S.J. Amoroso Construction Co., Inc., Stanford Plumbing, Stolte Inc., Sugden Engineering Co., Swinerton Builders, Temporary Plant Cleaners, Inc., Texaco, Inc., The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, The Jack Dymond Company, The Linford Company, Therma Corporation, Therma Mechanical, Thermon Manufacturing Co., Thomas Air & Refrigeration Inc., Thomas Dee Engineering Company, Timec Company, Inc., Tosco Corporation, Tosco Corporation Erroneously Sued And Served As, Trane U.S., Inc., Erroneously Sued As Trane U.S.,, Trane Us, Inc. Fka American Standard, Inc., Turner Construction Company, Tutor-Saliba Corporation, Union Oil Company Of California, University Mechanical And Engineering Contractors,, Valley Sheet Metal, Van-Mulder Sheet Metal, Inc., Vogel & Associates, Walnut Creek Sheet Metal, Furnace & Air, Washington Group International, Inc., Western Allied Corporation, Western Asbestos Company, Western Insulation, Inc., Western Macarthur Company, Western Plumbing & Heating Co., Inc., W.G. Thompson, Inc., Wheatley-Jacobsen, Inc., Williams & Burrows, Inc., Wilson Construction Company, W.L. Hickey Sons, Inc., Wright Schuchart Harbor, Wright Schuchart Harbor Company, Yamas Controls Group Inc., Zurn Industries, Llc, for ASBESTOS in the District Court of San Francisco County.
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Preview
oD mem DN DH B® YW N = co Oe YN KD A BR YN N N YP N NY Nw NY YY WY oy HRA BF BH Bw S SEDGWICK, DETERT, MORAN & ARNOLD LLP CHARLES SHELDON (Bar No. 155598) MARC BRAINICH (Bar No. 191034) ELECTRONICALLY One Market Plaza Steuart Tower, 8th Floor FILED San Francisco, California 94105 Superior Court of California, Telephone: (415) 781-7900 County of San Francisco Facsimile: (415) 781-2635 SEP 01 2010 Attomeys for Defendant a erk ofthe. & “our GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO LAWRENCE HAGEN, CASE NO. CGC-10-275582 Plaintiff, GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR vs. DAMAGES AND JURY DEMAND ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF (ASBESTOS) CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants. Defendant GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (“Defendant”) answers the unverified complaint of plaintiff for personal injury as follows: Under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure Section 431.30, Defendant denies each and every and all of the allegations of said complaint and denies that Plaintiff sustained damages in the sum or sums alleged, or in any other sum, or at all. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that said complaint and each cause of action therein fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant. _ SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that the causes of action, if any, attempted to be stated and set forth in Mt SR/1718620v1 -1- GE'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINToO me NDR WH FB WY DH wy NM NON NY ON NN NY kW oc IY KH A BR YW HN S&S S said complaint are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations, including, but not limited to, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure sections 335.1, 338, 340.2 and 361. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that the causes of action, if any, attempted to be stated and set forth in said complaint are barred in whole or in part by the equitable doctrines of waiver, estoppel, and laches. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that Plaintiff and others were negligent or otherwise at fault in and about the matters referred to in said complaint, and that such negligence and/or other fault bars or diminishes Plaintiff's recovery against Defendant. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that Plaintiff was solely negligent in and about the matters alleged in said complaint and that such negligence on the part of Plaintiff was the sole legal cause of the injuries and damages complained of by Plaintiff, if any there were. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that Plaintiff assumed the risk of the matters referred to in said complaint, that Plaintiff knew and appreciated the nature of the risk, and that Plaintiff voluntarily accepted the risk. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant is informed-and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff misused and abused the products referred to in said complaint, and failed to follow instructions, and that such misuse, abuse and failure to follow instructions on the part of Plaintiff proximately caused and contributed to the injuries and damages complained of in said complaint, if any there were. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that if Plaintiff sustained injuries attributable to the use of any product manufactured, supplied, or distributed by this answering Defendant, which allegations are Ht SE/1718629v1 -2- GE'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT } | iexpressly denied, the injuries were solely caused by and attributable to the unreasonable, unforeseeable, and inappropriate purpose and improper use which was made of the product. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that if there was any negligence proximately causing the injuries or damages sustained by Plaintiff, if any, such negligence, if any, was solely that of Defendants, firms, persons, or entities other than Defendant. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that there is no privity between Plaintiff and Defendant. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that it gave no warranties, either express or implied, to Plaintiff and that neither Plaintiff nor others ever notified Defendant of any claims of breach of warranty, if any there were. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that said complaint and each cause of action therein is barred with respect to Defendant by the provisions of the Workers Compensation Act, including but not limited to Sections 3600, 3601, and 5300 of the Labor Code of the State of California. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that if there was any negligence proximately causing the injuries or damages, if any, sustained by Plaintiff, such negligence, if any, is collateral negligence, as that term is used and defined in Restatement 2d Torts, Section 426 and derivative authority. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that at the time of the matters referred to in the complaint, Plaintiff was employed by an employer other than this answering Defendant and was entitled to and received workers’ compensation benefits from his employers; and that if there was any negligence proximately causing the injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff, if any, such negligence, if any, was that of Plaintiffs employers. it Mit SF/1718629v1 ~3- GE'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINTFIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs claims, and each of them, and this action, are preempted by federal statutes and regulations governing work place exposure to asbestos. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that the products referred to in said complaint, if manufactured by Defendant at all, were manufactured in strict compliance with reasonably precise United States government specifications, and that the hazards associated with use of the products, if any, were known equally to the federal government and Defendant. Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988). SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that to the extent said complaint purports to state a cause of action or basis for recovery under Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories (1990) 26 Cai.3d 588, it is barred by Plaintiff's failure to join as Defendants the manufacturers of a substantial share of the asbestos products market, to which asbestos products Plaintiff was allegedly exposed, thereby causing the damages alleged; and, should it prove impossible to identify the manufacturer of the product that allegedly injured Plaintiff, said purported claim or cause of action is barred by the fault of Plaintiff and his agents in making identification of the manufacturer impossible. EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that, to the extent said complaint purports to state a cause of action or basis for recovery upon lack of identification of the manufacturer of the alleged injury-causing product, it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in that Plaintiff has asserted claims for relief which, if allowed, would contravene this Defendant’s constitutional rights to substantive due process of law, as preserved. by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and by Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution of the State of California. NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that said complaint, to the extent that it seeks exemplary or punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3294, violates Defendant’s right to procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and SE/718629v1 -4- GE'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINTArticle I, Section 7 of the Constitution of the State of California, and therefore fails to state a cause of action upon which either punitive or exemplary damages can be awarded. TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that said complaint, to the extent that it seeks punitive or exemplary damages pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3294, violates Defendant’s right to protection from “excessive fines” as provided in the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 17 of the Constitution of the State of California, and violates Defendant’s right to substantive due process as provided in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of California, and therefore fails to state a cause of action supporting the punitive or exemplary damages claimed. TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that said complaint, and each cause of action therein, fails to state facts sufficient to warrant an award of punitive or exemplary damages against this Defendant. TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that at all relevant times, Plaintiff's employers were sophisticated users of asbestos-containing products, and that said employers were aware of the dangers, if any, of asbestos-containing products, and that said employers’ negligence in providing the products to their employees in a negligent, careless and reckless manner was a superseding intervening cause of Plaintiff's injuries, if any. TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that at all relevant times Plaintiff was a sophisticated user of ashestos- containing products, that Plaintiff was aware, or should have been aware, of the dangers, if any, of asbestos-containing products, and that the sophisticated user doctrine is a complete bar to Plaintiff's claims against Defendant as a matter of law. Johnson v. American Standard, Inc. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 56. TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that the “peculiar risk” doctrine is not applicable to the causes of action _attempted to be stated and set forth against Defendant, because the injuries and damages SF/1718629v} -5- GE'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINTcomplained of in the complaint, if any, arose in the course and scope of Plaintiff's employment by an independent contractor. TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that Plaintiff is barred from recovery in that all products produced by this Defendant were in conformity with the existing state-of-the-art, and as a result, these products were not defective in any manner. TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that the causes of action, if any, attempted to be stated and set forth in said complaint for negligence per se are barred by California Labor Code Section 6304.5, and derivative authority. TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that Plaintiff failed to exercise due diligence to mitigate his losses, injuries or damages, if any, and, accordingly, the amount of damages to which Plaintiff is entitled, if any, should be reduced by the amount of damages which otherwise would have been mitigated. TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that it had no knowledge, either actual or constructive, and by the application of reasonable, developed human skills and foresight had no reason to know of the propensities, if any, of any product allegedly manufactured, supplied, applied and/or sold by this Defendant to cause or contribute to the creation of medical conditions or circumstances involving alleged injuries to the lungs, respiratory and cardiovascular systems, including cancer, mesothelioma, or any other illness of any type whatsoever. TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Défendant alleges that the provisions of California Civil Code Section 1431.2 are applicable to the Complaint and each cause of action therein. THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that unforeseen and unforeseeable acts and omissions by others constitute a superseding, intervening cause of Plaintiff's injuries, if any. SF/1718629vi -6- GE'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINTro Oe NN HR RB BY Ne NY NY NH BB NY BN DR et oR AA BF BD NH Be DO oO YW DH BRB WN KF THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that each of Plaintiff's claims, and this entire action, are preempted by all applicable federal jaw relating to railroads, their equipment, and/or alleged injuries and. damages arising therefrom, including but not limited to the Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act, 49 U.S.C. sections 20701 et seq. THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The matters alleged in said complaint are encompassed within and barred by a settlement and release agreement reached by the parties, which operates as a merger and bar against any further litigation on matters raised or potentially raised in connection with the settlement and release. THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE To the extent that Plaintiff has reached an accord with Defendant regarding this litigation and this accord was then properly satisfied, the claims, causes of action, theories of liability and matters alleged in said complaint are barred by the doctrine of accord and satisfaction. THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant contends that Plaintiff has released, settled, entered into an accord and satisfaction, or otherwise compromised his claims herein, and accordingly, said claims are barred. THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The claims asserted in said complaint have-been settled, compromised or otherwise discharged-and Defendant is due a set off. THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE To the extent that Plaintiff has previously filed a dismissal in court dismissing with prejudice all of his asserted claims, causes of action , and other theories of liability against Defendant, the matters alleged in said complaint are barred by retraxit. THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs claims herein are barred based on the primary right and res judicata doctrines, it SF/I718629v1 ~7- GE'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINTco Be we NW DR HB WN i eon wy YN YN NR WY VY oe NY A A B Bw NSN SF S CO ef YA A RB BN which prohibit splitting a single cause of action into successive suits, and seeking new recovery for injuries for which the plaintiff was previously compensated by alleged joint tortfeasors. THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that the causes of action, if any, attempted to be stated and set forth in said complaint are barred by applicable statutes of repose, including statutes of repose in other states that are applicable to this action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 361. PRAYER WHEREFORE, Defendant prays: 1. That Plaintiff take nothing by reason of said complaint; 2. That Defendant be awarded costs of suit herein and such other and further relief as the court deems just; 3. That if Defendant is found liable, the degree of the responsibility and liability for the resulting damages be determined, and that Defendant be held liable only for that portion of the total damages in proportion to its liability for the same. JURY DEMAND GE hereby demands a trial by jury in the above-entitled action and estimates that the length of trial will be six to eight weeks in duration. DATED: August 27, 2010 SEDGWICK, DETERT, MORAN & ARNOLD LLP Marc Brainich Attorneys for Defendant GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY SE/L718629¥1 -8- GE'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINToU me ND OH BR YN PROOF OF SERVICE Lam a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action. My business address is Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold LLP, One Market Plaza, Steuart Tower, 8th Floor, San Francisco, California 94105, On the date executed below, I electronically served the document(s) via LexisNexis File & Serve described as: DEFENDANT GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND JURY DEMAND (ASBESTOS) on the recipients designated on the Transaction Receipt located on the LexisNexis 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 September 1, 2010, at San Francisco, California. FAooahes Sheila Pings? SF/1639543v1PROOF OF SERVICE