Answer: LAURANCE HAGEN VS. ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                ~~

FRANK D. POND (BAR NO. 126191)
KEVIN D. JAMISON(BAR NO. 222105)

ARASH NEMATOLLAHI(BAR NO. 225306) ELECTRONICALLY
POND NORTH LLP FILED
350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3300 Superior Court of California,
Los Angeles, CA 90071 County of San Francisco
Telephone: (213) 617-6170 AUG 16 2010

Facsimile: (213) 623-3594 Clerk of the Court

. BY: RAYMOND K. WONG
Attorneys for Defendant CBS Corporation, a Deputy Clerk

Delaware corporation, f/k/a Viacom Inc., successor
by merger to CBS Corporation, a Pennsylvania
corporation, f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation.
(sued as CBS Corporation (f/k/a Viacom Inc., f/k/a
Westinghouse Electric Corporation))

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNTA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

LAURENCE HAGEN, Case No: CGC-10-275582
Plaintiff, ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL
INJURY - ASBESTOS
vs.
ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF Case Filed: June 2, 2010

CALIFORNIA; et al.,

Defendants.

Defendant CBS Corporation, a Delaware corporation, f/k/a Viacom Inc., successor by
merger to CBS Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation, f/k/a Westinghouse Electric
Corporation (sued as CBS Corporation (f/k/a Viacom Inc., f/k/a Westinghouse Electric
Corporation)) (“Westinghouse”), answers Plaintiff's unverified Complaint on its own behalf and
on behalf of no other defendant as follows:

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 431.30(d), Westinghouse denies
generally each and every allegation of the Complaint.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Neither the Complaint nor any purported cause of action alleged by the Plaintiff therein

states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Westinghouse.

Hil

4520-3028:606902.1~~

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
To the extent the Complaint asserts Westinghouse's alleged "market share" liability, or
“enterprise liability,” the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action
against Westinghouse.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Neither the Complaint nor any purported cause of action alleged therein states facts
sufficient to entitle Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages against Westinghouse,
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The imposition of any punitive damages in this matter would deprive Westinghouse of its
property without due process of law under the California Constitution and United States
Constitution.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The imposition of any punitive damages in this matter would violate the United States
Constitution's prohibition against laws impairing the obligation of contracts.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The imposition of any punitive damages in this matter would constitute a criminal fine or
penalty and should, therefore, be remitted on the ground that the award violates the United States
Constitution.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s action, and each alleged cause of action, is barred by the applicable statute of
limitations, including but not limited to California Code of Civil Procedure, Sections 335.1, 338,
339, 340(3), 340.2, 343, 353, 366.1, 377.34 and 474 and California Commercial Code, Section
2725 and including any applicable statute of limitation and/or statute of repose of the state of
Plaintiff's residence if not California.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff unreasonably delayed in bringing this action, without good cause therefor, and
thereby have prejudiced Westinghouse as a direct and proximate result of such delay;

accordingly, this action is barred by laches.

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY — ASBESTOS

4520-3028:606902.1~~

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff was negligent in and about the matters alleged in the Complaint and in each
alleged cause of action; this negligence proximately caused, in whole or in part, the damages
alleged in the Complaint. In the event Plaintiff is entitled to any damages, the amount of these
damages should be reduced by the comparative fault of Plaintiff and any person whose negligent
acts or omissions are imputed to Plaintiff.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff knowingly, voluntarily and unreasonably undertook to encounter each of the
risks and hazards, if any, referred to in the Complaint and each alleged cause of action, and this
undertaking proximately caused and contributed to any loss, injury or damages incurred by
Plaintiff.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Any loss, injury or damages incurred by Plaintiff were proximately caused by the
negligent or willful acts or omissions of parties whom Westinghouse neither controlled nor had
the right to control, and was not proximately caused by any acts, omissions or other conduct of
Westinghouse.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The products referred to in the Complaint were misused, abused or altered by Plaintiff or
by others; the misuse, abuse or alteration was not reasonably foreseeable to Westinghouse, and
proximately caused any loss, injury or damages incurred by Plaintiff.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Westinghouse alleges that its products 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 Plaintiff on the Complaint on file herein is barred in consequence of the exercise of

those sovereign powers.
Mf
Ul

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY — ASBESTOS

4520-3028:606902.1~~

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff failed to exercise due diligence to mitigate their loss, injury or damages;
accordingly, the amount of damages to which Plaintiff is entitled, if any, should be reduced by
the amount of damages which would have otherwise been mitigated.

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the matters alleged in the Complaint
because the Complaint and each alleged cause of action against Westinghouse is barred by the
provisions of California Labor Code, Section 3601, ef seg.

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Westinghouse alleges that at the time of the injuries alleged in the Complaint, Plaintiff
was employed and they were entitled to receive Workers’ Compensation benefits from their
employer; that Plaintiff's employer, other than Westinghouse, was negligent in and about the
matters referred to in said Complaint, and that such negligence on the part of said employer
proximately and concurrently contributed to the happening of the accident and to the loss or
damage complained of by Plaintiff, if any there were, and that by reason thereof Westinghouse is
entitled to set off any such benefits to be received by Plaintiff against any judgment which may
be rendered in favor of Plaintiff.

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Discovery may show that at the time of the injuries alleged in the Complaint, Plaintiff
was employed by and entitled to Workers' Compensation benefits from Westinghouse; such
benefits constitute Plaintiff exclusive remedy pursuant to Labor Code section 3600 ef seq.

EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Westinghouse alleges that at the time of the injuries alleged in the Complaint, Plaintiffs
employers were negligent in and about the matters referred to in said Complaint, and that such
negligence on the part of said employers proximately and concurrently contributed to any loss or
damage, including non-economic damages, complained of by Plaintiff, if any there were; and
that Westinghouse is not liable for said employers’ proportionate share of non-economic

damages.

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY — ASBESTOS

4520-3028:606902.1~~

NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Westinghouse alleges that at the time of the injuries alleged in the Complaint, parties
other than Westinghouse were negligent in and about the matters referred to in said Complaint,
and that such negligence on the part of said parties proximately and concurrently contributed to
any loss or damage, including non-economic damages, complained of by Plaintiff, if any there
were; and that Westinghouse herein shall not be liable for said parties' proportionate share of
non-economic damages.

TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Westinghouse alleges that at all times relevant to matters alleged in the Complaint,
Plaintiff's employer was a sophisticated user of asbestos-containing products and the employer's
negligence in providing the product to its employees in a negligent, careless and reckless manner
is a superseding cause of Plaintiff's injuries.

TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Tf Plaintiff had received, or in the future may receive, Workers' Compensation benefits
from Westinghouse under the Labor Code of the State of California as a consequence of the
alleged industrial injury referred to in the Complaint, and in the event that Westinghouse is held
liable to Plaintiff, any award against Westinghouse must be reduced in the amount of all such
benefits received by Plaintiff.

TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

If Plaintiff had received, or in the future may receive, Workers' Compensation benefits
from Westinghouse under the Labor Code of the State of California as a consequence of the
alleged industrial injury referred to in the Complaint, and in the event Plaintiff is awarded
damages against Westinghouse, Westinghouse claims a credit against this award to the extent
that Westinghouse is barred from enforcing its rights to reimbursement for Workers’
Compensation benefits that Plaintiff has received or may in the future receive.

TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
if Plaintiff had received, or in the future may receive Workers' Compensation benefits

from Westinghouse under the Labor Code of the State of California as a consequence of the

5

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY — ASBESTOS
4520-3028:606902.1~~

alleged industrial injury referred to in the Complaint, Westinghouse demands repayment of any
such Workers' Compensation benefits in the event that Plaintiff recovers tort damages as a result
of the industrial injury allegedly involved here. Although Westinghouse denies the validity of
Plaintiff's claims, in the event those claims are held valid and not barred by the statute of
limitations or otherwise, Westinghouse asserts that cross-demands for money have existed
between Plaintiff and Westinghouse and the demands are compensated, so far as they equal each
other, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 431.70.
TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

At all times and places in the Complaint, Plaintiff was not in privity of contract with
Westinghouse and said lack of privity bars Plaintiffs recovery herein upon any theory of
warranty.

TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff is barred from recovery in that all products produced by Westinghouse 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

Westinghouse did not and does not have a substantial percentage of the market for the
asbestos-containing products which allegedly caused Plaintiffs injuries. Therefore,
Westinghouse may not be held liable to Plaintiff based on Westinghouse’s alleged percentage
share of the applicable market.

TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Westinghouse denies any and all liability to the extent that Plaintiff asserts
Westinghouse's alleged liability as a successor, successor in business, successor in product line
or a portion thereof, assign, predecessor, predecessor in business, predecessor in product line or a
portion thereof, parent, alter ego, equitable trustee, subsidiary, wholly or partially owned by, or
the whole or partial owner of or member in an entity researching, studying, manufacturing,
fabricating, designing, labeling, assembling, distributing, leasing, buying, offering for sale,

selling, inspecting, servicing, installing, contracting for installation, repairing, marketing,

6

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY — ASBESTOS
4520-3028:606902.1~~

warranting, rebranding, manufacturing for others, packaging and/or advertising products which
contain asbestos.
TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Westinghouse had no knowledge that any of the alleged activities of which Plaintiff
complains, and which allegedly were conducted on premises owned by Westinghouse, were
unsafe or dangerous, and Westinghouse therefore did not have a duty to warn Plaintiff regarding
any such alleged dangers.

TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Westinghouse alleges that it was under no legal duty to warn Plaintiff of the hazards
associated with the use of products containing asbestos. Westinghouse further alleges that the
purchasers of said products, Plaintiff's employer/s, his union/s or certain third parties yet to be
identified, were knowledgeable and sophisticated users and were in a better position to warn
Plaintiff of the risks 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.

THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Westinghouse alleges that no conduct by or attributable to it was the cause in fact or the
proxunate cause of the damages, if any, suffered by Plaintiff, nor a substantial factor in bringing
about said damages.

THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Westinghouse alleges that its liability, if any, in this matter is extremely minor relative to
the liability of various third parties and, therefore, the damages, if any, assessed against it should
be proportionate to the degree, nature and extent of its fault.

THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff herein has failed to join indispensable parties and the complaint is thereby

defective, and Plaintiff is thereby precluded from any recovery whatsoever as prayed for herein.
Mt
iif

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY — ASBESTOS

4520-3028:606902.1~~

THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Westinghouse alleges that if Plaintiffs claims were already litigated and resolved in any
prior action, Plaintiff’s claims herein are barred based on the primary right and res judicata
doctrines 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-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 378 and 430.10(d), if it is
determined that multiple Plaintiffs have been listed on this complaint, then Westinghouse
contends the Plaintiffs are misjoined. Because joinder is defective and improper, and defendants
will be prejudiced by having to proceed against different Plaintiff with dissimilar cases, a single
trial is unfair and a hardship, and separate trials on each individual cause of action should be
ordered.
THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The matters alleged in this 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-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
To the extent that Plaintiff has previously filed a dismissal in court dismissing all of its
asserted claims, causes of action, and other theories of liability against Westinghouse with
prejudice, the matters alleged in this complaint are barred by retraxit.
THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
To the extent that Plaintiff has reached an accord with Westinghouse regarding this
litigation and this accord was then properly satisfied, the claims, causes of action, theories of
liability and matters alleged in this complaint are barred by the doctrine of accord and

satisfaction.

iif

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY — ASBESTOS

4520-3028:606902.1~~

THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Westinghouse contends that if Plaintiff has released, settled, entered into an accord and
satisfaction, or otherwise compromised his claims herein, and accordingly, said claims are
barred.
THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The claims stated in Plaintiff's Complaint have been settled, compromised or otherwise
discharged and Westinghouse is due a set off
FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Westinghouse alleges that another action is pending or has been adjudicated between the
parties on the same claims alleged in this action, and therefore, pursuant to Section 430.10{c) of
the Code of Civil Procedure, this action is duplicative and vexatious and cannot be maintained.
FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Westinghouse asserts that California Code of Civil Procedure Section 361 is a bar to this
action because Plaintiff's claims arose in another state and by the laws of that state an action
cannot be maintained by reason of the lapse of time, and as a consequence, cannot be maintained
in this state.
FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Westinghouse alleges that substantial justice requires that, pursuant to Section 410.30 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, this action be dismissed or stayed because the facts alleged in the
Complaint occurred outside of California and California is not the appropriate forum for the
action.
FORTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Westinghouse alleges that all or some of the claims and/or legal issues raised in the
Complaint are governed by the substantive laws of a state other than California.
FORTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Westinghouse alleges that it was under no legal duty to warn Plaintiff of the hazards
associated with the use or handling of products containing asbestos, or of their existence at any

premises owned, operated, controlled by Westinghouse or where products were otherwise

9

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY — ASBESTOS
4520-3028:606902.1~~

claimed to be provided by Westinghouse. Westinghouse further alleges that Plaintiff was a
knowledgeable and sophisticated user and had or should have had knowledge of the potential
hazards associated with using products containing asbestos. Plaintiff's knowledge of the potential
hazards associated with using products containing asbestos resulted in Plaintiff assuming the risk
and being the proximate and superseding cause of Plaintiff's damages, if any. Johnson v.
American Standard (2008) 43 Cal 4th 56.
FORTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Westinghouse alleges that any liability it is claimed to have for equipment or products it
manufactured, distributed or supplied does not extend to or include any liability for any
parts affixed to, added to, combined with, and/or used with any of Westinghouse’s equipment or
products, which parts were manufactured, supplied, and/or distributed by a third party.

FORTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Westinghouse alleges that any liability it is claimed to have for equipment or products it
manufactured, distributed or supplied does not extend to or include any liability for any
replacement and/or component parts for such equipment or products, which replacement and/or
component parts were manufactured, supplied, and/or distributed by a third party.

FORTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Because of the generality of the allegations in the Complaint, Westinghouse reserves the
right to amend its answer and affirmative defenses if investigation, discovery and further
information should warrant such amendment, and, further, to assert any applicable matters of law
during the pendency of this action.

WHEREFORE, Westinghouse prays:

1, That the complaint be dismissed or judgment be rendered in favor of
Westinghouse and that Plaintiff take nothing thereby;

2. For its costs of suit;
iif
Mf
Ul

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY — ASBESTOS

4520-3028:606902.1~~

3, For appropriate credits and setoffs arising out of any payment of Workers'
Compensation benefits as alleged above; and
4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

DATED: August 16, 2010 POND NORTH LLP

By: _/s/ Arash Nematollahi

ARASH NEMATOLLAHI
Attorneys for Defendant CBS Corporation, a
Delaware corporation, f/k/a Viacom Inc., successor
by merger to CBS Corporation, a Pennsylvania
corporation, f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporatio
(sued as CBS Corporation (f/k/a Viacom Inc., f/k/a
Westinghouse Electric Corporation))

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY — ASBESTOS

4520-3028:606902.1~~

PROOF OF SERVICE

I declare that | am over the age of eighteen (18) and not a party to this action. My
business address is 350 South Grand Avenue Suite 3300, Los Angeles, CA 90071.

On August 16, 2010, 1 served the following document(s): ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
FOR PERSONAL INJURY — ASBESTOS on the interested parties in this action as follows:

By E-Service: I electronically served the above document(s) via LexisNexis File & Serve
on the recipients designated on the Transaction Receipt located on the LexisNexis File &
Serve website.

Executed: August 16, 2010

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

(Federal) [declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court
at whose direction the service was made.

/s/ Susan M. Combs
Susan M. Combs
4520-3028

4520-3028:606902.1