Answer: LAURANCE HAGEN VS. ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                CHRISTOPHER B. BRUNI, SBN 116521
ROBERT W. LAWTON, SBN 259779

SINUNY BRON UT a0 ELECTRONICALLY
ine street, Suite
San Francisco, CA 94104-3311 FILED
Telephone: 415.362.9700 . Superior Court of Californta,
Facsimile: 415.362.9707 County of San Francisco
ebruni@sinunubruni.com AUG 13 2010
rlawton@sinunubruni.com Clerk of the Court
BY: JUDITH NUNEZ
Attorneys for Defendant Deputy Clerk

TIMEC COMPANY, INC.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

LAURANCE HAGEN, Case No.: CGC-10-275582
Plaintiff, DEFENDANT TIMEC COMPANY, INC.’S
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S
Vv. COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY
ASBESTOS

ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF

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

Trial Date: Not assigned.

eee

Defendants.

COMES NOW defendant, TIMEC COMPANY, INC. (hereinafter “Responding

Defendant”) and files its answer to the Complaint of Plaintiff LAURANCE HAGEN.
I. DEFINITION

Whenever "Plaintiff" is used in this answer, its reference embraces each Plaintiff
named in any Complaint in response to which some or all of this Answer has been adopted,
individually and collectively, plus the words, " and each of them," as well as Plaintiffs, when
relevant.

Il. GENERAL DENIAL

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 431.30, this Responding

Defendant files its general denial to said Complaint, and denies generally and specifically,

1

DEFENDANT TIMEC COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY -
ASBESTOSeach and every allegation and cause of action in said Complaint, and in this connection, this
Defendant denies that Plaintiff has been injured or damaged in the sums set forth, or in any
other sums, or in any manner whatsoever by reason of any alleged product of, any product
allegedly sold by, carelessness, negligence and/or any alleged act, conduct or omission on the
part of this Responding Defendant.
III. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Responding Defendant hereby pleads and sets forth separately and distinctly the
following affirmative defenses to each and every allegation and cause of action of Plaintiff's
complaint:
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Failure to State Cause of Action
Alleged Against Plaintiff

This Responding Defendant states that neither the Complaint nor any alleged cause of
action therein states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this Responding
Defendant.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Violation of Statute of Limitations
Alleged Against Plaintiff

This Responding Defendant states that the Complaint and any alleged cause of action
therein, is barred by the applicable statute of limitations stated in the California Code of Civil
Procedure, including but not limited to Sections 338(a), 338(d), 338.1, 339(1), 340(a), (b),
and (c), 340(3), 340.2 (a)(1)(2), (b), (e)(1)(2), 350, 353, 357, 360.5 and California
Commercial Code Section 2725.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Alleged Against Plaintiff

This Responding Defendant states that the Complaint and any alleged cause of action
therein are barred by laches due to Plaintiff's unreasonable delay in commencing said action
without any good cause therefore, and further, as a direct and proximate result of such delay,
this Responding Defendant has been prejudiced.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2

DEFENDANT TIMEC COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY -
ASBESTOSDenial of Successor/Predecessor Liability
Alleged Against Plaintiff

This Responding Defendant denies any and all 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," subsidiary,
wholly or partially owned, by or the whole or partial owner of or member in any entity
researching, studying, manufacturing, fabricating, designing, labeling, assembling,
distributing, leasing, buying, offering for sale, selling, inspecting, servicing, installing,
contracting or installation, repairing, marketing, warranting, rebranding, manufacturing for
others, packaging and advertising a certain substance, the generic name of which is asbestos.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Lack of Legal Capacity
Alleged Against Plaintiff

This Responding Defendant states that Plaintiff lacks legal capacity to sue, is not a
real party in interest, and is thereby precluded from any recovery whatsoever as prayed for
herein.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Failure to Join Adequate Defendants
Alleged Against Plaintiff

This Responding Defendant states that the Complaint, and each cause of action
thereof, is barred by the California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 389, in that Plaintiff has
failed to join in this action a party or parties in whose absence complete relief cannot be
accorded among defendants herein, causing this Responding Defendant exposure to a
substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
ack of Privity
Alleged Against Plaintiff

This Responding Defendant states that at all times and places alleged in the

Complaint, Plaintiff was not in privity of contract with this Responding Defendant, and said

lack of privity bars recovery herein upon any theory of warranty.

HW]

3

DEFENDANT TIMEC COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY -
ASBESTOSEIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Contribution of Plaintiff's Negligence

Alleged Against Plaintiff

Plaintiff was negligent in and about the matters alleged in the Complaint and each and
every alleged cause of action therein. Such negligence proximately caused and contributed
to, in whole or in part, the incidents, injuries, losses and damages alleged. In the event
Plaintiff is awarded any damages, the amount of such should be reduced by the comparative
fault of Plaintiff and any person whose negligent acts or omissions are imputed to Plaintiff.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Consent of Plaintiff
Alleged Against Plaintiff

Plaintiff acknowledged, ratified, consented to and acquiesced in the alleged acts or
omissions, if any, of this Responding Defendant, thus barring Plaintiff from any relief as
prayed for herein.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Failure to Mitigate
Alleged Against Plaintiff

Plaintiff failed to exercise due diligence to mitigate the loss, injury or damages
alleged herein. 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
and Plaintiff is barred from any recovery of any injury or damages suffered thereby.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff's Knowledge of Hazard
Alleged Against Plaintiff

Plaintiff was advised, informed, and warned of any purported hazards and/or dangers,
if any, associated with the normal or foreseeable use, handling, and storage of the products,
substances, and equipment described in the Complaint. Plaintiff knew, or in the exercise or
ordinary care should have known, of the purported risks and hazards involved in the
undertaking alleged, but nevertheless freely, voluntarily and unreasonably consented to
assume such purported risks and hazards incident to said undertaking and conduct, at the
time and place alleged in said Complaint, all of which proximately caused and contributed to

4

DEFENDANT TIMEC COMPANY, INC.*S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY -
ASBESTOSany loss, injury or damages alleged.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Sophisticated User
Alleged Against Plaintiff

Plaintiff was advised, informed, and warned of any purported hazards or dangers, if
any, associated with the use and misuse, handling and mishandling, and proper and improper
storage of the products, substances, and equipment described in the Complaint, and was
sophisticated in the use and misuse of such products, including products situated near
plaintiff's work. Plaintiff knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known, of
the purported risks and hazards involved in working adjacent to, or in the general vicinity of,
such hazardous substances, but nevertheless freely, voluntarily and unreasonably consented
to assume such purported risks and hazards incident to said undertaking and conduct, at the
times and places alleged in said Complaint, all of which proximately caused any loss, injury
or damages alleged. Because of his sophistication and knowledge of such risks, his voluntary
presence near such hazardous substances was a superseding cause of his injuries, barring
recovery from adjacent workers installing, removing or otherwise disturbing such products.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Injury Caused by Actions of Others Outside Control of Defendant
Alleged Against Plaintiff

Any alleged loss, injury or damage incurred by Plaintiff was proximately caused by
the negligent or willful acts or omissions of parties or others whom Defendant neither
controlled nor had the right to control, and was not proximately or legally caused by any acts,
omissions or other conduct of Responding Defendant.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Negligence of Other Entities Caused Injury
Alleged Against Plaintiff

At the time of the injuries alleged in the Complaint, parties other than this
Responding Defendant were negligent in and about the matters referred to in said Complaint,
and such negligence proximately and concurrently contributed to any loss or damage,
including non-economic damages, alleged by Plaintiff. This Responding Defendant shall not

5 :

DEFENDANT TIMEC COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY -
ASBESTOSbe liable for said parties’ proportionate share of non-economic damages.

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Entities Not Named Caused the Alleged Injuries
Alleged Against Plaintiff

It is alleged that the sole or partial proximate cause of the injuries, losses, or damages
claimed was the fault, negligence, and/or strict liability of other named defendants, and
persons, firms, or entities not specifically named-in the Complaint. In the event of a finding
of any against this Defendant by way of judgment, settlement, or otherwise, this Responding
Defendant requests that an apportionment of fault among all parties be made by the court or
jury, and that a judgment and declaration of partial or total indemnification and contribution
against all other parties be made in accordance with such apportionment of fault, Further, in
the event of a finding of liability against this Responding Defendant, this Responding
Defendant shall be liable only for the amount of non-economic damages allocated to
Defendant in direct proportion to Defendant's percentage of fault in accordance with the Civil
Code Section 1431.2.

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Action is in Violation of Labor Code
Alleged Against Plaintiff

The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the matters alleged in said Complaint
in that each alleged cause of action against this Responding Defendant is barred by the
provisions of California Labor Code, Section 3600 (a) and (b); 3601 (a), (b), (c); and
3602(a), the special employer doctrine. Responding Defendant additionally alleges in this
affirmative defense that federal industrial insurance laws operate to bar prosecution of this

action against this Defendant.

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Employer Negligence Caused the Alleged Injuries
Alleged Against Plaintiff

This Responding Defendant states that at the time of the injuries alleged in the
Complaint, Plaintiff's employers were negligent in and about the matters alleged, and that

such negligence proximately and concurrently caused and/or contributed to any loss, injuries
6

DEFENDANT TIMEC COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY -
ASBESTOSor damages, including non-economic damages alleged by Plaintiff. This Responding

Defendant is not liable for said employers' proportionate share of non-economic damages.

EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Knowing Acts of Plaintiff's Employer
Caused the Alleged Injuries
Alleged Against Plaintiff

Plaintiff's employers voluntarily and knowingly entered into and engaged in the
operations, acts and conduct alleged in said Complaint, and voluntarily and knowingly
assumed the risks incident to said operations, acts and conduct at the time and place alleged
in the Complaint. The operations, acts and conduct of Plaintiffs employer was the cause of
the injuries alleged in the Complaint, and this Responding Defendant is not liable or at fault
for such injuries. ©

NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Judgment to be Reduced by Workers' Compensation Benefits
Alleged Against Plaintiff

At all times material herein, Plaintiff was employed by various employers, the names
of which are currently unknown to this Responding Defendant, and was working within the
course and scope of his employment. Each such employer and Plaintiff was subject to the
provisions of the Workman's Compensation Act of the State of California which entitled
Plaintiff to receive Workers' Compensation benefits from such employers. Certain sums
have been paid to or on behalf of Plaintiff under the applicable provisions of the Labor Code
of the State of California. Each such employer was negligent and careless in and about the
matters alleged in the Complaint and such negligence and carelessness proximately and
concurrently contributed to and caused the incidents complained of and injuries and damages
alleged. Any judgment rendered in favor of Plaintiff must be reduced, as a set-off, by any
benefits or payments made or to be made by the employer or the employers’ compensation
carrier under authority of Witt v. Jackson (1961) 57 Cal.2d 57.

In the event Plaintiff is awarded damages against Defendant, this Responding

Defendant claims a credit against such award to the extent that Defendant is barred from

7

DEFENDANT TIMEC COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY -
ASBESTOSenforcing its rights to reimbursement for Workers' Compensation benefits that Plaintiff has
received or may in the future receive.

Although this Responding Defendant denies the validity of Plaintiff's claims, in the
event those tort claims are held valid and not barred by the statute of limitations or otherwise,
Defendant asserts that cross-demands for money have existed between Plaintiff and
Defendant and the demands are compensated, so far as they equal each other, pursuant to
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 431.70.

TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Products Conformed With Existing Safety Knowledge
Alleged Against Plaintiff

Plaintiff is barred from recovery in that all products formulated, sold, distributed or
produced by this Responding Defendant were in conformity with the existing state-of-the-art
applicable at the time of their manufacture, sale, formulation or distribution, and thus, such
products were not defective in any manner.

TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Products Were Unforeseeably Misused
Alleged Against Plaintiff

The products sold or distributed and referred to in the Complaint were properly
designed, manufactured, and fit for the purpose for which they were intended. Said products
were improperly maintained, misused, and/or abused by Plaintiff and/or others and
proximately caused Plaintiff's alleged damages, thus barring recovery herein. Such misuse,
abuse or improper maintenance was not reasonably foreseeable to this Responding
Defendant.

TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Negligent Product Use by Sophisticated Employers
Was Proximate, Superseding Cause of Alleged Injuries
Alleged Against Plaintiff
This Responding Defendant states that the Plaintiff is barred from recovery herein,
because of modification, alteration or change in some other manner, of the product(s) alleged
in Plaintiff's Complaint. All of Plaintiff's employers were sophisticated users of asbestos-
8

DEFENDANT TIMEC COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY -
ASBESTOScontaining products and said employers’ negligence in providing such equipment and
material to its employees in an altered, modified, negligent, careless and reckless manner was
a superseding intervening cause of Plaintiff's alleged injuries.

TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Failure to warn Plaintiff by Plaintiff's Sophisticated
Employers Caused the Alleged Injuries
Alleged Against Plaintiff

This Responding Defendant states that the Plaintiff's employer or employers, by
reason of advice, information, warnings, and use, handling and storage information given to
them, and/or by reason of their long standing and continuous experience with the products,
substances, and equipment alleged, are and were sophisticated users, handlers, and storers of
any and all such products, substances, garments and equipment, and thus acquired a separate
and affirmative duty to warn, advise and inform Plaintiff of any potential harmful effects
from the mishandling, misstorage, and/or misuse of the subject property, if any. Each such
employer failed to so warn Plaintiff and thereby breached said duty. Such failure and breach
directly and proximately caused all damages, injuries, and losses alleged.

TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Failure to State Market Share Cause of Action
Alleged Against Plaintiff

This Responding Defendant states that the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to

constitute a cause of action against this Defendant, to the extent it asserts and bases a claim

‘market share," or “enterprise liability."
Tp!

TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Failure to Join a Substantial Share of the
Market Defeating Market Share Theory
Alleged Against Plaintiff

upon "alternative,

This Responding Defendant has never possessed a substantial percentage of the
market for the asbestos-containing products which allegedly caused Plaintiff's injuries.
Further, Plaintiff has failed to join in this action Defendants representing a substantial share
of said market. Therefore, this Responding Defendant shall not be liable to Plaintiffs based

on its alleged percentage share of the applicable market.
9

DEFENDANT TIMEC COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY -
ASBESTOS27

28

TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Liability Absent Identification Violates
Constitutional Rights
Alleged Against Plaintiff

The Complaint, and each cause of action therein, which is admittedly based upon a
lack of identification of the manufacturer of 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 this Responding Defendant's constitutional rights to
substantive and procedural due process and equal protection laws as required by the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and by Article I, Section 7 of the
Constitution of the State of California, and further, if granted would constitute the taking of
private property for public use without just compensation and would deprive this Responding
Defendant of its property in contravention of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 7 and 19 of the Constitution of the State of
California, and the applicable California statutes.

TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Actions of Defendant Conformed to Existing Knowledge
And So Were Not Negligent
Alleged Against Plaintiff

Plaintiff is barred from recovery in that all actions taken by this Responding
Defendant that involved the handling, disturbing, manipulation or dissemination, if any, of
asbestos were done in conformity with the existing state-of-the-art applicable at the time of
such acts, and thus, such actions were not negligent, and no liability can result.

TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff Was Directed by Contractor
That Was Not Controlled by Defendant
Alleged Against Plaintiff

. This Responding Defendant is not liable for any injury to Plaintiff, the existence of
which injuries is denied, in that Plaintiff was employed by others as an independent
contractor or worked for an independent contractor hired by this Defendant or its contractors,

during any time at which he worked at a site ostensibly controlled by this answering
10

DEFENDANT TIMEC COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY -
ASBESTOSDefendant, and this Responding Defendant did not in any fashion direct the manner in which
Plaintiff's job duties were accomplished, nor control the environment in which those job
duties were accomplished.

TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant is not Liable Because of
Lack of Control of Work Site
Alleged Against Plaintiff

This Responding Defendant is not liable for any of Plaintiff's injuries and damages,
the existence of which is denied, pursuant to the holding of the Court in Privette y. Superior
Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, and the case that follow Privette in that this Defendant was not
negligent, did not control Plaintiff's activities, and did not cause Plaintiff's injuries.

THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant Has No Liability Because Defendant
Retained Independent Contractor Employer of Plaintiff
Alleged Against Plaintiff

If Plaintiff has developed any injury, which this Responding Defendant denies, as a
result of being the employee of a sub-contractor retained by this Responding Defendant, his
exclusive remedy is workers' compensation, in that this Responding Defendant has no
liability for any negligence of Plaintiff's employer, nor any liability for negligence of any
other sub-contractors on the site, and this Responding Defendant effectively provided the
payments for any workers' compensation policy in effect to provide compensation to
Plaintiff.

THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant is Not Liable Because of
Knowledge of Hazard by Controlling Entity -
Alleged Against Plaintiff

Any work performed by this Responding Defendant in the capacity of a contractor or
general contractor was conducted according to the specifications of the entity that owned or
controlled the site of any relevant actions, and under the direction and supervision of persons ,
and entities that owned or controlled the site, which entities had equal or superior knowledge

regarding asbestos and the potential health effects of asbestos-containing products, and

1

DEFENDANT TIMEC COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY -
ASBESTOSsuperior knowledge regarding the potential for the presence of asbestos on properties owned
or controlled by those entities, which entities should be responsible for any injuries incurred
by Plaintiff. This Responding Defendant is not liable for any injuries to Plaintiff because of
the lack of control of the site, and lack of superior knowledge regarding hazards at the site.

THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff's Status as Borrowed Employee"
Limits Remedies to Workers' Compensation
Alleged Against Plaintiff

At the time that Plaintiff incurred his alleged injuries, which injuries are disputed by

this Defendant, he was working in the capacity of a "borrowed employee", and his remedies

against this Responding Defendant are limited to workers' compensation remedies.

THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Complaint Fails to State Cause of Action
For Punitive Damages
Alleged Against Plaintiff

This Responding Defendant states that neither the Complaint nor any alleged cause of
action therein states facts sufficient to allow Plaintiff an award of punitive damages.

THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Imposition of Punitive Damages
Would Constitute Criminal Fine or Penalty
Alleged Against Plaintiff

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 1, Section 10 of the United States Constitution and further, if granted would
contravene this Responding Defendant's constitutional right to be free of excessive fines as
set forth in the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
An Award of Punitive Damages Would Be
In Violation of California Law
Alleged Against Plaintiff
Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages against this Responding Defendant should not

be sustained, because an award of punitive damages under California law by a jury that (1) is
12

DEFENDANT TIMEC COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY -
ASBESTOSnot provided a standard of sufficient clarity for determining the appropriateness, or the
appropriate size, of a punitive damages award, (2) is not instructed on the limits of punitive
damages imposed by the applicable principles of deterrence and punishment, (3) is not
expressly prohibited from awarding punitive damages, or determining the amount of an
award of punitive damages in whole or in part, on the basis of invidiously discriminatory
characteristics, including the corporate status of this Responding Defendant, (4) is permitted
to award punitive damages under a standard for determining liability for punitive damages
that is vague and arbitrary and does not define with sufficient clarity the conduct or mental
state that makes punitive damages permissible, and (5) is not subject to judicial review on the
basis of objective standards, would violate this Responding Defendant's due process and
equal protection rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment as incorporated into the
Fourteenth Amendment and the California Constitution's provisions providing for due
process, equal protection, and guaranty against double jeopardy.

THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Action Violates Labor Code Section 6304.5

. 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.

THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
No Failure To Warn

Responding Defendant alleges that, as ruled in Taylor v. Elliott Turbomachinery Co.,
Inc., (2009) 171 Cal. App.4th 564, Responding Defendant was under no legal duty to warn
Plaintiff of the dangers inherent in asbestos-containing materials manufactured by others that
may have been used in or with Responding Defendant's products.

THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Not in Chain of Distribution

Responding Defendant alleges that, as ruled in Taylor v. Elliott Turbomachinery Co.,

Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 564, Responding Defendant was not a part of the manufacturing
13

DEFENDANT TIMEC COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY -
ASBESTOSor marketing enterprise, or chain of distribution, of the allegedly defective product(s) that
allegedly caused the injury in question.

THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Component Parts

Responding Defendant is not liable for other manufacturers’ allegedly defective
component part(s) that may have been used in or with its product, under the component parts

doctrine, as ruled in Taylor v. Elliott Turbomachinery Co., Inc., (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 564.

IV. PRAYER
WHEREFORE, this Responding Defendant prays:
1. That Plaintiffs take nothing by this Complaint;
2 That judgment be entered in favor of Defendant;
3. For recovery of Defendant's costs of suit;
4 For appropriate credits and set-offs arising out of any payment of Workers'
Compensation benefits as alleged above;
5. For appropriate credits and set-offs arising from allocation of liability to other
named and unnamed tortfeasors; and
6. For such other and further relief as the court deems just and’ proper.
V. NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
631, this Responding Defendant

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Proceduya.§

hereby gives notice of its request for trial by jury.
Dated: August 4, 2010

CHRISTOPHER B. BR!
ROBERT W. LAWTON

’ Attorneys for Defendant
TIMEC COMPANY, INC.

14

DEFENDANT TIMEC COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY -
ASBESTOSPROOF OF SERVICE

Laurance Hagen vy. Associated Insulation of California, et al.,
San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-10-275582

I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the above-captioned matter.
My business address is 333 Pine Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, California 94104-3311,
where the service described below took place on the date set forth below.

Person(s) Served:

Electronic Service: On the date executed below, I electronically served the
document(s) via LexisNexis File & Serve described below on recipients designated

x on the Transaction Receipt located on the LexisNexis File & Serve website.

Document(s) Served:

DEFENDANT TIMEC COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY- ASBESTOS

Manner of Service:

Personal Service: I caused a copy of each document served to be hand delivered
to each person served pursuant to CCP § 1011. If required, the actual server’s
original Proof of Service wiil be filed with the Court.

Mail: | am readily familiar with my employer’s practice for the collection and
processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service:
such correspondence is deposited with the United States Postal Service on the same
day in the ordinary course of business in the county where I work. On the date set
forth below, at my place of business, following ordinary business practices, | placed
for collection and mailing by deposit in the United States Postal Service a copy of
each document served, enclosed in a sealed envelope, with postage thereon fully
prepaid, each envelope being addressed to one of the person(s) served, in
accordance with C.C.P. § 1013(a).

Facsimile: On the date set forth below, I transmitted the document(s) served via
facsimile transmission to the facsimile number(s) set forth above. A confirmation
report was generated confirming completed delivery of the same. A copy of the
confirmation report is on file and available for inspection and copying upon
request.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

foregoing is true and correct. Lo C
Dated: August 13, 2010

Ingrid #arlsson

PROOF OF SERVICE