Answer: LAURANCE HAGEN VS. ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                1 || FILICE BROWN EASSA & McLEOD LLP
SUSAN A. OGDIE (SBN: 050016)
2 || JENNIFER WALKER (SBN: 118451}

Lake Merritt Plaza ELECTRONICALLY
3 || 1999 Harrison Street, Eighteenth Floor
Oakland, California 94612-3541 sopekr IL ED.
4 || Tel: (510) 444-3131 County of San Francisco
Fax: (510) 839-7940 AUG 03 2010
5
Attorneys for Defendant oclerk of the Court
COSCOL PETROLEUM CORPORATION Deputy Clerk

6
On behalf of the former COASTAL WEST VENTURES, INC.
7

8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
10
11 |] LAURENCE HAGEN, Case No. CGC-10-275582
12

Plaintiff, DEFENDANT COSCOL PETROLEUM
13 v. CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR
14 || ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF PERSONAL INJURY — ASBESTOS
CALIFORNIA, et al.,

15
16 Defendants. Complaint filed: June 2, 2010
17
18 H
19
20 Defendant COSCOL PETROLEUM CORPORATION on behaif of the former COASTAL

21 || WEST VENTURES, INC, (hereinafter “Defendant”), answers Plaintiff LAURENCE HAGEN’s
22 || (hereinafter “Plaintiff’) unverified Complaint for Personal Injury — Asbestos, San Francisco

23 || Superior Court Case No. CGC-10-275582 (hereinafter “the Complaint’), as follows:

24 GENERAL DENIAL

25 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 431.30(d), Defendant denies

26 || generally cach and every allegation of the Complaint; and specifically denies that Plaintiff was
27 || injured in any way and in any amount as a result of any conduct or lack of conduct by Defendant.

ag fifli
FBE&M le

(axe Mannie Lars
1999 skeen STREET

omer 008 DEFENDANT COSCOL PETROLEUM CORPORATION’S ANSWER
wows TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS

PHONE S19444.51311 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 The Complaint, and each of its causes of action, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a
3 || cause of action against this Defendant.

4 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

5 Plaintiff lacks standing to maintain this action on one or more causes of action asserted in
6 || the Complaint.
7 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

8 Plaintiff's alleged injuries, losses, or damages, if and to the extent they occurred, which
9 || occurrences are expressly denied, were caused solely by Plaintiffs own recklessness, carelessness,
10 |] and/or negligence.

IL FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

12 Plaintiff's alleged injuries, losses, or damages, if and to the extent they occurred, which

13 |] occurrences are expressly denied, were aggravated by Plaintiffs own failure to use reasonable

14 || diligence to mitigate them.

15 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

16 Plaintiff's alleged injuries, losses or damages, if and to the extent they occurred, which

17 || occurrences are expressly denied, were contributed to by Plaintiff's own recklessness, carelessness,
18 || and/or negligence.

19 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

20 Plaintiff's claims are barred by the statutes of limitations of the laws of the jurisdiction(s)
21 |} deemed applicable to Plaintifi’s claims, including but not limited to California Code of Civil

22 |} Procedure §§ 335.1, 338, 340, 340.2, 340.8.

23 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

24 Plaintiff failed to give adequate and timely notice of his claims against this Defendant; and
25 || such lack of notice and unreasonable delay has prejudiced the rights of Defendant, thereby barring

26 || this action pursuant to the doctrine of laches.

27 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

28 Plaintiffs alteged injuries, losses, or damages, if and to the extent they occurred, which
FBEGM “wn *
rrenmeen DEFENDANT COSCOL PETROLEUM CORPORATION’S ANSWER

GARLAND C4 94RTZIEAT

PuONE $10,446.13 TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS.1 || occurrences are expressly denied, pre-existed or were suffered after any alleged employment
2 || relationship, direct or indirect, between Plaintiff and Defendant, and said injuries or illnesses were

3 || neither caused nor exacerbated by said employment.

4 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
5 Plaintiff's alleged injuries, losses, or damages, if and to the extent they occurred, which

occurrences are expressly denied, were caused solely by the fault or faults of third parties for which

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

6
7 || Defendant is not responsible.
8
9

Plaintiff's alleged injuries, losses, or damages, if and to the extent they occurred, which
10 jj occurrences are expressly denied, were contributed to by the fault or faults of third parties for
1L || which Defendant is not responsible.

12 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

13 Plaintiffs alleged injuries, losses, or damages, if and to the extent they occurred, which

14 || occurrences are expressly denied, were aggravated by conduct and actions of third parties for

15 {| which Defendant is not responsible.

16 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

17 Plaintiff's claims are barred by the applicable principles of waiver, unclean hands, and

18 || estoppel.

19 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

20 Plaintiff assumed the risk of any injury, loss, and/or damages resulting from the matters set

21 || forth in the Complaint insofar as those matters relate to Defendant; and said assumption of risk by
22 || him was a proximate and/or legal cause of whatever injuries and/or damages he sustained, to the

23 }| extent Plaintiff sustained any such injuries, loss or damages, the occurrence of which is expressly

24 || denied.
25 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26 Plaintiff's alleged injuries, losses, or damages, if and to the extent they occurred, which

27 || occurrences are expressly denied, were caused or contributed to, in whole or in part, by the

28 || negligence of Plaintiff's employer or employers other than Defendant, should Defendant be
FBEGM ‘.
axe Manes Paz

ierenicH F008 DEFENDANT COSCOL PETROLEUM CORPORATION'S ANSWER
aan SA tee TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS

Doane S10464 31911 || determined under California or other applicable state or foreign law, to have been Plaintiff's

2 || employer; and to the extent that Plaintiff has received, or in the future will receive, worker’s

3 || compensation benefits for such illnesses, injuries, and/or losses, Defendant is entitled to a

4 || comparative reduction in any economic damages sought or recovered by Plaintiff in this action.
5 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

6 To the extent that Defendant is determined under California or other applicable state or

7 || foreign law to have been Plaintiff's employer. Plaintiff's claims for recovery of damages for the
8 || illnesses, injuries and/or losses alleged in this Complaint, if and to the extent such illnesses, injuries

9 || and/or losses occurred, which occurrences are expressly denied, are subject to the exclusive

10 |} jurisdictional provisions of the California Worker’s Compensation Act and/ or the jurisdictional
11 |} exclusivity provisions of the worker’s compensation laws of the sister state(s) and/or foreign

12 || nation(s) deemed applicable to the claims asserted by Plaintiff herein; and this court lacks subject
13 || matter jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff's claims.

14 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

15 If Plaintiff's claims, or any of them, were litigated and resolved in any prior action or

16 || proceeding, Plaintiffs claims in this action are barred by reason of the doctrines of primary right,
17 || res judicata, and/or collateral estoppel, which prohibit splitting a single cause of action into

18 || successive suits in which Plaintiff seeks additional recovery for injuries for which Plaintiff

19 || previously was compensate by one or more alleged joint tortfeasors.

20 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

21 To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to recover in this action punitive or exemplary damages

22 || from Defendant for any alleged acts or failure to act, Plaintiff's claims for punitive damages violate
23 || Defendant’s right to due process and equal protection as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment
24 || to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 7, of the Califomia Constitution in that: (1)
25 || neither California Civil Code Section 3294 nor any other provision of California or federal law

26 |) provides an adequate or meaningful standard for determining the nature of the conduct upon which
27 |) an award of punitive or exemplary damages may be based or for determining or reviewing the

28 |} amount of a punitive or exemplary damages award; and (2) neither California Civil Code Section
FBEGM .

LAKE MERRITT PLAZA
1959 Hanauson SALLE

oe DEFENDANT COSCOL PETROLEUM CORPORATION’S ANSWER

HOWE 512.446.3031 TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS3294, nor any other provision of California or federal law provides adequate procedural safeguards
for the imposition of punitive or exemplary damages, including, but not limited to:
(a) imposing such damages only upon the presentation of evidence beyond a reasonable
doubt;
(b) __ protecting Defendant's privilege against self-incrimination; and
(c) providing for a unanimous jury verdict as to the punitive or exemplary damages
portion of any adverse judgment.
EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff's alleged injuries, illnesses, and/or losses, if and to the extent said injuries, illnesses

cS 2 Oe YD HW RY

and/or losses occurred, which occurrence is expressly denied, were caused solely by the faults of
11 |] persons with custody of, and/or in privity with, Plaintiff for which this Defendant is not
12 || responsible.

13 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

14 Plaintiffs alleged injuries, illnesses, and/or losses, if and to the extent said injuries, illnesses
15 || and/or losses occurred, which occurrence is expressly denied, were contributed to by the faults of
16 || persons with custody of, and/or in privity with, Plaintiff for which this Defendant is not

17 || responsible.

18 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

19 Plaintiff’ s alleged injuries, illnesses and/or losses, if and to the extent such injuries and/or
20 |} losses occurred, which occurrence is expressly denied, were aggravated by the failure of persons
21 || with custody of, and/or in privity with, Plaintiff to use reasonable diligence to mitigate those

22 || injuries, illnesses and/or losses.

23 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

24 If Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment against Defendant and the remaining defendants, or any
25 || of them, Defendant prays that this Court order each of the judgment debtors to pay to Plaintiff that
26 || judgment debtor’s proportionate share of the joint judgment as determined by the trier-of-fact; and
27 || if Defendant is required to pay to Plaintiff a disproportionate share of such judgment, Defendant

28 || prays leave of this Court to seek contribution by motion against any other judgment debtor not
FBE&M 5.

[LARS MERRITT PLAZA
1999 HARANON STAEET

eee DEFENDANT COSCOL PETROLEUM CORPORATION’S ANSWER
TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS

Poole Sf0.466.303¢nu fF ww WN

FBE&M

(as Mammen LATA
1399 HAKRISON STREET
Eau: FLoue
OARcAMM CA 94512-3541
PHONE S19446.3137

paying the proportionate share allocated to any such defendant by the trier-of-fact.
TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATAIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff, his authorized representatives, or those with legal authority to act on his behalf,
including but not limited to his employers, acknowledged, ratified, consented to, and acquiesced in
the alleged acts and/or omissions, if any there were, of Defendant, thus barring Plaintiff from any
relief as sought in this Complaint.

TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

To the extent that Plaintiff has pled, or has attempted to plead, a claim for punitive damages
as to Defendant, the Complaint, and each of its causes of action, fails to state facts sufficient to
state a claim for such damages against Defendant under federal law and/or under the law of those
jurisdictions determined to be applicable to the Complaint, including, but not limited to, the laws of
the State of California.

TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

To the extent that Plaintiff's causes of action asserted against Defendant are based on an
allegedly defective product or products (the existence of which Defendant expressly denies)
allegedly supplied by Defendant (the occurrence of which events Defendant further expressly
denies), said product(s) was/were altered by Plaintiff, by others around him, or by those in privity
with him and/or in control of his environment, including but not limited to his employers, after said
product or products left Defendant’s possession.

TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

To the extent that Plaintiff's causes of action asserted against Defendant are based on an
allegedly defective product or products (the existence of which Defendant expressly denies)
allegedly supplied by Defendant (the occurrence of which events Defendant further expressly
denies), said product(s) was/were misused by Plaintiff, by others around him, or by those in privity

with him and/or in control of his environment, including but not limited to his employers.

TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

At all times relevant to the matters alleged in the Complaint, cach of Plaintiff's employers

(other than Defendant, should Defendant be determined to have been an employer of Plaintiff) was
-6-

DEFENDANT COSCOL PETROLEUM CORPORATION’S ANSWER
TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSyD

oo

FBE&M

Lake Manna Pua
1995 Haguason STREET
stowrenvrit FicoR
OAKLAND CA 9451200541
PHONE 510448 515

a sophisticated user of products which contained asbestos materials, and those employers’
negligence in providing alleged asbestos-containing products to Plaintiff and/or to their other
employees in a negligent, careless and reckless manner, and/or in permitting Plaintiff and/or their
other employees to manipulate, repair, remove or otherwise utilize alleged asbestos-containing
products in a manner that generated respirable asbestos-containing dust, acted as an intervening
and superseding cause of Plaintiff's alleged injuries, illnesses, and/or losses, if and to the extent
that such injuries, illnesses and/or losses occurred (which occurrence is expressly denied by
Defendant); and such conduct by Plaintiff's employers eliminates any liability on the part of
Defendant to Plaintiff, should such liability be found to have initially existed.

TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff's alleged injuries, illnesses and/or losses, if and to the extent such injuries,
illnesses and/or losses occurred, which occurrence is expressly denied, were caused or contributed
to, in whole or in part, by the negligence of Plaintiff's employers (other than Defendant, should
Defendant be determined to have been an employer of Plaintiff), expressly including agencies and
subdivisions of the Government of the United States of America; and to the extent that Plaintiff has
received, or in the future will receive, any form of federal or state worker’s compensation and/or
disability benefits, United States veteran’s medical and/or disability benefits, and/or public or
private retirement benefits, provided by any agency of the United States Government, including
but not limited to the United States Department of Labor and the United States Department of
Veterans’ Affairs, or by any State agency, bureau or commission, for such injuries, illnesses and/or
losses, Defendant is entitled to set off any such benefits received, or to be received in the future, by
Plaintiff or any representative or designated beneficiary of him, against any judgment which may
be rendered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant.

TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 395, et seq., this action is
improperly venued in the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, State of
California.

iti
-T-

DEFENDANT COSCOL PETROLEUM CORPORATION’S ANSWER
TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSeo me ND HM F&F BW NH |

co

11

FBE&M

Laws MERRIAT PLAZA
1995 Hameison STASET

TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

To the extent that the Complaint, with and through its Attachments, asserts that Defendant

is the same as, or the alter ego for, any entity identified by any name other than “Coastal West

Ventures, Inc.,”” Defendant denies liability for any acts or omissions of any such entity.

WHEREFORE, defendant COSCOL PETROLEUM CORPORTION, on behalf of the
former COASTAL WEST VENTURES, INC., prays for relief as follows:

1. That Plaintiff ROBERT MOITOZA takes nothing by this Complaint against
COSCOL PETROLEUM CORPORTION or the former COASTAL WEST VENTURES, INC.;

2. That judgment be entered in favor of COSCOL PETROLEUM CORPORATION
and the former COASTAL WEST VENTURES, INC. and against Plaintiff ROBERT MOITOZA;

3. That COSCOL PETROLEUM CORPORATION and the former COASTAL WEST
VENTURES, INC. be awarded costs of suit herein; and

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

DATED: August "2, 2010 FILICE BROWN EASSA & McLEOD LLP

COSCOL PETROLEUM
CORPORATION (appearing on behaif of
the former COASTAL WEST
VENTURES, INC.)

-8-

DEFENDANT COSCOL PETROLEUM CORPORATION’S ANSWER
TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS1 PROOF OF SERVICE

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

lam a citizen of the United States, over 18 years of age and not party to the within action. I
am employed in the county of Alameda; my business address is 1999 Harrison Street, Eighteenth
Floor, Oakland, California 94612-3541.

wv

6 On the date listed below, I served the within documents:
7

DEFENDANT COSCOL PETROLEUM CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY — ASBESTOS

9 || On all parties in this action, as addressed below, by causing a true copy thereof to be distributed as
follows:

David R. Donadio, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff
11 || RonG. Archer, Esq.

BRAYTON*#PURCELL

12 |] 222 Rush Landing Road

P. O. Box 6169

13 || Novato, CA 94948-6169

Tel: (415) 898-1555

15 ALL COUNSEL VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION
(SEE PLAINTIFF'S SERVICE LIST PROVIDED TO LEXIS NEXIS)

I caused a true and correct copy of such document(s) to be

[x] VIA ELECTRONIC electronically served on counsel of record by transmission
18 SERVICE to Lexis-Nexis File and Serve.

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

Executed on August\ , 2010, in Oakland, California.

23 1 2 (\ 7
24 J. Hastings

28
FBE&M

ans Murneee PLAZA
F400 HARRISON SrREET

EIGHTEENTH FLCOR
‘Oancawo CA 94412-3541
PHome 510464 313

PROOF OF SERVICE