arrow left
arrow right
  • LAURANCE HAGEN VS. ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA ASBESTOS document preview
  • LAURANCE HAGEN VS. ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA ASBESTOS document preview
  • LAURANCE HAGEN VS. ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA ASBESTOS document preview
  • LAURANCE HAGEN VS. ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA ASBESTOS document preview
  • LAURANCE HAGEN VS. ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA ASBESTOS document preview
  • LAURANCE HAGEN VS. ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA ASBESTOS document preview
  • LAURANCE HAGEN VS. ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA ASBESTOS document preview
  • LAURANCE HAGEN VS. ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA ASBESTOS document preview 
						
                                
Preview

                                ce ey DA ek WY PD =

woR NR NM RP NR R NR RP BE Be Fe Se we we ewe Se Se
RNB A FF Re SF SCBA RH BBW KH HK TS

Jeffrey S. Gillespie, State Bar No. 192495
Ulla M. Pajala, State Bar No. 184130

BURNHAM BROWN ELECTRONICALLY
A Professional Law Corporation

P.O. Box 119 FILED
Oakland, California 94604 Superior Court of California,
ee County of San Francisco
1901 Harrison Street, 11th Floor AUG 02 2010
Oakland, California 94612 Clerk of the Court
Telephone: (510) 444-6800 BY: JUDITH NUNEZ
Facsimile: (510) 835-6666 Deputy Clerk
Attorneys for Defendant

F.W. SPENCER & SON, INC,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

LAURANCE HAGEN, No. CGC-10-275582
Plaintiff, DEFENDANT F.W. SPENCER & SON,
INC”’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF
v. LAURANCE HAGEN’S COMPLAINT
FOR PERSONAL INJURY -
ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF ASBESTOS
CALIFORNIA et al.,
Defendants. Complaint Filed: June 2, 2010

Defendant F.W. SPENCER & SON, INC. (“Defendant”), in answer to the complaint

denies generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, the allegations of said

complaint, and each cause of action thereof, and further denies that Plaintiff LAURANCE
HAGEN (“Plaintiff”) has been damaged in any sum or sums at all.

WHEREFORE, this answering Defendant asserts the following affirmative defenses:

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. Asa first affirmative defense to each cause of action, the complaint does not state
facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this Defendant.

2, Asasecond affirmative defense, each cause of action is barred by the applicable
statute of limitations, including but not limited to, California Code of Civil Procedure

sections 340.2 and 361.

1
DEFENDANT FW, SPENCER & SON, ING7S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF LAURANCE CGC-10-275582
HAGEN’S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS :Cm WR Ah RB eH YY

wR oy NR RY NON RP Be oe Ee Be RP oe Pe Be Se
ao 1 TK OA kk HB Oe SC SO Se NO ROR Oe Oe OUR US

3. Asa third affirmative defense to each cause of action, Plaintiff failed to mitigate or
make reasonable efforts to mitigate damages, if any, as required by law.

4. Asa fourth affirmative defense to each cause of action, the damages sustained by
Plaintiff, if any, were caused, in whole or in part, by the negligence, strict liability or fault of
others for which this Defendant is not liable or responsible.

5, Asa fifth affirmative defense to each cause of action, Plaintiff by actions, knew of
and appreciated the risks involved, and voluntarily and reasonably assumed the risk of said
injuries, proximately causing or contributing to the damages alleged.

6, Asasixth affirmative defense to each cause of action, if Plaintiff sustained injuries
attributable to the use of any product, which allegations are expressly denied, the injuries were
caused in whole or in part by the unreasonable, unforeseeable and inappropriate purpose and/or
improper use which was made of the product.

+. Asa seventh affirmative defense to each cause of action, Plaintiff was partially, if not
wholly, negligent or otherwise at fault on his own part pursuant to the doctrine of comparative
fault, and Plaintiff is barred from recovery of that portion of the damages directly attributable to
proportionate share of fault.

8. Asan eighth affirmative defense to cach cause of action, Defendant alleges that the
products were as safe as could be designed under the state of technology and medical and
scientific knowledge existing at the time the products were manufactured.

9. Asaninth affirmative defense to each cause of action, Defendant alleges that any
claim for punitive or exemplary damages is barred by the United States Constitution, including
the First, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, and by the California Constitution,
including Axticle I, and that Civil Code section 3294 is invalid on its face or as applied in this
action.

10. As atenth affirmative defense to cach cause of action, at the time and place of the
happening of the incident alleged in the complaint, Plaintiff was employed by various

employers, and was working within the course and scope of employment and certain sums have

2
DEFENDANT F.W. SPENCER & SON, INC.°S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF LAURANCE CGC-10-275582
HAGEN’S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSec em Ww KR HA FY BR

RoR RP RW BP NR KR ON NE Be Be oe eB Be oe Be Be
ow FT eH S&F BR OSU SE lUcCOCOlUCUCCOCUCrOUOUc TN HAOUHOUU ROUNDS

been ot will be paid under the applicable provisions of the Labor Code and any award made
must be reduced by the payments.

11,  Asaneleventh affirmative defense to each cause of action, Defendant alleges that
the action is barred under the “primary right” doctrine on the basis that causes of action may not
be split by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel and by virtue of Plaintiff's
prosecution and/or settlement of claims in prior actions.

12, Asa twelfth affirmative defense to each cause of action, Defendant alleges that if
Plaintiff worked for this answering Defendant then Plaintiff’s claim is barred by the exclusive
remedy provisions of the appropriate state or federal law.

13. Asa thirteenth affirmative defense to each cause of action, Defendant alleges that
Plaintiff was provided and/or was covered by workers’ compensation insurance by each of
employers, and Plaintiff, employer and/or employers were subject to the provisions of the
Workers’ Compensation Act of the State of California. Accordingly, Plaintiff's actions were
barred by the doctrine articulated in Privette v. Superior Court, 5 Cal. 4th 689 (1993).

14, Aga fourteenth affirmative defense to each cause of action, this Defendant
alleges that Plaintiff assumed whatever risk or hazard, if any, that existed at the time and place
of the alleged accident set forth in Plaintiff's complaint, and said assumption of risk or hazard is
imputed to said Plaintiff.

15. As a fifteenth affirmative defense to each cause of action, Plaintiff acknowledged,
ratified, consented to and acquiesced in the alleged acts or omissions, if any, of this Defendant,
thus barring Plaintiff’s recovery.

16. As asixteenth affirmative defense to each cause of action, the injuries and
damages sustained by Plaintiff, if any, were solely and legally caused by the modification,
alteration or change of the product referred to in the complaint and said modification, alteration
or change was performed by persons or entities other than this answering Defendant and without
its knowledge or consent.

17. As a seventeenth affirmative defense to each cause of action, Plaintiff and/or

employer(s) were sophisticated users and/or learned intermediaries of the products and

3
DEFENDANT FW. SPENCER & SON, INC*S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF LAURANCE CGC-10-275582
HAGEN’S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY ~ ASBESTOSeo Ba DAD A FF HB BP

RP KR RR BR NON ON ON BP ee Se Se oe SE SE Uc LUcElUlU
oe a am Sk SF NB Se SF &— Be Ww DH F BW NY HB SF

equipment referred to by Plaintiff in the complaint. Accordingly, Defendant owed no duty to
plaintiff with respect to any warning relating to Defendant’s products.

18. Asan eighteenth affirmative defense to each cause of action, the injuries and
damages sustained by Plaintiff, if any, were solely and legatly caused by the modification,
alteration or change of the product referred to in the complaint and said modification, alteration
or change was performed by persons or entities other than this answering Defendant and without
its knowledge or consent.

19. As anineteenth affirmative defense to each cause of action, Defendant presently
has insufficient knowledge or information on which to form a belief as to whether it may have
additional, as yet unstated, defenses available. Defendant reserves herein the right to assert
additional defenses in the event discovery indicates that they would be appropriate.

20, Asa twentieth affirmative defense to each cause of action, the provisions of the
“Bair Responsibility Act of 1986” (commonly known as Proposition 51, Civil Code sections
1430, 1431, 1431.1, 1431.2, 1431.3, 1431.4, 1431.5 and 1432) are applicable to this action to the
extent that Plaintiff's injuries and damages, if any, were legally caused or contributed to by the
negligence or fault of persons or entities other than this answering Defendant.

21, As a twenty-first affirmative defense to each cause of action, the asbestos
products, if any, for which Defendant may have any legal responsibility were manufactured,
packaged, distributed, and/or sold in accordance with contract specifications imposed by Co-
Defendant, by the U.S. Government, by Plaintiff's employers, and/or by third parties yet to be
identified, —

22. As a twenty-second affirmative defense to each cause of action, Plaintiff's
complaint, and each cause of action therein, is barred by the doctrine of laches.

23, As a twenty-third affirmative defense to each cause of action, Plaintiff's
employers were partially, if not wholly, negligent, or otherwise at fault on their own part
pursuant to the doctrine of comparative negligence, and Plaintiff should be barred from recovery
of that portion of the damages directly attributable to Plaintiff's employers’ proportionate share

of the negligence or fault. Witt v. Jackson, 57 Cal. 2d 57 (1961).

4
DEFENDANT FW. SPENCER & SON, INC°S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF LAURANCE CGC-10-275582
HAGEN’S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSec eu DR Hh ee BN Oe

wy oR BR NR RP NR ON NR NR BP oe Be oe Be eB Se Be eB oe
S&S 8S & ® € FS 8 = SF Ce AA HA BF BH BP SH ST

24. As atwenty-fourth affirmative defense to each cause of action, Plaintiff's
complaint, and each cause of action therein, is vague, ambiguous, unintelligible and uncertain.

25. As atwenty-fifth affirmative defense to each cause of action, Plaintiff has failed
to join all persons and parties needed for a just adjudication of this action.

26. As atwenty-sixth affirmative defense, with respect to some or all of Plaintiff's
alleged claims and causes of action, this Court lacks jurisdiction.

27. As atwenty-seventh affirmative defense, with respect to some or all of Plaintiff's
alleged claims and causes of action, in the interest of substantial justice, the action should be
heard in a forum outside this state.

WHEREFORE, this answering Defendant prays for judgment as follows:

1, That Plaintiff take nothing by reason of the complaint on file herein;

2. For costs of suit incurred herein; and

3. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

DATED: August 2, 2010 BURNHAM BROWN

By. IN
. JER §, GILLESPIE

Attorneys for Defendant
F.W, SPENCER & SON, INC.

1020196

5
DEFENDANT F.W. SPENCER & SON, INC2S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF LAURANCE CGC-10-275582
HAGEN’S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSRe: Laurance Hagan v. Associated Insulation of California, et al.
Court: San Francisco Superior Court
Action No: CGC-10-275582

PROOF OF SERVICE OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE

I, declare that I am over the age of 18, not a party to the above-entitled action, and
am an employee of Burnham Brown whose business address is 1901 Harrison Street,
11" Floor, Oakland, Alameda County, California 94612 (mailing address: Post Office
Box 119, Oakland, California 94604).

On the date executed below, | electronically served the document(s) via
LexisNexis File & Serve described as:

DEFENDANT F.W. SPENCER & SON, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF
LAURANCE HAGAN’S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS

on 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 foregoing is true and correct and was executed on August 2, 2010 at
Oakland, California. en een