Answer: LAURANCE HAGEN VS. ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                2

3

4

3

6

7

8

9

0

J

2

2.

BEA 1S
mi 7
8

19

20

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Menpatiaéastgs332608e 1

P. GERHARDT ZACHER (SBN: 043184)
THOMAS. A. PACKER (SBN: 104767)

LINDA.M. MORONEY (SBN: 172668) ELECTRONICALLY

GORDON & REES LLP FILED

275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 Superior Court of California,

San Francisco, CA_94111 County of San Francisco

Telephone: (415) 986-5900

Facsimile: (413) 262-3789 AUG 12 2010

Email: gzacher@gordonrees.com BY: VANESSA WU
tpacker(@gordonrees.com Deputy Clerk
imoroney@gordonrees.com

Attomeys for Defendant

3M COMPANY

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA ~
COUNTY-OF SAN FRANCISCO

LAWRANCE HAGEN, ) CASENO. CGC 10-275582
)
Plaintiff, ) DEFENDANT 3M COMPANY’S
) ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S
VS. ) COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL
}
)
)
)
)

INJURY — ASBESTOS:
ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF
CALIFORNIA, et al, Action Filed: June 2, 2010
Trial. Date: Not Set

Defendants.

COMES NOW 3M COMPANY’, and in response to Plaintiff's complaint, and each and
every cause of action allegedly set forth therein, answers, alleges, and denies as follows:
L
3M denies each and every, all and singular, generally and specifically, the allegations
contained in the complaint, and each and every cause of action allegedly set forth therein, as they
may apply to.3M.
i.
Further answering the complaint, and each and every cause of action allegedly set forth
therein, 3M denies that it was legally responsible in any respect whatsoever for the
circumstances and happenings, as alleged therein, or at.all, and denies that it was negligent

and/or careless in any respect whatsoever, as alleged therein, or at ail, and denies that Plaintiff:

TO PLAINNFGordon & Rees LLP
295 Battery Street, Suite 2000

‘Say Francisco, CA 94147

CS Ce Be YD mh OR Rm

Oo 8 ND ow & wR

Bo N RB ow i
BOR RR BSR B

has been damaged in the manner set forth in the complaint and cach. and every cause of action
allegedly set forth therein.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS AND FOR A FIRST, SEPARATE AND. DISTINCT DEFENSE TO SAID
UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, Plaintiff is barred from recovery because 3M owed no duty to
Plaintift.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS. AND FOR A SECOND, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO SAID
UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, Plaintiffs complaint and causes of action therein fail to state
facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against 3M.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS. AND FOR A THIRD, SEPARATE AND.DISTINCT DEFENSE TO SAID
UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, Plaintiff is barred from recovery against 3M because there is no
causal connection between any conduct of 3M and any alleged loss or damage. that Plaintiff
contends he sustained.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A FOURTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO SAID
UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, Plaintiff's conduct and activity has been such that his claims
against 3M are barred by-estoppel.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND-FOR A FIFTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO SAID
UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, Plaintiff's claims are a nullity for failure of commencement. of
suit:

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR.A SIXTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO SAID
UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, Plaintilf failed to join a party or the parties necessary for a just

adjudication of this matter and has further omitted to-state any reasons for such failure.

SANSWER TO PLAINTIFE”Gordon & Rees LLP

278 Battery Street, Suite 2800

San Francisco, CA 94111

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO.SAID
UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, Plaintiffs complaint and the.causes of action therein are barred
by the statutes of limitation and repose of California and any other relevant state, including but
not limited to the limitations set forth in sections 340.2(a)(1), 340.2(a)(2), 340.2(c)(1),
340.2(¢)(2) and 361 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO SAID
UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, Plaintiff unreasonably delayed in bringing this action against’3M
and such delay substantially prejudiced 3M. Therefore, this action.is barred by the doctrine of
laches.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A NINTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO SAID
UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, at all times and places mentioned in the complaint, Plaintiff failed
to make reasonable efforts to mitigate. injuries and damages, if any there were.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS AND FOR A TENTH; SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO SAID

UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, 3M is informed and believes that Plaintiff is unable to identify
many of the actual manufacturers. of the products that allegedly caused the injury that forms the
basis of the complaint and that said manufacturers were entities other than 3M. Therefore, 3M
may not-be held liable for Plaintiff's injuries, if any there were.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS. AND FOR.AN ELEVENTH, SEPARATE AND.DISTINCT DEFENSE TO SAID
UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, Plaintiff acknowledged, ratified, consented to, and acquiesced in.
the alleged-acts or omissions, if any there were, of 3M, thus barring Plaintiff from any relief as
prayed for in the complaint.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS AND FOR A TWELFTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO SAID

MLINIURY- ASBESTOSGordon & Rees LLP
278 Battery Street, Suite 2000

Sah Francisco, CA 94111

UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, Plaintiff released, settled, entered into an-accord'and satisfaction,
or otherwise compromised his claims, and accordingly, his-claims-are barred by operation of law;
alternatively, Plaintiffaccepted compensation as partial settlement of his claims’for whith 3M is
entitled to a set-off:
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A THIRTEENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO SAID
UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, Plaintiff's claims:are preempted in whole or in part by federal
and/or state statutes and/or regulations.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A FOURTEENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO SAID
UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, 3M is informed and believes that any injuries, damages and/or
logs Plaintiff may have sustained were a direct, proximate and sole result. of Plaintiffs physical
condition-on, prior to, and/or after the events Plaintiffset forth in the complaint.

RIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A FIFTEENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO SAID
UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, Plaintiff himself was careless and negligent in and about the
matters referred to‘in’the complaint and such negligence and carelessness on the part of Plaintiff.
proximately caused and contributed to the damages complained of, if any there were.

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND POR A SIXTEENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO SAID
UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, Plaintiff knew or, in the exercise of ordinary care, should have.
known of the risks and hazards involved in the undertakings in which he was engaged, as set
forth in the complaint, but nevertheless and with full knowledge of these things, did fully and
voluntarily consent to assume the risks and. hazards involved in the undertakings.

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A SEVENTEENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO SAID
UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, at all times and places mentioned in the complaint, Plaintiff

and/or other persons without 3M's knowledge or approval redesigned, modified, altered, and

SOMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS _3
Ba
2
mee
gh a
ge
se0
aE

g
Baa
Bee
Ser
Eee
Be
Wed
a

DS CS DR wm

14

used 3M's products contrary to instructions and contrary to the custom and practice of the
industry. This redesign, modification, alteration, and use so’substantially changed the. products’
character that if there was.a defect in the products ---which is specifically denied. -- such defect
resulted solely from the redesign, modification, alteration, or other such treatment or.change and
not from any act or omission by 3M. Therefore, said defect, if any, was created by Plaintiff
and/or other persons, as the case may be, and was the direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff's
alleged injuries and damages.
EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS. AND FOR. AN EIGHTEENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO SAID

UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, at all times and places mentioned in the complaint, Plaintiff

and/or other persons used 3M's products, if any were used, in-an unreasonable manner, not
reasonably foreseeable to 3M, and for'a purpose for which the products were not intended,
manufactured, or designed, Plaintiff's claimed injuries and damages were. therefore directly and.
proximately caused by his misuse and abuse of such products,
NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS. AND FOR A NINETEENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO SAID

UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, Plaintiff's employers were contributorily negligent and careless
in and about the matters alleged in the comsplaint, and such negligence and carelessness were. a
proximate cause of all injuries and. damages. Plaintiff allegedly suffered.

TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND POR. A TWENTIETH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO SAID
UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, Plaintiff's employers voluntarily and knowingly entered into and
engaged inthe operations, acts, and.conduct alleged in the complaint, and voluntarily and
knowingly assumed all of the risks incident to said operations, acts, and conduct alleged in the
complaint, and voluntarily and knowingly assumed ail of the risks incident to said operations,
acts, and conduct at the. times and places mentioned in the complaint.

TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS AND FOR A TWENTY-FIRST, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO SAID

5.

ENDANT 3M COMPANY'S ANSWER TO PL: § COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY ~ ASBESTOS —Gordon & Rees LLP

278 Battory Street, Suite 2000

San Franeiseo, CA 94111

UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, Plaintiff's employers were knowledgeable users of'any products
allegedly manufactured and supplied by 3M and any duty to warn, and/or.advise Plaintiff
regarding the. use of 3M’s products, if any, and which duty'3M specifically denies, was
superseded and/or discharged by the duty of Plaintiff's employers to do so.
TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS AND FOR A ‘TWENTY-SECOND, SEPARATE AND-DISTINCT DEFENSE TO
SAID-UINVERIFIED COMPLAINT, 3M is informed and believes that at the time of Plaintiff's

injuries, Plaintiff was employed and was entitled to and received workers’ compensation benefits
from his employers. 3M further states on information and belief that Plaintiff's employers were
negligent-and careless regarding the matters referred to in the complaint.and his employers’
negligence proximately caused or contributed to his alleged injuries and damages. Plaintiff's
employers and/or the premises owners of the locations where he worked violated provisions. of
the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, and the regulations developed and adopted
pursuant thereto, and those violations were the sole proximate cause of Plaintiff's alleged
injuries, Additionally, any damages Plaintiff alleges he sustained were the direct and proximate
result of the intentional conduct of Plaintiff's employers and/or labor union(s) and/or owners-of
the premises and/or other persons and/or entities, in failing toe properly educate, train and
supervise Plaintiff, and in failing to provide him with a reasonably safe place to work, for which
3M.is.neither responsible nor liable. Further, Plaintiff's employers assumed :the'risk of injury to

Plaintiff in that at the times and places of the subject incidents, the conditions were open and

apparent, and were fully known to Plaintiff's employers. 3M is thus entitled to a set-off of any
workers’ compensation benefits that Plaintiff received or will receive, against any judgment that

may be rendered in Plaintiff's favor.

TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS AND FOR A TWENTY-THIRD, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT. DEFENSE TO
SAID UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, 3M is not liable for any injuries alleged in the complaint

because the products allegedly manufactured and supplied by 3M were done so in accord with all

government regulations and specifications and 3M’s conduct falls within the purview and

6.

S$ COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBES

NDANT 3M COMPANY'S ANSWER TO PLAINTGordon & Rees LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000

San Francisco, CA 94111

oe we Y By mh R

protection of the government contractor defense.
EWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS FOR.A TWENTY-FOURTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO SAID

UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, if there is any negligence or liability of any of the parties named

herein, itis the sole and.exclusive negligence and Hability of the other parties, and not of 3M.
TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A TWENTY-FIFTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO.

SAID UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, in the event parties were. not reasonably and adequately

warned of potential dangers concerning misuse of the products at issue, the duty to provide the

warnings wasthat of some other person and/or entity, for which 3M is neither responsible nor

liable,
TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A TWENTY-SIXTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO
SAID UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, Plaintiff's injuries or illnesses, ifany there were, were due
to.the-acts or omissions-of a person or persons over whom 3M had neither control nor the right of
control.
TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS.AND FOR.A. TWENTY-SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO
SAID UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, if'a product for which 3M is responsible is found to have.

been involved in the subject incidents, it wil! also be found that 3M sold the product to some
other person .and/or-entity with all appropriate information and documents about the product, and
that 3M reasonably relied upon this “sophisticated user” to communicate these materials to the
ultimate users of the product, including Plaintiff.

TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A TWENTY-BIGHTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE. TO.
SAID UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, 3M alleges that Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff's employer(s)
were and are sophisticated user(s) and knew independently or should have known of any danger

or hazard associated with the.use of asbestos, the use of'a product containing asbestos, and

“JoGordon & Rees LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94118

exposure to high Jevels of dust of any sort. 3M further alleges that it warmed Plaintiff's
employer(s) of the danger or hazard, if any, associated with the use.of its product and that
Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff's. employer(s) failed. to-rely upon ‘such warning, resulting in alleged
damages due-to Plaintiff's and/or Plaintiff's employer's act of omission-and failure to act as
sophisticated users,
TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS.AND.FOR A TWENTY-NINTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO

SAID UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, while specifically and vigorously denying Plaintiff's

allegations concerning liability, injuries, and damages, to the extent that Plaintiff may be able to
prove those allegations, 3M states that they were the result of intervening acts of superseding
negligence on the part of a person or persons over whom 3M had neither-control nor the right of
control.
THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS AND FOR A THIRTIETH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO SAID
UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, Plaintiff is barred from recovering for breach of warranty because

Plaintiff was not in privity with 3M and, even if Plaintiff were in privity, 3M has disclaimed all
applicable: warranties.
THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS AND FOR A THIRTY-FIRST, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO SAID
UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, Plaintiff is barred from recovery for alleged breaches of warranty

by section 2607 of the California Uniform Commercial Code.
THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS AND-FOR A THIRTY-SECOND, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO.
SAID UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, Plaintiff has waived any and all claims sought in this action
and is estopped both to assert and to recover upon such claims.

THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR.A THIRTY-THIRD, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO.SAID
UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, any exposure of Plaintiff te and/or use. of 3M's products, which

MPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSGordon & Rees LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000.

San Francisca, CA 94111

exposure and/or use is vigorously-denied, was'so minimal as to be insufficient to establish a
reasonable degree of probability that the products caused Plaintiff's claimed injuries and
illnesses.

THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR_A THIRTY-FOURTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO.
SAID UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, the regulations adopted by OSHA pursuant to the
Occupational Safety and Health Act allowed airborne asbestos:and other dusts in Plaintiff's
workplaces below certain limits and approved the.use of certain 3M respiratory protection.
equipment for protection from dust. To the extent these regulations conflict with the law-of any
jurisdiction where any of Plaintiff's workplaces were located, any such laws are preempted by
the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

THIRTY-FIPTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A THIRTY-FIFTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO. SAID
UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, at all times alleged. in the complaint, the products Plaintiff alleges
caused his injuries were designed, manufactured, sold, distributed, labeled, and advertised in
compliance with the then existing state of the art in the industry to which 3M belonged and
further; the benefits of any such product design outweighed any risk of danger in the design; and
any such products met the safety expectations of Plaintiff and the general public.

THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR.A THIRTY-SIXTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO SAID
UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, if a product for which 3M is responsible is found to have been
involved in the subject incidents, it will also be found that the product was, at all relevant times,
safe for-nermal usage in the manner for which it was intended, the benefits of its design
outweighed any foreseeable risks, and the product was not defective.

THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A THIRTY-SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO
SAID UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, if a product for which 3M is responsible is found to have

been involved in the subject incidents, it will be found that all parties were provided reasonablyGordon & Rees LLP

275 Battery Street, Suite 2000

San Francised, CA 94118

appropriate information concerning use of the product.
THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS-AND FOR A-THIRTY-EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND. DISTINCT DEFENSE TO
SAID UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, should Plaintiff prevail against 3M, 3M's liability is ‘several
and is limited to its own actionable segment of fault, which fault is vigorously denied.
THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS AND FOR A THIRTY-NINTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO SAID

UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, Plaintiff's claims of successor liability, and association with other
entities, are neither factually nor legally supported, and, as such, Plaintiff has no claim against
3M, as asserted. To the extent any claim for relief in the complaint seeks to recover damages
against 3M for alleged acts or omissions of predecessors or successors-in-interest to 3M of any
kind or description, 3M is not legally responsible and cannot legally be held liable for-any such
acts or omissions. Further, the conduct of any predecessor or successor-in-interest cannot, as a
matter of law, provide a legal basis for liability or the imposition of damages against 3M.
FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR.A FORTIETH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO SAID

UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, Plaintiff's causes of action fail to state. a claim upon which relief

can be granted, for if relief is granted, such relief would constitute a taking of.3M’s property for
a public use without just compensation, a violation of 3M’s Constitutional rights,
FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A FORTY-FIRST, SEPARATE. AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO.SAID

UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, Plaintiff's. punitive damages claims impermissibly seek a multiple
award and/or are unconstitutionally excessive under the Contracts Clause of Article 1, section 10
of the United States Constitution; the Excessive Fines Clause ofthe Eighth Amendment.of the
United States Constitution; the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United.
States. Constitution and its counterpart under the. California Constitution; the Equal Protection of
the laws and Due Process provisions of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United

States ‘Constitution and Article 1, section 7 of the California Constitution; and the Equal

~10-Gorden & Rees LLP
275 Batiery Street, Suite 2000

San Francisca, CA S411

Protection of the laws and 3M's right to be free of Cruel and Unusual Punishment.and Excessive
Fines as guaranteed under the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution and Article L, section 7 and 17, Article TV, and section 16.of the California.
Constitution.
FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS AND FOR A FORTY-SECOND, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO
SAID UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, 3M alleges that the causes of action asserted by Plaintiff

fail to state a claim upon which relief can be: granted, or, if relief be granted, 3M's'‘Constitutional
right to substantive and procedural due process of law would be contravened.
FORTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS AND FOR A FORTY-THIRD, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO SAID
UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, 3M alleges that the causes of action asserted by Plaintiff fail to

state a claim upon which relief can be granted because such relief would constitute a.denial of
3M's Constitutional right to equal protection under the law.
FORTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS-AND FOR A FORTY-FOURTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO
SAID UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, 3M alleges that it ig not responsible for the product line or

items that Plaintiff claims that it manufactured, distributed, or sold. Rather, 3M asserts that
another entity or entities manufactured, distributed, and sold this product line and is legally.

responsible therefor.

WHEREFORE, 3M prays .that Plaintiff takes nothing by his actions, that 3M be
dismissed with costs of suit inctwred herein, and for such other and further relief as this court
deems just and proper.

GORDON & REES LLP

Dated: August iL. 2016Gordon & Rees LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000

San Fraticisca, CA 94111

PROOF OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION
Laurance Hagen v. Associated Insulation of California, ¢ al.
San Francisca Superior Court Case No, CGC 10-275582

L, Janice Walton, declare: that | am, and. was at the time of service of the documents
herein referred.to, over the age. of 18 years, and not a party to the action;-and I am employed in
the County of San Francisco, California. My business address is Gordon-& Rees LLP,
Embarcadero Center West, 275 Battery Street, 20th Floor, San Francisco, California 94111.

On the date executed below, | electronically served the document(s) via LexisNexis File

& Serve described as:

DEFENDANT 3M COMPANY’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR
PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS

on thé recipients designated on the Transaction Receipt located on the LexisNexis File & Serve
website, | declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct and was executed on August (2, 2010, at San Francisco,

California.

adsl

f Jpnice Walton.

‘sal

PROGE OF SERVICE