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

                                yw Oo nN A RH BF WN

=
o

11

Joanne Rosendin, Esq., SBN: 121025

SACK ROSENDIN, LLP

One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 340 ELECTRONICALLY

Oakland, California 94612

Telephone: (510) 286-2200 FILED
Superior Court of California,

Attorneys for Defendant, County of San Francisco

PARSONS INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGY GROUP INC. JUL 23 2010
Clerk of the Court
BY: WILLIAM TRUPEK

Deputy Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
LAURANCE HAGEN, NO, CGC-10-275582
Plaintiff, PARSONS INFRASTRUCTURE &
TECHNOLOGY GROUP INC.’S
v. ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY
ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF - ASBESTOS
CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Defendants.

Defendant, PARSONS INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGY GROUP INC.,, in answer
to the unverified complaint, admits, denies and alleges as follows,
1. Denies generally each and every allegation contained in the complaint.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Asa First, Separate, and Affirmative Defense, defendant alleges that the complaint, and
each cause of action set forth therein, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action
against this answering defendant.

As a Second, Separate, and Affirmative Defense, defendant alleges that plaintiff had
knowledge of the risks, hazards and dangers set forth in the complaint and the magnitude of said
risks and hazards and voluntarily, knowingly and willingly assumed said risks hastily.

Asa Third, Separate, and Affirmative Defense, defendant alleges that plaintiff was guilty of

comparative fault and/or comparative negligence in the matters as set forth in the complaint, said

-1-

ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSfault and/or negligence which was the proximate cause or a substantial contributing factor to the
injuries or damages complained of.

As a Fourth, Separate, and Affirmative Defense, defendant alleges that the injuries, loss or
damage, if any there were, to plaintiff were aggravated due to the failure of the plaintiff to use
reasonable diligence to mitigate them.

As a Fifth, Separate, and Affirmative Defense, defendant alleges that the complaint and each
cause of action set forth therein are barred by the applicable statute of limitations, including, but not]
limited to, those set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 335.1, 338.1, 340 (as in
effect prior to and subsequent to January 1, 2003) and 340.2.

As a Sixth, Separate, and Affirmative Defense, defendant alleges that said damages
sustained by plaintiff was either fully or in part the fault of others, whether that fault be the
proximate result of negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, breach of contract, or any other
type of fault caused by persons, firms, corporations or entities other than this answering defendant,
and that said negligence or fault comparatively reduces the percentage of fault or negligence, if any,
by this answering defendant.

As a Seventh, Separate, and Affirmative Defense, defendant alleges that said complaint, and
each of said alleged causes of action thereof, is subject to the provisions of the Fair Responsibility

Act of 1986, Civil Code Sections 1431.1 through 1431.5. Liability of this answering defendant to

plaintiff, if any, for non-economic damages, if any, as defined in Civil Code Section 1431.2(b)(2)
shall be several only and shall not be joint with each or any co-defendant named in said complaint.
This answering defendant shall be liable only for the amount of said non-economic damages, if any,
allocated to this answering defendant in direct proportion to this answering defendant's percentage
of fault, if any.

As an Eighth, Separate, and Affirmative Defense, defendant alleges that to the extent there
was injury, damage or loss sustained by the plaintiff it was due to and proximately caused by the
misuse, abuse and wrongful application of the products described in the complaint.

As a Ninth, Separate, and Affirmative Defense, defendant alleges that injury, damage or

loss, if any, to the plaintiff was solely attributable to the unreasonable, unforeseeable and totally

-2-

ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOScD Mm NY DW BF WY

=

inappropriate purpose and improper use made by the plaintiff of the products alleged in the
complaint.

As a Tenth, Separate, and Affirmative Defense, defendant alleges that to the extent the clain]
of plaintiff has been partially compromised by the payment to plaintiff without admission of fault o
liability, answering defendant is entitled to a set-off in this amount from any judgment, settlement of
award in favor of plaintiffs, and cach of them.

As an Eleventh, Separate, and Affirmative Defense, defendant alleges that to the extent that
plaintiff obtained Workers” Compensation benefits from his/her employer(s) or insurance
carrier(s), any award of damages, judgment or settlement in favor of plaintiff should be reduced by
the amount paid, or to be paid in the future, by the employer(s) or the Workers’ Compensation
carrier(s).

Asa Twelfth, Separate, and Affirmative Defense, defendant alleges that the claims of
plaintiff are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands.

Asa Thirteenth, Separate, and Affirmative Defense, defendant alleges that the claims of
plaintiff are barred under the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel.

As a Fourteenth, Separate, and Affirmative Defense, defendant alleges that the claims made
by plaintiff are barred under the doctrines of waiver and estoppel.

As a Fifteenth, Separate, and Affirmative Defense, defendant alleges that the claims made
by plaintiff are barred under the doctrine of laches.

As a Sixteenth, Separate, and Affirmative Defense, defendant alleges that the claims made
by plaintiff for punitive damages are unconstitutional under the United States Constitution and the
California State Constitution, and that they also fail to support a claim for exemplary or punitive
damages.

As a Seventeenth, Separate, and Affirmative defense, defendant alleges that, based upon the
state of the art, its failure, if any there was, to warn plaintiff of the dangers associated with the
handling of asbestos or inhalation of airborne asbestos fibers was reasonable, and it did not know,
nor was it reasonable for it to know, that airborne asbestos fibers, if any, which were inhaled by

plaintiff could cause injury.

-3-

ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSAs an Highteenth, Separate, and Affirmative defense, defendant alleges that to the extent thaj
plaintiff claims asbestos injurics arising at a time when he was directly employed by this answering
defendant, plaintiffs claim is barred by the applicable State and/or Federal industrial insurance
and/or Workers’ Compensation laws, including, but not limited to, California Labor Code Sections
3601 and 3602 and 33 U.S.C, Section 905.

As a Nineteenth, Separate, and Affirmative defense, defendant alleges that the claims of
plaintiff, plaintiff's decedent and each of them, are barred by the doctrine of assumption of the risk.

As a Twentieth, Separate, and Affirmative defense, defendant alleges that the actions or
omissions complained of in the complaint by the plaintiff were consented to by the plaintiff, and
therefore plaintiff cannot complain of the damages alleged in the complaint.

As a Twenty-First, Separate, and Affirmative defense, defendant alleges that plaintiff, with
full appreciation of the particular risks involved, nevertheless knowingly and voluntarily assumed
the risks and hazards of the accident complained of and the damages, if any, resulting therefrom.

As a Twenty-Second, Separate, and Affirmative defense, defendant alleges that plaintiff, are|
equitably estopped from asserting the claims set forth in their complaint by reason of their own acts
and omissions,

As a Twenty-Third, Separate, and Affirmative defense, defendant alleges that plaintiff was
actively negligent in and about the matters alleged in the complaint, and is thereby barred from any
recovery,

As a Twenty-Fourth, Separate, and Affirmative defense, defendant alleges that the sole
and/or partial or proximate cause of the alleged damages is due to the conduct of other persons and
other parties for whose conduct this answering defendant is not responsible, including, but not
limited to plaintiff; and this answering defendant requests that the conduct of all other parties and
persons be compared and apportioned under the theory of AMA v. Superior Court of Los Angeles.

As a Twenty-Fifth, Separate, and Affirmative defense, defendant alleges that they made no
representations, expressly or orally, to plaintiff upon which plaintiff bases his/her cause of action

for fraud.

-4-

ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSSo Oo me NIN DH HW BR WY WN

As a Twenty-Sixth, Separate, and Affirmative defense, defendant alleges that plaintiff failed
to exercise reasonable and ordinary care, caution or prudence for his own safety in order to avoid
the alleged accident. The resulting injuries and damages, if any, sustained by plaintiff were
proximately caused and contributed to by the negligence of plaintiff in that, among other things, an
possible danger was obvious to anyone using reasonable care and plaintiff failed to exercise
reasonable care to avoid the alleged accident.

As a Twenty-Seventh, Separate, and Affirmative defense, plaintiff's cause of action 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.

As a Twenty-Eighth, Scparate, and Affirmative defense, in the event plaintiff has filed an
action for asbestos-related injuries, this action is barred on the grounds that plaintiff is
impermissibly splitting the causes of action giving rise to such injuries.

As a Twenty-Ninth, Separate, and Affirmative defense, the acts or omissions by this
answering defendant that plaintiff alleges to have caused plaintiff's alleged injuries occurred in one
or more foreign jurisdictions, so that plaintiff's right to recover damages for plaintiff's injuries, if
any, under any cause of action of plaintiff's complaint, is limited or barred. by the laws of those
other jurisdictions, applicable to this action under the “choice of law” doctrine.

WHEREFORE, defendant prays for judgment against the plaintiff and in favor of defendant

for costs of suit incurred herein and for such other and proper relief as the court deems just and

proper.

Dated: July 22, 2010 SACK ROSENDIN, LLP
By: = An C

anje\Rosendin
Attoyneys for Defendant,
PA IS INFRASTRUCTURE &
NOLOGY GROUP INC.

GAASB\HAGEN, Laurance - PITO\PLD - ANSWER - P{-S - PITG.wpal

-5-

ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS: