Answer: CHARLES H. LARSON ET AL VS. ASBESTOS COMPANIES ET AL

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                ELECTRONICALLY

SONJA E. BLOMQUIST, SBN 099341, sblomquist@lowball.com FILED
CATHERINE E. GOLDEN, SBN 127694, cgolden@lowball.com 7
LOW. BALL & LYNCH “County of San Francisca
lontgomery Street, 7th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111-2584 10/12/2017
Telephone: (415) 981-6630 ein toi Meene
Facsimile: (415) 399-1506 . Doputy Clork
Attorneys for Defendant
ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, INC.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
DOROTHY A. LARSON, Individually and as CASE NO. CGC-17-276562
successor-in-Interest to CHARLES H.
LARSON, decedent, PAUL LARSON,
DAVID LARSON, BARBARA CHARLENE ANSWER OF ARMSTRONG
MELTON, INTERNATIONAL, INC. TO FIRST

Ee AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR

Plaintiffs, SURVIVAL, WRONGFUL DEATH -

ASBESTOS — ASBESTOS
vs.

ASBESTOS COMPANIES, et al.

Defendants.

Defendant Armstrong International, Inc. (hereafter “defendant’”) answers plaintiffs’
unverified first amended complaint as follows:

Under the provisions of Section 431.30 of the Code of Civil Procedure, defendant denies
each and every and all of the allegations of said complaint and denies that plaintiffs’ decedent
sustained damages in the sum or sums alleged or in any other sum or at all.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendant alleges that said complaint and each cause of action therein fails to state facts
sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this defendant.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendant alleges that the causes of action, if any, attempted to be stated and set forth in

said complaint are barred by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of

-1-

ANSWER OF ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, INC. TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR SURVIVAL,
WRONGFUL DEATH - ASBESTOS \\Server7\gen-ins\2115\SF1464\PId\Answer - FAC. docCe NN DH BF WN =

RV oN YN NN NN NY Bee we Be Be ee Re Be
2 QI DWF YW NH =F SBD we NY A WF WN KF OO

California including, but not limited to, Sections 338(d), 340, and 340.2.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant alleges that the causes of action, if any, attempted to be stated and set forth in
said complaint are barred by the equitable doctrine of laches.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendant alleges that the causes of action, if any, attempted to be stated and set forth in
said complaint are barred in whole or in part by the equitable doctrines of waiver and estoppel.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendant alleges that plaintiffs’ decedent and others were negligent or otherwise at fault
in and about the matters referred to in said complaint, and that such negligence or other fault bars)
or diminishes plaintiffs’ recovery against this answering defendant.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendant alleges that plaintiffs’ decedent was solely negligent in and about the matters
alleged in said complaint and that such negligence on the part of plaintiffs’ decedent was the sole
proximate cause of the injuries and damages complained of, if any there were.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendant alleges that plaintiffs’ decedent assumed the risk of the matters referred to in
said complaint, that plaintiffs’ decedent knew and appreciated the nature of the risk, and that
plaintiffs’ decedent voluntarily accepted the risk.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendant alleges that plaintiffs’ decedent misused and abused the products referred to in|
said complaint, and failed to follow instructions, and that such misuse and abuse and failure to
follow instructions on the part of plaintiffs’ decedent proximately caused and contributed to the
injuries and damages complained of, if any there were.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendant alleges that if plaintiffs’ decedent sustained injuries attributable to the use of
any product manufactured, supplied, or distributed by this answering defendant, which

allegations are expressly denied, the injuries were solely caused by and attributable to the

<2:

ANSWER OF ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, INC, TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR SURVIVAL]
WRONGFUL DEATH - ASBESTOS \\Server7\gen-ins\2 I 15\SF1464\PId\Answer - FAC.docwv

unreasonable, unforeseeable, and inappropriate purpose and improper use which was made of the
product.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendant alleges that, if there was any negligence proximately causing the injuries or
damages complained of, such negligence, if any, was solely that of defendants other than this

answering defendant.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendant alleges that said complaint and each cause of action therein is barred with
respect to this answering defendant by the provisions of state and federal Worker$ Compensation
statutes including, but not limited to, Sections 3600 et seq. of the Labor Code of the State of
California, and Section 905(b), Title 33 of the United States Code.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendant alleges that at the time of certain matters referenced in the complaint,
plaintiffs’ decedent was employed by an employer other than this answering defendant and was
entitled to and received workers compensation benefits from that employer; and that, if there was)
any negligence proximately causing the injuries and damages complained of, if any, such
negligence, if any, was that of that particular employer of plaintiffs’ decedent and not this
answering defendant.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendant alleges that plaintiffs’ claims, and each of them, in this action are preempted
by federal statutes and regulations governing workplace exposure to asbestos.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendant alleges that said complaint, to the extent that it seeks exemplary or punitive
damages pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3294 against this answering defendant,
violates defendants rights to procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the
United States Constitution, and Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution of the State of California,
and therefore fails to state a cause of action upon which either punitive or exemplary damages

can be awarded.

-3-

ANSWER OF ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, INC. TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR SURVIVAL,
WRONGFUL DEATH ~ ASBESTOS \\Server7\gen-ins\2115\SF1464\PId\Answer - FAC.doc~

SO em ND HW BF BW NN

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendant alleges that said complaint, to the extent that it seeks punitive or exemplary
damages pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3294, violates defendant’s rights to
protection from “excessive fines” as provided in the Eighth Amendment of the United States
Constitution and Article I, Section 17 of the Constitution of the State of California, and violates
defendanis rights to substantive due process as provided in the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of California,
and therefore fails to state a cause of action upon which either punitive or exemplary damages
can be awarded.

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendant alleges that said complaint, and each cause of action therein, fails to state facts
sufficient to support an award of punitive or exemplary damages against this answering
defendant.

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendant alleges that plaintiffs’ decedent failed to exercise due diligence to mitigate his
losses, injuries or damages, if any, and, accordingly, the amount of damages to which plaintiffs
are entitled, if any, should be reduced by the amount of damages which otherwise would have
been mitigated.

EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendant alleges that, at all times relevant to the matters alleged in the complaint, some
of plaintiffs’ decedent’s employers were sophisticated users of allegedly asbestos-containing
products, and said employers’ negligence in exposing their employees to such products in a
negligent, careless and reckless manner was a superseding intervening cause of plaintiffs’
decedent’s injuries, if any.

NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendant alleges that this answering defendant is entitled to set off any settlement,
judgments, or similar amounts received by plaintiffs’ decedent, against any judgment rendered

against this answering defendant in plaintiffs’ favor.

-4-
ANSWER OF ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, INC. TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR SURVIVAL,
WRONGFUL DEATH - ASBESTOS \\Server7\gen-ins\2115\SF 1464\Pid\Answer - FAC.docwn

co Oo IY AW

10
i
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendant alleges that the products referenced in said complaint, if manufactured by
Defendant at all, were manufactured in strict compliance with reasonably precise U.S.
government specifications, and that the hazards associated with use of the products, if any, were
known equally to the federal government and GE. (Boyle v. United Technologies Corp. (1988)
487 U.S. 500.) (Kase v. Metalclad (2016) 6 Cal.App.5"" 623.) Therefore, the Complaint and all
alleged causes of action are barred by the government contractor defense.

TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendant will rely upon any and all further defenses that become available or appear
during discovery proceedings in this action, and specifically reserves the right to amend this
answer for the purpose of asserting any such additional defenses.

WHEREFORE, 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 cost of suit;

(4) For appropriate credits and set-offs arising out of any payment of Workers’
Compensation benefits as alleged above; and

(5) For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated: October { 252017 LOW, BALL & LYNCH

By {
SONJA EYBLOMQUIST
CATHERINE E. GOLDEN
Attorneys for Defendant
ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, INC.

“5+

‘ANSWER OF ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, INC. TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR SURVIVAL
WRONGFUL DEATH - ASBESTOS \\Server7\gen-ins\21 15\SF1464\PId\Answer - FAC.docDorothy A. Larson, et al v. Asbestos Companies, et al.
San Francisco Superior County Superior Court Case No. CGC-17-276562

PROOF OF SERV.

lam over the age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within action. I am employed
at Low, Ball & Lynch, 505 Montgomery Street, 7th Floor, San Francisco, California 94111.

On the date indicated below, I served the following document: ANSWER OF ARMSTRONG
INTERNATIONAL, INC. TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR SURVIVAL,
WRONGFUL DEATH - ASBESTOS

on the listed addresses:
ROGER E. GOLD
GRANT E. WALTERS

GOLD LAW FIRM [ ] And All Defense Counsel

353 Sacramento Street, Suite 400 [SEE ATTACHED LIST]

San Francisco. CA 94111

Tele: (415) 986-1338 [ ] (All counsel in this action (list attached) were
Fax: (415) 373-4579 faxed a letter advising of the documents provided

plaintiff and an offer to provide copies upon
request. Letter enclosed.)

(BY MAIL) I placed a true copy, enclosed in a sealed, postage paid envelope, and
deposited same for collection and mailing at San Francisco, California, following ordinary business
practices, addressed as set forth below.

(BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused each such envelope to be delivered by hand to the
dressees noted above or on the attachment herein by Legal Services.

2

(BY FACSIMILE) I caused the said document to be transmitted by Facsimile transmission
to the number indicated after the addresses noted above or on the attachment herein.

(BY OVERNIGHT COURIER) I caused each such envelope addressed to the parties to be
deposited in a box or other facility regularly maintained by the overnight courier or driver
authorized by the overnight courier to receive documents.

(BY CERTIFIED MAIL/RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED) ]I placed a true copy,
enclosed in a sealed, postage-paid envelope, and deposited same for collection and mailing at San
Francisco, California, following ordinary business practices, addressed as set forth below.

X] ~=BY FILE & SERVE XPRESS) | electronically served the document(s) via File &
Serve Xpress on the recipients designated on the Transaction Receipt located on the File &
Serve Xpress website.

lam readily familiar with this law firm’s practice for the collection and processing of
documents for regular and certified mailing, overnight mail, personal service, electronic
transmission, and facsimile transaction, and said document(s) are deposited with the United States
Postal Service or overnight courier depository on the same day in the ordinary course of business.

T declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed at San Francisco, California on October _{2-, 2017.

Lhad. Lat
Weilly Z. errera
-6-

ANSWER OF ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, INC, TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR SURVIVAL,
WRONGFUL DEATH - ASBESTOS \\Server7\gen-ins\21 15\SF1464\Pld\Answer - FAC.doc