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

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
1111 Broadway, Suite 1700
Oakland, CA 94607

MICHAEL J. PIETRYKOWSKI (SBN: 118677)
mpietrykowski@grsm.com

ROBERT A. RICH (SBN: 141883)
rrich@grsm.com

GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP ELECTRONICALLY
1111 Broadway, Suite 1700 FILED
Oakland, CA 94607 Superior Court of California,
Telephone: (510) 463-8600 County of San Francisco
Facsimile: (510) 984-1721 10/20/2017

Clerk of the Court
BY: KALENE APOLONIO

Attorneys for Defendant Deputy Clerk

UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

DOROTHY A. LARSON, Individually and as
Successor-in-Interest to CHARLES H.
LARSON, Decedent, PAUL LARSON,
DAVID LARSON, BARBARA CHARLENE
MELTON,

CASE NO. CGC-17-276562

ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
(WRONGFUL DEATH) - ASBESTOS
Plaintiffs,
Complaint Filed: August 29, 2017
ASBESTOS COMPANIES, et al.,

Defendants.

eee

COMES NOW defendant, UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION and in answer to
plaintiffs’! first amended complaint for wrongful death on file herein, and each and every cause
of action allegedly set forth therein, answers, alleges and denies as follows:

I.

This answering defendant 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 this answering defendant.

IL.

Further answering said unverified complaint, and each and every cause of action

' Plaintiffs are referred to herein individually and collectively as “plaintiff.”
-l-

ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (WRONGFUL DEATH) - ASBESTOSGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
1111 Broadway, Suite 1700
Oakland, CA 94607

allegedly set forth therein, this defendant denies that it was legally responsible in some manner
for the circumstances and happenings, as alleged therein, or at all, and denies that plaintiff has
been damaged in the manner set forth in said unverified complaint and each and every cause of
action allegedly set forth therein.

Tl.

Further answering said unverified complaint, and each and every cause of action
allegedly set forth therein, this defendant denies that it was negligent and/or careless in any
respect whatsoever, as alleged therein, or at all, and denies that plaintiffs have been damaged in
the manner set forth in said unverified complaint and each and every cause of action allegedly set
forth therein.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A FIRST, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO SAID
COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that the complaint and causes of action therein
fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this answering defendant.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A SECOND, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO SAID
COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that decedent were himself careless and
negligent in and about the matters referred to in the complaint and that such negligence and
carelessness on the part of the decedent proximately caused and contributed to the damages
complained of, if any there were.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A THIRD, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO SAID
COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that the decedent knew, or in the exercise of
ordinary care, should have known of the risks and hazards involved in the undertaking in which
he engaged, but nevertheless and with full knowledge of these things, did fully and voluntarily
consent to assume the risks and hazards involved in the undertaking.

iit

>

ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (WRONGFUL DEATH) - ASBESTOSGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
1111 Broadway, Suite 1700
Oakland, CA 94607

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A FOURTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO SAID
COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that the decedent’s injuries occurred as a direct
result of exposure to the very hazard that decedent was employed to confront, and therefore
plaintiffs’ claims are barred under the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A FIFTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO SAID
COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that the decedent was himself solely and totally
negligent in and about the matters referred to in the complaint and that such negligence and
carelessness on the part of the decedent proximately amounted to One Hundred Percent (100%)
of the negligence involved in this case and was the sole cause of the injuries and damages
complained of, if any there were.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A SIXTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO SAID
COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that at all times and places mentioned in the
complaint, decedent and/or other persons without this defendant’s knowledge and approval
redesigned, modified, altered, and used this defendant’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 product’s character that if there was a defect in the product --
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 this defendant.
Therefore, said defect, if any, was created by decedent and/or other persons, as the case may be,
and was the direct and proximate cause of the injuries and damages, if any, that decedent and
plaintiffs’ allegedly suffered.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO SAID
COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that any harm plaintiff incurred is due to the
acts of parties other than this answering defendant, including but not limited to other defendants

3-
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (WRONGFUL DEATH) - ASBESTOSGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
1111 Broadway, Suite 1700
Oakland, CA 94607

named herein.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO SAID
COMPLAINT, defendant alleges that the asbestos-containing products, if any, for which it may
have legal responsibility were installed, labeled, assembled, serviced, supplied, manufactured,
designed, packaged, distributed, marketed, and/or sold in accordance with contract specifications
imposed by its co-defendants, by the U.S. government, by decedent’s employers and by third
parties yet to be identified.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A NINTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO SAID
COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that at the time of the injuries alleged in the
complaint decedent was employed and was entitled to and did receive workers’ compensation
benefits from said employer. This defendant is informed and believes, and on the basis of said
information and belief alleges that, if the conditions as alleged in the plaintiffs complaint are
found to exist, the decedent employer was negligent and careless in and about the matters
referred to in said complaint and that said negligence on the part of the employer proximately
caused or contributed to the injuries and damages, if any, complained of by the plaintiff, and
further, that the decedent employer assumed the risk of injury to the plaintiff, if any there was, in
that at the time and place of the incident such conditions, if any, were open and obvious and were
fully known to the decedent’s employer; and that by reason thereof, this defendant is entitled to
set off any compensation benefits received or to be received by the plaintiffs against any
judgment which may be rendered in favor of the plaintiff herein.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A TENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO SAID
COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that the complaint and the causes of action
therein are barred by the statutes of limitation of the state of California, including but not limited
to California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 335.1, 338.2, 340.2, and 343 et seq.

Mi

-4.
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (WRONGFUL DEATH) - ASBESTOSGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
1111 Broadway, Suite 1700
Oakland, CA 94607

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A ELEVENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO
SAID COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that the complaint and the causes of
action therein are barred by the statutes of limitation and repose of a sister state, made applicable
to this action via California’s borrowing statute, California Code of Civil Procedure § 361 et
seq. These statutes include, but are not limited to, the states of Arizona (Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §
12-541 et seq.), Washington (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 4.16.005 et seq.), Oregon (Or. Rev. Stat.
§ 12.010 et seg.), and/or Texas (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.001 et seg., Tex. Bus. &
Com. Code Ann. § 2.725).

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A TWELTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO SAID
COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that the plaintiffs unreasonably delayed in
bringing this action against defendant and that such delay substantially prejudiced this answering
defendant. Therefore, this action is barred by the doctrine of laches.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A THIRTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO
SAID COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that the complaint and the causes of
action therein fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this answering
defendant pursuant to workers’ compensation exclusivity as set forth in sections 3600, et seq., of
the California Labor Code.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A FOURTENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO
SAID COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that decedent’s employer was
contributorily negligent and careless in and about the matters alleged in the complaint, and that
such negligence and carelessness was a proximate cause of any injuries and damages suffered by
plaintiff, if any there were.

iit

-5-
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (WRONGFUL DEATH) - ASBESTOSGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
1111 Broadway, Suite 1700
Oakland, CA 94607

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A FIFTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO
SAID COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that decedent’s employer voluntarily and
knowingly entered into and engaged in the operations, acts and conduct alleged in said
complaint, and voluntarily and knowingly assumed all of the risks incident to said operation, acts
and conduct alleged in said complaint, and voluntarily and knowingly assumed all of the risks
incident to said operations, acts and conduct at the time and place mentioned in the complaint.

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A SIXTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO
SAID COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that the plaintiffs acknowledged, ratified,
consented to and acquiesced in the alleged acts or omissions, if any, of this answering defendant,
thus barring plaintiff from any relief as prayed for herein.

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A SEVENTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO
SAID COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that the asbestos products that allegedly
caused the injury which forms the basis of the complaint herein were manufactured and supplied
by entities other than this defendant. Therefore, this defendant may not be held liable for the
injury of the decedent and plaintiffs.

EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A EIGHTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO
SAID COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that decedent and decedent’s employer
were and are sophisticated users and knew independently or reasonably should have known of
any danger or hazard associated with the use of a product containing asbestos and of exposure to
high levels of dust of any sort.

NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR AN NINETEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO.
SAID COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that at all times alleged in the complaint
the products alleged to have caused decedent’s injuries were designed, manufactured, sold,

-6-
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (WRONGFUL DEATH) - ASBESTOSGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
1111 Broadway, Suite 1700
Oakland, CA 94607

distributed, labeled and advertised in compliance with the then existing state of the art in the
industry to which this defendant belonged and furthermore, that the benefits of any such product
design outweighed any risk of danger in the design and that any such product met the safety
expectations of plaintiffs and the general public.

TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR AN TWENTIETH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO
SAID COMPLAINT, the plaintiffs have released, settled, entered into an accord and satisfaction
or otherwise compromised his claims herein, and accordingly, said claims are barred by
operation of law; alternatively, plaintiffs have accepted compensation as partial settlement of
those claims for which this defendant is entitled to a set-off.

TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A TWENTY-FIRST, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO
SAID COMPLAINT, there was no negligence, gross negligence, willful, wanton, or malicious
misconduct, reckless indifference or reckless disregard of the rights of the plaintiff, or malice
(actual, legal, or otherwise) on the part of this defendant as to the plaintiffs herein.

TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A TWENTY-SECOND, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
TO SAID COMPLAINT, at all times and places mentioned in the complaint, plaintiff have failed
to make reasonable efforts to mitigate injuries and damages, if any.

TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A TWENTY-THIRD, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO.
SAID COMPLAINT, the plaintiffs, prior to the filing of this complaint, never informed this
defendant, by notification or otherwise, of any breach of express and/or implied warranties;
consequently, his claims of breach of express and/or implied warranties against this defendant
are barred.

TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A TWENTY-FOURTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

TO SAID COMPLAINT, the injuries to, and damages of decedent and plaintiffs, if any, were

-T-
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (WRONGFUL DEATH) - ASBESTOSGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
1111 Broadway, Suite 1700
Oakland, CA 94607

directly caused by the conduct of JOHNS-MANVILLE SALES CORPORATION, its
predecessors and successors in interest, its parent company or companies, its affiliates,
subsidiaries, or related companies and enterprises.

TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A TWENTY-FIFTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO
SAID COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that to the extent the amount of punitive
damages sought is unconstitutionally excessive under the United States Constitution, it violates
the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment, U.S. Const. amend. VIII, and the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Const. amend XIV, section 1.

TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS FOR A TWENTY-SIXTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO SAID
COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that punitive damages are barred in wrongful
death actions.

TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A TWENTY-SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that punitive damages are barred by the
Constitutions of the United States and California, and/or that a multiple award of punitive
damages sought by plaintiffs against defendant in this action by virtue of their violation of one or
more of the following clauses: the Contracts Clause of Article I, section 10 of the United States
Constitution; the Excessive Fines Clause of the 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 provision of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States
Constitution and Article I, section 7 of the California Constitution; and the Equal Protection of
the laws and defendant’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 I, section 7 and 17, and Article IV, section 16 of the California
Constitution.

-8-
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (WRONGFUL DEATH) - ASBESTOSGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
1111 Broadway, Suite 1700
Oakland, CA 94607

TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A TWENTY-EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that the subject premises was not used in the
manner in which it was intended to be used, and as a proximate result of such abuse and misuse,
the decedent and plaintiffs sustained the injuries and damages complained of, if any there were.

TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A TWENTY-NINTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiffs have 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.

THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A THIRTIETH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiffs claim are a nullity for failure of
commencement of suit.

THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A THIRTY-FIRST, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that decedent failed to exercise ordinary care for his
own safety and well-being, and that failure to exercise ordinary care proximately and directly
caused and/or contributed to the alleged illness and injury pled in the complaint. Consequently,
this defendant is entitled to the full protection afforded by law.

THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A THIRTY-SECOND, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that decedents and plaintiffs injuries or illness, if
any, were due to the acts or omissions of a person or persons over whom this defendant had
neither control nor the right of control.

THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A THIRTY-THIRD, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND

DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that while specifically and vigorously denying the

-9-
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (WRONGFUL DEATH) - ASBESTOSGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
1111 Broadway, Suite 1700
Oakland, CA 94607

allegations of the plaintiff concerning liability, injuries and damages, to the extent that plaintiffs
may be able to prove those allegations, this defendant states that they were the result of
intervening acts of superseding negligence on the part of the person or persons over whom this
defendant had neither control nor the right of control.

THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A THIRTY-FOURTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that at all times and places mentioned in the
complaint, plaintiff and/or other persons used this answering defendant’s products, if indeed any
were used, in an unreasonable manner, not reasonably foreseeable to this defendant, and for a
purpose for which the products were not intended, manufactured or designed. Decedent and
Plaintiffs injuries and damages, if any, were therefore directly and proximately caused by his
misuse and abuse of such products.

THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A THIRTY-FIFTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that any exposure of decedent to this defendant’s
product or products, which exposure is vigorously denied, was so minimal as to be insufficient to
establish a reasonable degree of probability that the product or products were a substantial factor
in causing the claimed injuries and illness.

THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A THIRTY-SIXTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that at the time of this filing, there was no good
ground to support the complaint as to this defendant. There is now no good ground to support
the complaint as to this defendant.

THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A THIRTY-SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiffs have waived any and all claims

sought in this action and is stopped both to assert and to recover upon such claims.

-10-
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (WRONGFUL DEATH) - ASBESTOSGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
1111 Broadway, Suite 1700
Oakland, CA 94607

THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A THIRTY-EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that the doctrine of joint and several liability has
been abolished in a case such as this, and should plaintiffs prevail against this defendant, this
defendant’s liability is several and is limited to its own actionable segment of fault, which fault is
vigorously denied. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1431.2 et seq.

THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A THIRTY-NINTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that the causes of action asserted by plaintiffs fail to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or, if relief be granted, this defendant’s
Constitutional right to substantive and procedural due process of law would be contravened.

FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A FORTIETH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that the causes of action asserted by plaintiffs fail to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted because such relief would constitute a denial by
this court of defendant’s Constitutional right to equal protection under the law.

FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A FORTY-FIRST, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND.
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that the causes of action asserted by plaintiffs
against this entity is improper as plaintiff incorrectly alleges that this answering defendant is
responsible, in whole or in part, for the acts of one or more alternative entities. This answering
defendant denies those claims.

FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A FORTY-SECOND, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff's claim of successor liability and
association with other entities is not factually or legally supported, and, as such, plaintiff has no

claim against answering defendant as asserted.

-ll-
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (WRONGFUL DEATH) - ASBESTOSGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
1111 Broadway, Suite 1700
Oakland, CA 94607

FORTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A FORTY-THIRD, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that it is not responsible for the product line or
items which plaintiffs claim that it manufactured, distributed or sold. Rather, this answering
defendant asserts that another entity manufactured, distributed and sold this product line and is
legally responsible therefor.

FORTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A FORTY-FOURTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that to the extent any claim for relief in the
complaint, or amended complaint, seeks to recover damages against this defendant for alleged
acts or omissions of predecessors or successors-in-interest to this defendant of any kind or
description, said defendant asserts that it is not legally responsible and cannot legally be held
liable for any such acts or omissions. This defendant further asserts that it cannot be held liable
for punitive damages and/or exemplary damages which are or may be attributable to the conduct
of any predecessor or successor-in-interest. Further, this defendant asserts that 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 this defendant.

FORTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A FORTY-FIFTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND

DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiffs recovery against this answering
defendant is barred, diminished or reduced in that the product(s) or equipment if any, utilized by
plaintiffs were altered or changed from the original condition of said product(s) or equipment at
the time it left the possession and control of this defendant.

FORTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A FORTY-SIXTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND.
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that California is not proper forum in which to
litigate this matter pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 410.30 and applicable
case law and/or that a more convenient forum exists to hear this dispute outside the state of

-12-
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (WRONGFUL DEATH) - ASBESTOSGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
1111 Broadway, Suite 1700
Oakland, CA 94607

California,

FORTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A FORTY-SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO
SAID UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that decedent was a
sophisticated user of any products that caused him injury, meaning that this answering defendant
can have no liability pursuant to Johnson v. American Standard, Inc. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 56.

FORTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A FORTY-EIGHT, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO SAID
UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that decedent’s employer(s)
was/were sophisticated users of any products that caused him injury, meaning that this answering
defendant can have no liability pursuant to Johnson v. American Standard, Inc. (2008) 43 Cal.4th
56.

FORTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A FORTY-NINTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND
DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that to the extent that plaintiffs’ wrongful death
action involves the same primary right and breach as their former loss of consortium action
which was dismissed, the doctrine of res judicata prohibits a second such wrongful death suit
between the same parties on the same cause of action. (Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.
(2010) 48 Cal.4th 788.)

FIFTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A FIFTIETH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO SAID
UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that one or more of the facts or
circumstances giving rise to this case arose outside of the State of California. Accordingly, the
laws of a state or state(s) other than the State of California are applicable based on factors
including, but not limited to, plaintiff's past and present residences, plaintiff's medical treatment,
plaintiff's work history, and/or plaintiff's military service history. These laws apply in part or in
full to one or more issues in this case, including but not limited to exposure, duty, liability and
damages. Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 95.

-13-
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (WRONGFUL DEATH) - ASBESTOSGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
1111 Broadway, Suite 1700
Oakland, CA 94607

FIFTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A FIFTY-FIRST, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO SAID
UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that this Court is without subject
matter jurisdiction to adjudicate that matters alleged herein, and/or that the matters alleged are
under the exclusive jurisdiction of a different court.

FIFTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A FIFTY-SECOND, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO SAID
UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that this Court is without
personal jurisdiction to adjudicate that matters alleged herein as defendant is not “at home” in the
state of California, for reasons including but not limited to the fact that defendant is not subject
to general jurisdiction in the State of California and/or has insufficient minimum contacts to
subject it to liability. See Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 134 S. Ct. 746.

FIFTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A FIFTY-THIRD, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO SAID
UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff has impermissibly
split his cause of action between case(s) filed in multiple jurisdictions, and as such this matter
should be dismissed.

FIFTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A FIFTY-FOURTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO SAID
UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that defendant did not
affirmatively contribute to decedent’s injury while decedent was present on defendant’s premises
and/or was present when employees of defendant were working in decedent’s vicinity.

FIFTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A FIFTY-FIFTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO SAID
UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiffs’ causes of breach

of warranty are barred in the absence of evidence that there was no privity with defendant.

iit

-14-
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (WRONGFUL DEATH) - ASBESTOSGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
1111 Broadway, Suite 1700
Oakland, CA 94607

FIFTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A FIFTY-SIXTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO SAID
UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiffs’ claims are barred
by the doctrine of res judicata, collateral estoppel and/or the law of the case doctrine.

FIFTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A FIFTY-SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO
SAID UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiffs’ cause of
action for conspiracy/concert of action are barred under Chavers v. Gatke Corp. (2003) 107
Cal.App.4" 606.

FIFTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A FIFTY-EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO SAID
UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that it cannot be held legally
responsible for any products manufactured and supplied by a wholly separate subsidiary of
defendant, as defendant is not liable for the debts of its subsidiary.

FIFTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A FIFTY-NINTH SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO SAID
UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, this answering defendant has no liability under the sophisticated
intermediary defense. (Webb v. Special Electric Co., Inc. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 167.) Any product
answering defendant sold that may have injured plaintiff was sold to persons who were
themselves sophisticated users of asbestos-containing products, and upon whom answering
defendant actually and reasonably relied to give any and all appropriate warnings.

WHEREFORE, having fully answered, this answering defendant prays that plaintiffs’
complaint be dismissed as to it, with prejudice, at plaintiffs’ costs.

Dated: October 20, 2017 GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP

By:
MICHAEL J. PIETRYKOWSKI
Attorneys for Defendant
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION

-15-
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (WRONGFUL DEATH) - ASBESTOSGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
1111 Broadway, Suite 1700
Oakland, CA 94607

PROOF OF SERVICE
Dororuy A. LARSON, ET AL. V. ASBESTOS COMPANIES, ET AL.
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. CGC-17-276562

I ama resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party
to the within action. My business address is: Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, 1111
Broadway, Suite 1700, Oakland, CA 94607. On the date set forth below, I served the within
documents:

1. DEFENDANT UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (WRONGRFUL DEATH) -
ASBESTOS

x by electronically serving the document(s) described above via File & ServeXpress on
the recipients designated on the Transaction Receipt that is located on the File &
ServeXpress website and as set forth below:

x] by placing the document listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully
prepaid, in United States mail in the State of California at Oakland, addressed as set
forth below.

a by transmitting via facsimile the documents listed above to the fax numbers set forth
below on this date before 5:00 p.m.

Roger E. Gold All Defense Counsel
GOLD LAW FIRM (via File & Serve Xpress)
353 Sacramento Street, Suite 1140

San Francisco, CA 94111

Tel: 415.986.1338

Fax: 415.373.4579

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Jam readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence
for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same
day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on
motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage
meter date is more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.

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

Executed on October 20, 2017 at Oakland, California.

Maria J. Martinez

-16-
PROOF OF SERVICE