On December 06, 2001 a Answer was filed involving a dispute between Jordan, Cheryl Lynn, Jordan, James, Thomas Dee Engineering Company, and 4520 Corp., Abblummus Global, Inc., A C And S,Inc., A.H. Voss Company, Albay Construction, Allis-Chalmers Corp. Product Liability Trust, American Honda Motor Co., Inc., American Standard, Inc., Asbestos Corp. Limited, Asbestos Corporation Ltd., Asbestos Defendants, Babcock Borsig Power Inc Ref To Db Riley Inc, Blue Diamond Corp., Borg Warner Inc., Borgwarner Inc. Fka Borg-Warner Automotive, Inc., Bragg Investment Company, Inc., Bridgestone Firestone Americas Holdings, Inc., Bridgestone Firestone,Inc., Bridgestone Firestone North American Tire, Llc,, Bwd Automotive, Calaveras Cement Co., Certainteed Corporation, Chevron Products Company, Colonial Sugar Refining Company, Conocophillips Company, Consolidated Insulation, Inc., Crane Co., Crown Cork & Seal Company,Inc., Daimlerchrysler Corporation, Dana Corporation, D. Cummins Corporation, Diamond International Corp., Dillingham Construction N.A.,Inc., Dixon Boiler Works Inc, Dixon Boiler Works, Inc., Does 1-800, Dow Chemical Company, Dresser Industries Inc., D.W. Nicholson Corporation, Eaton Corporation, Elliott Company, Elliott Turbomachinery Co., Inc., Fisher Controls International, Llc, Flintkote Co., Flintkote Mines Ltd., Flowserve Us Inc, Flowserve Us Inc., Fluor Corporation, Fmc Corporation -Turbo Pump Operation, Ford Motor Company, Foster Wheeler Llc, Garlock Sealing Technologies, Ll, Gatke Corporation, General Electric Company, General Motors Corporation, General Refractories Company, Genstar Co., Genuine Parts Company, Goodrich Corporation, Grinnell Corporation, Halliburton Company, Hanson Cement, Inc., Henry Vogt Machine Co., Hercules Powder Company, Honeywell International, Inc. Fka Alliedsignal, Imo Industries Inc.,, Imo Industries, Inc., J.R.Simplot Company, J.R. Simplot Company, A Nevada Corporation,, J.T. Thorpe & Son, Inc., Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., Keenan Properties, Inc, Kubota Corporation, Lamons Gasket Company Dba Power Engineering &, Lear Siegler Diversified Holdings Corp., Maremont Corporation, Metalclad Insulation Corporation, Monsanto Company, Morton International, Inc. A Rohm And Haas Company, Oakfabco, Inc., Oscar E. Erickson, Inc., Owens-Illinois, Inc., Pacific Coast Building Products, Inc Dba Pacific, Parker Hannifin Corporation, Parker-Hannifin Corporation, Parsons Energy & Chemical Group, Inc., Parsons Energy & Chemicals Group Inc, Plant Insulation Company, Pnuemo Abex Corporation, As Successor, Power Engineering & Equipment Co. Inc., Quigley Company, Inc., Rapid-American Corporation, Republic Supply Company, Rheem Manufacturing Co, Rheem Manufacturing Company, Robertson-Ceco Corporation, Rosendahl Corporation, Santa Fe Braun, Inc. As Successor-In-Interest To, Sequoia Ventures, Inc., Shell Oil Company, Soo Line Railroad Company, Standard Motor Products, Stuart Radiator Core Manufacturing Co Inc, Stuart Radiator Core Manufacturing Co. Inc., Stuart-Western, Inc., Sugar City Building Materials Inc., Taylor Plumbing Supply Company, Dba Globe Plumbing, Taylor Plumbing Supply Inc., Temporary Plant Cleaners, Inc., The Budd Company, Thomas Dee Engineering Company, Thorpe Insulation Company, Tosco Corporation, Tosco Refining Company, Trimon, Inc., Union Carbide Corporation, Unocal Corporation, Viacom Inc., Successor By Merger To Cbs Corporatio, Vogt Valve Company, Waldron, Duffy, Inc., Westburne Supply, Inc., Yale Industrial Products, Inc., Zurn Industries, Inc., for ASBESTOS in the District Court of San Francisco County.
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Preview
ICOM San Francisco Superior Courts Information Technology Group Document Scanning Lead Sheet Mar-08-2002 7:03 pm Case Number: CGC-01-402113 Filing Date: Mar-08-2002 7:00 Juke Box: 001 Image: 00375265 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FILED BY DEFENDANT JAMES JORDAN VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BHC) 001000375265 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned. P. RICHARD COLOMBATTO, ESQ., NO. 79895 GREGORY S. ROSSE, ESQ., NO. 157965 MABIH. ELLIS, ESQ., NO. 205246 MISCIAGNA & COLOMBATTO Coz5 27 Maiden Lane, 4" Floor San Francisco, California 94108 Telephone: (415) 391-6182 By. Facsimile: (415) 391-2904 LIXS Attorneys for Defendant LR METALCLAD INSULATION CORPORATION SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO — UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 10 JAMES JORDAN, Case No. 402113 il Plaintiff(s), METALCLAD INSULATION CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO Ss 12 vs. COMPLAINT 13 ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BHC) As Reflected on Exhibits B, B-1, C, F, and H; 14 and DOES 1-800, 15 Defendants. 16 17 COMES NOW Defendant METALCLAD INSULATION CORPORATION and in answer 18 to plaintiff's complaint for personal injuries and damages on file herein, and each and every cause 19 of action set forth therein, answers, alleges and denies as follows: 20 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 431.30 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, this 21 answering defendant denies, each and every and all of the allegations of each and every purported 22 cause of action of plaintiff's complaint, denying specifically that plaintiff has been, is or will be 23 injured or damaged in the manner or sum alleged, or in any other manner or sums or at all. 24 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 1 Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against 26 this answering defendant. 27 Mt 28 -1- Metalclad Insulation Corporation’s Answer to Complaint SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2. Plaintiff has failed to join a party or parties necessary for a just adjudication of this matter and have further omitted to state any reasons for such failure. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 3 Plaintiff's complaint was not filed within the time permitted by law; consequently plaintiffs claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitation as set forth in C.C.P.§§340.2 and 340. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4 The delay of plaintiff in commencing suit is inexcusable and has resulted in 10 prejudice to this answering defendant so substantial that the defense of laches bars plaintiffs’ 11 claims. aS 12 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE oF ROA 13 5. Plaintiff willingly, knowingly, and voluntarily assumed the risk of the alleged Sas 14 illnesses and injuries for which relief is sought in this matter. 15 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE wg 16 6 Plaintiff failed to exercise ordinary care for his own safety and well-being; and that ge 17 failure to exercise ordinary care proximately and directly caused and/or contributed to the alleged 18 illness and injury plead in the complaint. 19 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 7. The plaintiff has released, settled, entered into an accord and satisfaction or 21 otherwise compromised his claims herein and, accordingly, said claims are barred by operation of 22 law; alternatively, plaintiff has accepted compensation as partial settlement of those claims for 23 which this defendant is entitled to a set-off. 24 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 8 Plaintiff's injuries and illness, if any, were due to the acts or omissions of a person 26 or persons over whom this answering defendant had neither control nor the right of control. 27 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 28 9 While specifically and vigorously denying the allegations of the plaintiff -2- Metalclad Insulation Corporation’s Answer to Complaint concerning liability, injuries and damages, to the extent that plaintiff 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 contro] nor the right of control. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10. At all times and places mentioned in the complaint, plaintiff and/or other persons without this defendant's knowledge and approval re-designed, modified, altered, and used this defendant's products contrary to instructions and contrary to the custom and practice of the industry. This re-design, modification, alteration, and use so substantially changed the product's 10 character that if there was a defect in the product--which is specifically denied--such defect il resulted solely from the re-design, modification, alteration, or other such treatment or change and Sx 12 not from any act or omission by this defendant. Therefore, said defect, if any, was created by ga er Ra plaintiff and/or other persons, as the case may be, and was the direct and proximate cause of the a3 13 mS 14 injuries and damages, if any, that plaintiff allegedly suffered. gS 15 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE og 16 11. At all times and places mentioned in the complaint, plaintiff and/or other persons 17 used this answering defendant's products, if indeed any were used, in an unreasonable manner, not 18 reasonably foreseeable to this defendant, and for a purpose for which the products were not 19 intended, manufactured, or designed; plaintiff's injuries and damages, if any, were directly and 20 proximately caused by said misuse and abuse, and plaintiff's recovery herein, if any, is barred or 21 must be diminished in proportion to the fault attributable to the plaintiff and/or such other parties 22 and persons. 23 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 12. At all times and places mentioned in the complaint, plaintiff has failed to make 25 reasonable efforts to mitigate injuries and damages, if any. 26 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 27 13. Any exposure of plaintiff to this defendant's product or products, which exposure is 28 vigorously denied, was so minimal as to be insufficient to establish a reasonable degree of =3- Metalclad Insulation Corporation’s Answer to Complaint probability that the product or products caused his claimed injuries and illness. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14. Plaintiff has waived any and all claims, which he seeks to assert in this action, and is estopped both to assert and to recover upon such claims. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15. 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. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10 16. The causes of action asserted by the plaintiff, who admits their inability to identify 11 the manufacturer or manufacturers of the products which allegedly caused injury, fail to state a Bo ga 12 claim upon which relief can be granted, for if relief be granted, this defendant's constitutional right ano 13 to substantive and procedural due process of law would be contravened. 284 14 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE BEC 15 17. Answering defendant is informed and believes that the venue of this case is ws 16 improper, inappropriate, and inconvenient to the vast majority of parties and witnesses. 17 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 18. Defendant alleges that the asbestos-containing products, which are alleged to cause 19 injury, were manufactured in compliance pursuant to mandatory United States Government 20 specifications, which required the use of asbestos. Accordingly, defendant is immune from 21 liability for any damages suffered as a consequence of exposure to asbestos contained in such 22 products. 23 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 19. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the 25 exclusive remedy provisions of, including but not limited to Labor Code §§3600, 3601 and 3602. 26 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 27 20. Answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, 28 by the Code of Civil Procedure Section 430.10(c), for reasons that there is another action pending -4- Metalclad Insulation Corporation’s Answer to Complaint between the same parties or on the same causes of action. Plaintiffs causes of action have been previously litigated and/or settled. WHEREFORE, having fully answered, this answering defendant prays that plaintiff's complaint be dismissed as to it, with prejudice, defendant to recover all costs, and any other relief that the Court deems proper. Dated: March 6, 2002 MISCIAGNA & COLOMBATTO 10 11 By M (bouleGy 1H. ELLY Attomeys for Defendant BS 12 METALCLAD INSULATION CORP. ak 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -5- Metalclad Insulation Corporation’s Answer to Complaint Proof of Service by Mail (1013a, 2015.5 C.C.P.) I declare that I am over 18 years of age and not a party to the within entitled action. I am employed at and my business address is 27 Maiden Lane, 4" floor, San Francisco, California 94108. On this date I served the attached METALCLAD INSULATION CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT by causing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid to be deposited in the United states mail at San Francisco, California 94108 addressed as shown below. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at San Francisco, California on March 6, 2002 10 BRAYTON