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
ITAA San Francisco Superior Courts Information Technology Group Document Scanning Lead Sheet Mar-06-2002 2:05 pm Case Number: CGC-01-402113 Filing Date: Feb-22-2002 6:40 Juke Box: 001 Image: 00366601 ANSWER JAMES JORDAN VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BHC) 001C00366601 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned. g RICHARD D. DUMONT, ES! CSB# 107967 WILLIAM P. BURANICH, ES }. CSB# 144650 LAURA BEEDY RITCHIE, ES . CSB#178521 San Franciscy County ACKSON & WALLACE up ‘suserior Court 580 California Street, 15th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 FEB 2 9 2002 (415) 982-6300 - GORDO BY: Attorneys For Defendant FLUOR CORPORATION IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 10 MW JAMES JORDAN, No. 402113 Plaintiff, ANSWER OF DEFENDANT FLUOR 12 CORPORATION TO UNVERIFIED Vv. COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY 13 ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BHC) 4 15 16 DEFENDANT FLUOR CORPORATION (hereinafter "Defendant") 17 answers the unverified Complaint herein on its own behalf and on behalf of no other 18 defendant or entity as follows: 19 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30(d), Defendant 20 denies generally and specifically each and every, all and singular, the allegations of said 21 Complaint, and each cause of action thereof and further denies that plaintiff(s) have 22 been damaged in any sum or sums at all. 23 WHEREFORE, this answering defendant asserts the following affirmative 24 defenses: 25 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 26 Neither the Complaint nor any purported cause of action alleged by the 27 plaintiff(s) therein states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against 28 Defendant. FLUOR CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Neither the Complaint nor any purported cause of action alleged therein states facts sufficient to entitle plaintiff(s) to an award of punitive damages against Defendant. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The imposition of any punitive damages in this matter would deprive Defendant of its property without due process of law under the California Constitution and United States Constitution. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10 The imposition of any punitive damages in this matter would violate the MW United States Constitution's prohibition against laws impairing the obligation of 12 contracts. 13 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 The imposition of any punitive damages in this matter would constitute a criminal 15 fine or penalty and should, therefore, be remitted on the ground that the award 16 violates the United States Constitution. 7 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 Plaintiff's action, and each alleged cause of action, is barred by the applicable 19 statute of limitations, including but not limited to California Code of Civil Procedure, 20 sections 337.1, 337.15, 338(1), 338(4), 339(1), 340(1), 340(3), 340.2, 343 and 353 and 21 California Commercial Code, section 2725. 22 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 Plaintiff(s) unreasonably delayed in bringing this action, without good cause 24 therefore, and thereby has prejudiced Defendant as a direct and proximate result of 25 such delay; accordingly, his action is barred by laches and by section 583 et. seg. of the 26 Code of Civil Procedure. 27 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 28 Plaintiff(s) was negligent in and about the matters alleged in the Complaint and 2 FLUOR CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY in each alleged cause of action; this negligence proximately caused, in whole or in part, the damages alleged in the Complaint. In the event plaintiff(s) is entitled to any damages, the amount of these damages should be reduced by the comparative fault of plaintiff(s) and any person whose negligent acts or omissions are imputed to plaintiff(s). NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff(s), by their actions, knew of and appreciated the risks involved, and voluntarily and reasonably assumed the risk of said injuries, proximately causing or contributing to the damages alleged. 10 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE WW Plaintiff(s) knowingly, voluntarily and unreasonably undertook to encounter 12 each of the risks and hazards, if any, referred to in the Complaint and each alleged 13 cause of action, and this undertaking proximately caused and contributed to any loss, 14 injury or damages incurred by plaintiff(s). 15 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16 Any loss, injury or damage incurred by plaintiff(s) was proximately caused by 17 the negligent or willful acts or omissions of parties whom Defendant neither 18 controlled nor had the right to control, and was not proximately caused by any acts, 19 omissions or other conduct of Defendant. 20 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 21 The products referred to in the Complaint were misused, abused or altered by 22 plaintiff(s) or by others; the misuse, abuse or alteration was not reasonably foreseeable 23 to Defendant, and proximately caused any loss, injury or damages, if any, incurred by 24 plaintiff(s). 25 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 26 Defendant alleges that its products, if any, were manufactured, produced, 27 supplied, sold and distributed in mandatory conformity with specifications 28 promulgated by the United States Government under its war powers, as set forth in 3 FLUOR CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY the United States Constitution, and that any recovery by plaintiff(s) on the Complaint on file herein is barred in consequence of the exercise of those sovereign powers. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff(s) failed to exercise due diligence to mitigate his loss, injury or damages; accordingly, the amount of damages to which plaintiff(s) is entitled, if any, should be reduced by the amount of damages which would have otherwise been mitigated. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the matters alleged in the 10 Complaint because the Complaint and each alleged cause of action against Defendant 1 is barred by the provisions of California Labor Code, section 3600, et seq. 12 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13 Defendant alleges that at the time of the injuries alleged in the Complaint, 14 plaintiff(s) was employed and was entitled to receive Workers' Compensation benefits 1S from his employer's workers' compensation insurance carrier; that all of plaintiff's 16 employers, other than Defendant, were negligent in and about the matters referred to 17 in said Complaint, and that such negligence on the part of said employers proximately 18 and concurrently contributed to the happening of the accident and to the loss or 19 damage complained of by plaintiff(s), if any there were; and that by reason thereof 20 Defendant is entitled to set off and/or reduce any such workers’ compensation 21 benefits received or to be received by plaintiff(s) against any judgment which may be 22 rendered in favor of plaintiff(s). (Witt v. Jackson, 57 Cal.2d 57, 366 P.2d 641) 23 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 Defendant alleges that at the time of the injuries alleged in the Complaint, 25 plaintiff's employers were negligent in and about the matters referred to in said 26 Complaint, and that such negligence on the part of said employers proximately and 27 concurrently contributed to any loss or damage, including noneconomic damages, 28 complained of by plaintiff(s), if any there were; and that Defendant is not liable for 4 FLUOR CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY EE said employers’ proportionate share of non-economic damages. EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that at the time of the injuries alleged in the Complaint, parties other than this Defendant were negligent in and about the matters referred to in said Complaint, and that such negligence on the part of said parties proximately and concurrently contributed to any loss or damage, including non-economic damages, complained of by plaintiff(s), if any there were; and that Defendant herein shall not be liable for said parties' proportionate share of non-economic damages. NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10 Defendant alleges that at all times relative to matters alleged in the Complaint, YW all of plaintiff's employers, other than Defendant, were sophisticated users of 12 asbestos-containing products and said employers' negligence in providing the product 13 to its employees in a negligent, careless and reckless manner was a superseding cause 14 of plaintiff's injuries, if any. 15 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16 If plaintiff(s) has received, or in the future may receive, Worker's 17 Compensation benefits from Defendant under the Labor Code of the State of 18 California as a consequence of the alleged industrial injury referred to in the 19 Complaint, and in the event plaintiff(s) is awarded damages against Defendant, 20 Defendant claims a credit against this award to the extent that Defendant is barred 21 from enforcing his rights to reimbursement for Worker's Compensation benefits that 22 plaintiff(s) has received or may in the future receive. 23 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 If plaintiff(s) has received, or in the future may receive Worker's 25 Compensation benefits from Defendant under the Labor Code of the State of 26 California as a consequence of the alleged industrial injury referred to in the 27 Complaint, Defendant demands repayment of any such Worker's Compensation 28 benefits in the event that plaintiff(s) recovers tort damages as a result of the industrial 5 FLUOR CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY injury allegedly involved here. Although Defendant denies the validity of plaintiff's claims, in the event those claims are held valid and not barred by the statute of limita- tions or otherwise, Defendant asserts that cross-demands for money have existed between plaintiff(s) and Defendant and the demands are compensated, so far as they equal each other, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.70. TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE At all times and places in the Complaint, plaintiff(s) was not in privity of contract with Defendant and said lack of privity bars plaintiff's recovery herein upon any theory of warranty. 10 TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11 Plaintiff(s) was barred from recovery in that all products produced, if any, by 12 Defendant were in conformity with the existing state-of-the-art, and as a result, these 13 products, if any, were not defective in any manner. 14 TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15 Defendant denies any and all liability to the extent that plaintiff asserts 16 Defendant's alleged liability as a successor, successor in business, successor in product 17 line or a portion thereof, assign, predecessor, predecessor in business, predecessor in 18 product line or a portion thereof, parent, alterego, subsidiary, wholly or partially 19 owned by, or the whole or partial owner of or member in an entity researching, 20 studying, manufacturing, fabricating, designing, labeling, assembling, distributing, 21 leasing, buying, offering for sale, selling, inspecting, servicing, installing, contracting 22 for installation, repairing, marketing, warranting, rebranding, manufacturing for 23 others, packaging and advertising a certain substance, the generic name of which is 24 asbestos. 25 TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 26 Defendant alleges that the action is barred under the "primary right" doctrine 27 on the basis that causes of action may not be split, by the doctrines of res judicata and 28 collateral estoppel and by virtue of plaintiff's prosecution and/or settlement of their 6 FLUOR CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY claims in prior actions. TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant presently has insufficient knowledge or information on which to form a belief as to whether it may have additional, as yet unstated, defenses available. Defendant reserves herein the right to assert additional defenses in the event discovery indicates that they would be appropriate. WHEREFORE, Defendant prays: (1) That plaintiff takes nothing by his Complaint; (2) That Judgment be entered in favor of Defendant; 10 (3) For recovery of Defendant's costs of suit; iW (4) For appropriate credits and set-offs arising out of any payment of Worker's 12 Compensation benefits as alleged above; and 13 (5) For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 14 DATED: February » 2002 UY 15 JA ON & WALLAC. 16 (W Mit (\ (\ UN y SHA 17 ura Beed di le neys Fo! nda: 18 FLUOR CO! TION 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 FLUOR CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1013, 2015.5 Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2008(e)) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO I, David S. Mandle, declare as follows: Iam over 18 years of age and not a party to the within action; my business address is 580 California Street, 15th Floor, San Francisco, California 94104; Iam employed in San Francisco County, California. Tam readily familiar with my employer's practices for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. On Februai 20 , 2002 I served aco of the following documents: FLUOR CORPORATIO. ’*S ANSWER TO RIFIED COMPLAINT FOR 10 PERSONAL INJURY on the interested parties in the above-referenced case by following ordinary business practices and placing for collection and mailing at 580 MW California Street, San Francisco on February 2.0, 2002, a true copy of the above- referenced document(s), enclosed in a seale envelope; in the ordinary course of 12 business, the above documents would have been deposited for first-class delivery with the United States Postal Service the same day they were placed for deposit, with 13 postage thereon fully prepaid. 14 The foregoing envelopes were addressed as follows: 15 Brayton Purcell P.O. Box 2109 16 Novato, CA 94945 17 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on Febru: 18 Ze, 2002. I 19 20 21 7 Pad 5. Mdndle 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 FLUOR CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY