Answer: LAURANCE HAGEN VS. ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                JEREMY D. HUIE, ESQ. (SBN 191145)
ihuie@behblaw.com

BASSI, EDLIN, HUIE & BLUM LLP ELECTRONICALLY
351 California Street, Suite 200

San Francisco, CA 94104 cope nol ED
Telephone: — (415) 397-9006 County of San Francisco
Facsimile: (415) 397-1339 NOV 02 2010
Attorneys for Defendant Clerk of the cout
WHEATLEY-JACOBSEN, INC. BY: WILLIAM TRUPEE clerk

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

LAURANCE HAGEN, ) Case No. CGC 10 275582
)
Plaintiff, ) DEFENDANT WHEATLEY-JACOBSEN,
) INC’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR
vs. ) PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS
)
ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF )
CALIFORNIA; Defendants as Reflected on —)
Exhibit I attached to the Summary Complaint )
herein; and DOES 1-8500. )
)
)
on )

244510

1
DEFENDANT WHEATLEY-JACOBSEN, INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSDefendant WHEATLEY-JACOBSEN, INC. (hereinafter "WJI"), hereby answers the
unverified Complaint for Personal Injury - Asbestos of Plaintiff LAURANCE HAGEN on file
herein (hereinafter “Complaint”). Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30, WJI files
its answer, general denial, and specific denials to said Complaint, and denies each and every, all
and singular, generally and specifically, all the allegations and causes of action contained therein,
and further denies that Plaintiff has been damaged in any sum, sums, or at all, and specifically
alleges as follows:

SPECIFIC DENIALS

That WJI was present at any work site at which the alleged asbestos exposure of Plaintiff
occurred;

That Plaintiff ever came into contact with any employee of WJI;

That any product used by WJI caused or contributed to any injury purportedly suffered b
Plaintiff;

That any WJI employee supervised Plaintiff at any work site:

That WJI ever supplied Plaintiff with any materials or tools at any work site.

GENERAL DENIAL
WII generally denies each and every allegation of Plaintiff's Complaint.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

W4JI herewith pleads and sets forth separately and distinctly the following affirmative
defenses to each and every cause of action of Plaintiff's Complaint as though pleaded separately
to each and every said cause of action, and this answering Defendant alleges the following
affirmative defenses:

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant alleges that

Plaintiff's complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against

Defendant.

244510

2
DEFENDANT WHEATLEY-JACOBSEN, INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSSECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant alleges that
Plaintiff has failed to join all persons and parties needed for a just adjudication of this action.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant alleges that
Plaintiff's claims are barred by laches, waiver and/or estoppel.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant alleges that

this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this action or alternatively that the Court
lacks jurisdiction due to insufficiency of process or the service thereof and/or improper venue.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant alleges that
Plaintiff has failed to commence this action within the time required by the applicable statute of
limitations, including but not limited to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 337.1,
337.15, 338(a), 338(d), 340(3), 340.2 and 343.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant alleges that
Plaintiff was careless and negligent in and about the matters alleged in the complaint and said
carelessness and negligence of Plaintiff proximately contributed to the happening of the accident,
incident and occurrence alleged in the complaint, and to the injuries, losses and damages
complained of therein, if any there were, and said contributory negligence bars a recovery or
proportionately reduces any potential verdict.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant alleges that

Plaintiff failed to mitigate his alleged damages, if there were any.

244510

3
DEFENDANT WHEATLEY-JACOBSEN, INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSEIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant alleges that
if Plaintiff was injured by products used or installed at any defendant's premises, which is
denied, such injury occurred after the expiration of the useful safe life of such products.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant alleges that
if Plaintiff suffered any damages, which is denied, such damages were the sole and proximate
result of an unavoidable accident.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant alleges that
if Plaintiff suffered any damages, which is denied, such damages were caused and/or contributed
to by Plaintiff’s misuse of the product or products and Plaintiff's recovery should be barred or
reduced accordingly.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant alleges that
if Plaintiff suffered any damages, which is denied, such damages were solely and proximately
caused by material modifications or alterations of the product or products involved in this action
after it or they left the custody and control of Defendant.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant alleges that
Plaintiff has improperly split his causes of action and seeks to maintain a duplicative lawsuit
based on the same facts and circumstances as a lawsuit previously filed.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant alleges that
any product or products alleged by Plaintiff to have caused their injuries were manufactured,
installed, used or distributed in compliance with specifications provided by third parties to

Defendant and/or in compliance with all applicable health and safety statutes and regulations.

244510

4
DEFENDANT WHEATLEY-JACOBSEN, INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSFOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant alleges that
if Plaintiff suffered any damages, which is denied, the risk of any such damages was not
foreseeable to Defendant. Defendant at all times material hereto acted in accordance with the
industry custom and practice and the state of scientific knowledge available to manufacturers,
installers and/or users of asbestos-containing products.

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant alleges that

it received no notice of any dangerous, hazardous or defective condition or any breach of
warranty, either expressed or implied.

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant alleges that
Plaintiff and/or his employer was a sophisticated user and/or intermediary with respect to
asbestos-containing products and their potential hazardous characteristics; and that negligence by|
Plaintiff and/or his employer was a superseding cause of Plaintiff's damages, if any.

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant alleges that
Plaintiffs exposure to any asbestos-containing product or products allegedly used or installed at
any job site(s) where Defendant was present was minimal and insufficient to establish the
probability that said product or products were a legal cause of Plaintiff's alleged injuries.

EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant alleges that
this action 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.

NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant alleges that

at the time of the injuries alleged in Plaintiffs complaint, Plaintiff was employed by persons

244510
5

DEFENDANT WHEATLEY-JACOBSEN, INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSother than Defendant; were entitled to receive and did receive Workers' Compensation benefits
from said employer(s) or their insurers; and that said employer(s) were negligent and careless in
and about the matters referred to in Plaintiff's complaint. Defendant is, therefore, entitled to set-
off any such benefits received by Plaintiff against any judgment rendered in Plaintiff's favor and
said employer(s) are barred from any recovery by fien or otherwise against Defendant in
connection with this matter.
TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant alleges that

Plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly assumed the alleged risks and hazards incident to the alleged
operations, acts and conduct at the times and places alleged in Plaintiff's complaint and that
Plaintiff's said acts proximately caused and contributed to the alleged damages, if any there
were.
TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant alleges that
at all times relevant to the matters alleged in Plaintiffs complaint, Plaintiffs employers and/or
the persons or entities who owned or managed Plaintiff’s job sites were sophisticated users of
asbestos-containing products and negligence by said persons in providing said products to its
employees was a superseding and/or intervening cause of Plaintiff's injuries, if any there were.

TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant alleges that
there was no concert of action among Defendant and other defendants to this action and that any
alleged liability or responsibility of Defendant, which is denied, is minimal in proportion to the
alleged liability and responsibility of this person and entities including the other defendants
herein. Plaintiff should therefore be limited to seeking recovery from Defendant for a proportion
of the alleged injuries and damages for which Defendant is allegedly liable or responsible, all

such alleged liability and responsibility being denied.

244510

6
DEFENDANT WHEATLEY-JACOBSEN, INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSTWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, to the extent the
complaint alleges that Defendant has "market share” liability or "enterprise liability", the
complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant.

TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant alleges that
it is entitled to set-off any settlement, judgments, or similar amounts received by Plaintiff,
against any judgment rendered against it in Plaintiff's favor.

TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant alleges, in
accordance with section 1431.2 of the Civil Code, known as the Fair Responsibility Act of 1986,
that if Plaintiff's complaint states a cause of action, each defendant is liable, if at all, only for
those non-economic damages allocated to each defendant in direct proportion to each defendant's
percentage of fault, if any. Defendant requests a judicial determination of the amount of non-
economic damages, if any. Defendant also requests a judicial determination of the amount of
non-economic damages, if any, allocated to Defendant in direct proportion to Defendant's
percentage of fault, if any, and a separate judgment in conformance therewith.

TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant alleges that
the damages and injuries, if any, were proximately caused or contributed to, in whole or in part,
by the negligence or fault or other acts and/or omissions of persons or entities other than
Defendant, for which Defendant is not responsible.

TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant alleges that

neither the complaint nor any purported causes of action alleged therein state facts sufficient to

entitle Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages against Defendant.

244510

7
DEFENDANT WHEATLEY-JACOBSEN, INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSTWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant alleges that
Plaintiff's instant action is barred or, alternatively, merged into a prior cause of action for which
Plaintiff has previously sued upon, recovered, and dismissed with prejudice, thereby requiring a
complete extinguishment of the instant action due to the doctrines of res judicata and collateral
estoppel.

TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant alleges that
it warned Plaintiff's employers of all dangers on the premises known or reasonably knowable to
Defendant.

THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant alleges that

any danger or defect on the premises was obvious or could have been observed by Plaintiff's
exercise of reasonable care.

THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant alleges that
the allegations of the Complaint are uncertain, vague and ambiguous.
THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant alleges that
the allegations of the complaint should be dismissed pursuant to sections 583.210 through
583.250, and 583.410 through 583.430 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, and other
applicable code sections.
THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant alleges that
it is a dissolved corporation, and Plaintiff's ability to recover against Defendant therefore is

limited under California law.

244510

&
DEFENDANT WHEATLEY-JACOBSEN, INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSTHIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant alleges that
if Plaintiff sustained injuries or damages attributable to the use of any product researched, tested,
studied, manufactured, fabricated, inadequately researched, designed, inadequately tested,
labeled, assembled, distributed, leased, bought, offered for sale, sold, inspected, serviced,
installed, contracted for installation, repaired, marketed, warranted, arranged, rebranded,
manufactured for others, packaged, advertised and/or which contained or lacked warnings by
Defendant, which allegations are expressly denied, the injuries or damages were proximately
caused by the unreasonable and unforeseeable misuse, abuse, alteration, or improper
maintenance of the product by Plaintiff or by others.

THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant alleges thai
at all times mentioned, Plaintiff consented to the alleged acts of Defendant.
THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant alleges that
all claims asserted by Plaintiff were proximately caused by a superseding, intervening cause.
THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant alleges that
the entire complaint and each cause of action thereof, is barred on the grounds that the products
or materials referred to in the complaint, if any, were not a substantial factor in bringing about
the injuries and damages alleged by Plaintiff.
THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant alleges that
Plaintiff is not entitled to an award of punitive or exemplary damages in this action. Such an
award would be unconstitutional unless Defendant is accorded the safeguards provided under the
Constitution of the State of California and the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution.

244510

9
DEFENDANT WHEATLEY-JACOBSEN, INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSTHIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant alleges that
to the extent Plaintiff's claims arise out of contract; Plaintiff's claims do not state facts sufficient
to entitle Plaintiff to an award of punitive or exemplary damages against Defendant.

FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant alleges that
Plaintiff, at all times mentioned, was not in privity of contract with Defendant, and that said lack
of privity bars any recovery by Plaintiff against Defendant under any theory of breach of
warranty.

FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant alleges that

Plaintiff failed to give adequate and timely notice of any alleged breach of warranty.
FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant alleges that
Plaintiff's entire complaint is barred by the Statute of Frauds to the extent that any such causes off
action are based on alleged oral agreements.

FORTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant alleges that
all products and materials researched, tested, studied, manufactured, fabricated, inadequately
researched, designed, madequately tested, labeled, assembled, distributed, leased, bought,
offered for sale, sold, inspected, serviced, installed, contracted for installation, repaired,
marketed, warranted, arranged, re-branded, manufactured for others, packaged, advertised and/or
which contained or lacked warnings by Defendant which allegations are expressly denied, were
not defective in any manner, as said products and materials conformed with the state-of-the-art in
existence at all times mentioned in the complaint.

FORTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant alleges that

its alleged actions, which are the subject of the complaint, were lawful.

244510

10
DEFENDANT WHEATLEY-JACOBSEN, INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSFORTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant alleges that

its alleged actions, which are the subject of the complaint, were justified.

FORTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant alleges that

Plaintiff lacks standing to sue Defendant.

FORTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant alleges that

it 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 the right to assert

additional defenses in the event discovery indicates that they would be appropriate,

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, this answering Defendant prays as follows:

1

That Plaintiff take nothing by reason of the Complaint on file here;

2. That this Defendant be hence dismissed with its costs of suit incurred herein;

3. For costs of suit; and

4. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
Date: November 2, 2010 BASSI EDLIN, HUIE & BLUM LLP

244510

By: _/s/ JEREMY D. HUIE
JEREMY D. HUTE, ESQ. (SBN 191145)
Attorneys for Defendant
WHEATLEY-JACOBSEN, INC.
BASSI, EDLIN, HUIE & BLUM LLP
351 California Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 397-9006

W

DEFENDANT WHEATLEY-JACOBSEN, INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOSRe: Laurance Hagen v. Asbestos Defendants, et al.
San Francisco County Superior Court Case No. CGC10-275582

PROOF OF SERVICE — ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA/COUNTY OF San Francisco

Tam a citizen of the United States and an employee in the County of San Francisco. I
am over the age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within action. My business
address is BASSI, EDLIN, HUIE & BLUM LLP, 351 California Street, Suite 200, San.
Francisco, California 94104.

On the date executed below, I electronically served the document(s) via LexisNexis
File & Serve, described below, on the recipients designated on the Transaction Receipt located
on the LexisNexis File & Serve website.

DEFENDANT WHEATLEY-JACOBSEN, INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR
PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS

On the following parties:
SEE SERVICE LIST PROVIDED BY LEXIS-NEXIS

1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this
document is executed on November 2, 2010, at San Francisco, California.

/s/ ADELA AREVALO

ADELA AREVALO

2146

12

PROOF OF SERVICE,