Answer: LEWIS FORBES et al VS. ACANDS, INC.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                KONIC TI

San Francisco Superior Courts
Information Technology Group

Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Sep-09-2002 12:57 pm

Case Number: CGC-02-411098
Filing Date: Sep-09-2002 12:54
: Juke Box: 001 Image: 00501558
ANSWER

LEWIS FORBES et al VS. ACANDS, INC.

001000501558

Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA £4108.
TELEPHONE (418) 288-651

HARRINGTON, Foxx, DUBROW & CANTER, LLP
650 CALIFORNIA STREET, 18" FLOOR

Fy

HARRINGTON, FOXX, DUBROW & CANTER, LEP Coy,
SUSAN A. WATSON, State Bar No. 67954. 7
GREGORY J. SOWDER. State Bar No. 196198 on
650 California Street, 19"" Floor .
San Francisco, California 94108 Gas
Telephone (415) 288-6600

Attorneys for Defendant. AMERON
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

Uli qt
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

LEWIS FORBES AND DIANE FORBES, ) CASE NO. 411098

)
) ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR
Plaintiffs, ) PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF
) CONSORTICM - ASBESTOS
Vv. )
)
AC&S, INC., et. al. )
Defendants. )
_ )

COMES NOW defendant, AMERON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, and in
answer to the unverilied complaint for damages and loss of consortium herein, admits, denies and
alleges as follows:

‘This answering defendant denies each and every , all and singular, generally and
specifically, the allegations of said complaint for damages and loss af consortium, and specifically
denies that plaintiffs have been damaged in any sum or sums.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A FIRST, ATFIRMATIVE AND SEPARATE DEFENSE, this defendant
states that the complaint for damages and loss of consortium and cach and every cause of action

thercof fails to state facts suflicient to constitute a cause of action against this defendant.

TACASEAAMRN, 122\Pleadings\AnswerCompiaint -l-

AMERON’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT‘SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108
TELEPHONE (£15) 288-8600.

HARRINGTON, Foxx, DUBROW & CANTER, LLP
850 CALIFORNIA STREET, 19"" FLOOR:

27
28

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A SECOND, AFFIRMATIVE AND SEPARATE DEFENSE, this
defendant states that plaintiffs were themselves negligent in and about the matlers complained of in
the complaint for damages and loss of consortium. and that said carelessness and negligence on
said plaintiffs’ own part directly and proximately contributed to and caused the injuries and
damages complained of, if any there were.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A TIIRD, AFFIRMATIVE AND SEPARATE DEFENSE, this defendant
states that plaintiffs were and are under a duty to minimize the damages and injurics complained
of, if any there were: plaintiffs have failed, neglected and refused to so minimize such damages and
injuries, and by reason of such failurc, neglect and refusal have increased their damages and
injuries, and are not entitled to recover therefor.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A FOURTH, AFFIRMATIVE AND SEPARATE DEFENSF, this
defendant states that the injuries and damages complained of by plaintiffs, if any there were, were
cither wholly or in part directly and proximately caused by the negligence of persons or entities
other than this defendant and said negligence is either imputed to plaintiffs by reason of the
relationship between plaintills and said persons or entities. or comparatively reduces the proportion
of negligence and corresponding liability of this defendant.

FIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A FIFTH, AFFIRMATIVE AND SEPARATE DEFENSE, this defendant
states that the complaint for damages and loss of consortium and each and every cause of action
thereof is barred by the applicable statutes of limitation including, but not limited to, Code of Civil
Procedure $§338, 339, 340, and 343.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A SIXTI, AFFIRMATIVE AND SEPARATE DEFENSE, this defendant
states that the complaint for damages and loss of consortium and the causes of action alleged

therein, are barred by the doctrines of laches. estoppel. waiver and/or unclean hands.

2.
AMERON'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

FACASRIAMRN. |22\Pleadings\AnswerComplaintHARRINGTON, Foxx, DUBROW & CANTER, LLP
650 CALIFORNIA STREET, 19" FLOOR
‘SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA $4108
TELEPHONE (415) 288-8809

26

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A SEVENTH. AFFIRMATIVE AND SEPARATE DEFENSE. this
defendant stales that plaintiffs knowingly, voluntarily and unreasonably undertook to encounter
each of the risks and hazards, if any, referred to in the complaint for damages and loss of
consortium, and the cause of aclion alleged therein, and thereby assumed the risk of the alleged
injury and damage, and this undertaking proximately caused and contributed to any loss, injury or
damages incurred by plaintiffs.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH, AFFIRMATIVE AND SEPARATE DEFENSE, this
defendant states that if plaintiffs’ injuries, if any, were proximately caused by exposure to any
substances being used as premises owned by this defendant, which is hereby expressly denied, this
defendant is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the substances were being used
pursuant to specifications and requirements established, approved or imposed by contract with the
United State Government and/or otber persons or entities. The use of said substances, if any, was
in conformity with these specifications in all material respects. The United States Government,
persons and entities mentioned above knew as much or more than this defendant about the hazards,
if any, associated with the use of the substances in question. Thus, this defendant is not liable for
damages, if any, proximately resulting therefrom.

NINTU AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A NINTH, AFFIRMATIVE AND SEPARATE DEFENSE, this defendant
states that under California Labor Code $3601, et seq., and under the doctrine of Witt v. Jackson
(1961) 57 C2d 57, plaintiffs’ right lo recover, if any, are reduced by any payments in connection
with the matters alleged in the complaint, which were received by plaintiffs under the California
Workers’ Compensation laws or under the Federal Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’
Compensation Act.

TENTU AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A ‘TENTH, AFFIRMATIVE AND SFPARATE DEFENSE, this defendant
states that plaintiffs claim for punitive damages violates this defendant’s right to due process and

FACASEXAMRN, 122\Picadings\AnswerComplaint -3-

AMERON'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT.HARRINGTON, Foxx, DuBROW & CANTER, LLP
850 CALIFORNIA STREET, 18™ FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 04108
TELEPHONE (415) 288-6600

equal protection as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,
and Article L, Section 7, of the California Constitution, in that: (1) Neither California Civil Code
§3294, nor any other provision of California law, provides an adequate or meaningful standard for
determining the nature of the conduct upon which an award of punitive damages may be based, or
for determining or reviewing the amount of a punitive damage award; (2) neither California Civil
Code §3294, nor any other provision of California law, provides adequate procedural safeguards
for the imposition of punitive damages, including, but not limited to,
(a) Imposing such damages only upon the presentation of evidence beyond a reasonable
doubt;
(b) Protecting the defendant's privilege against sclf-incriminalion; and
(c) Providing for a unanimous jury verdict as to the punitive damages portion of any
adverse judgment.
WHEREFORE, this defendant prays for judgment as follows:
1. That plaintiffs take nothing by reason of their complaint for damages and loss of
consortium;

2. For defendant's costs of suit incurred herein;

»

For defendant’s reasonable attorneys’ fees; and

-

For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

HARRINGTON, FOXX, DUBROW & CANTER
4 4
Boy § DB: bp Ad ie bem .
Dated: Gd bite be” Pte, SUSAN A. WATSON
oP Attorneys for Defendant AMERON
‘ INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

!

BACASHVAMEN. 22PtewdingsAnswerComnptain: -4-
AMERON'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT‘SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA £4108
TELEPHONE (415) 288-6500

HARRINGTON, Foxx, DUBROW & CANTER, LLP
850 CALIFORNIA STREET, 18™ FLOOR

27
28

PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Tam employed in the County of San Francisco. State of California. I am over the age of 18
and nol a party to the within action. My business address is 650 California Strect, 19 Floor, San
Francisco, California 94108,

On September 9, 2002, I served the foregoing document described as ANSWER TO
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM on all interested
parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as
stated on the attached mailing list.

BY MAIL AS FOLLOWS:

Tam "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 at San Francisco, California in the ordinary course of
business. ] 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 date of deposit for mailing in
affidavit.

Executed on September 9, 2002, al San Francisco, California.

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

a (Federal) I declare thal I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this
Court at whose direction the service was made. 4

Anders Winther

FACASTAAMRN. 122\Pleadings\AnswerCompiaint

AMERON'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT‘SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108
TELEPHONE (415) 283-6600

HARRINGTON, Foxx, DUBROW & CANTER, LLP
650 CALIFORNIA STREET, 19™ FLOOR:

+ win

15

CLAPPER & PATTI

Marina Office Plaza

2330 Marinship Way, Suite 140
Sausalito, CA 94965

BERRY & BERRY
2930 Lakeshore Avenue
P.O. Box 16070
Oakland, CA 94610

FACASE\AMRN. 122\Pleadings\AnswerCompiaint

SERVICE LIST

AMERON'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT