This case was last updated from Santa Clara County Superior Courts on 08/07/2019 at 21:57:03 (UTC).

Deister, et al. v. Asbestos Corporation, et al.

Case Summary

On 04/27/2018 Deister filed a Personal Injury - Asbestos Product Liability lawsuit against Asbestos Corporation. This case was filed in Santa Clara County Superior Courts, Downtown Superior Court located in Santa Clara, California. The Judge overseeing this case is Kuhnle, Thomas. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ******7331

  • Filing Date:

    04/27/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Asbestos Product Liability

  • Court:

    Santa Clara County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Downtown Superior Court

  • County, State:

    Santa Clara, California

Judge Details

Judge

Kuhnle, Thomas

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

Deister, Christopher

Deister, Linda

Defendants

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

Certainteed Corporation

Asbestos Corporation Limited

Special Electric Company, Inc.

Union Carbide Corporation

Vermont Asbestos Group, Inc.

Honeywell International, Inc.

Calaveras Asbestos, LTD

Does 1-350

AlliedSignal, Inc. successor in interest to the Bendix Corporation

CSR Limited

Not Classified By Court

Superior Court of California

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

Kim, George Haksoo

Reagan, Duffy Randolph

Beale, Jason Kyle

Defendant Attorneys

Aspericueta, Erika Rose

Petrovsky, Lisa Marie

Oberg, Lisa Lurline

Passalacqua, Lisa Silva

Engel, Robert G

Parker, James Carl

Agopian, Shaghig Dawn

Pietrykowski, Michael J

Rich, Robert Alan

McClain, Florence Anne

Conolly, Elizabeth

Yang, Jonathan

Wong, Alice Truong

Thomas, Jessica Jean

McCormick, Jennifer M

Sharp, Gary David

Not Classified By Court Attorney

Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara

 

Court Documents

Declaration

Samuel D. Jubelirer Declaration HRG 9-20-19: Comment: DECLARATION OF SAMUEL D. JUBELIRER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT CERTAINTEED CORPORATION S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Memorandum: Points and Authorities

Memorandum Points and Authorities hrg 9-20-19: Comment: HRG 9/20/19

Separate Statement

Separate Statement hrg 9-20-19: Comment: HRG 9/20/19

Motion: Summary Judgment

Motion Summary Adjudication HRG 9-20-19 CERTAINTEED: Comment: DEFENDANT CERTAINTEED CORPORATION S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Application: Pro Hac Vice

Application Pro Hac Vice Robert W. Cowan HRG 8-2-19: Comment: Verified Application of Robert W. Cowan for Admission Pro Hac Vice

Application: Pro Hac Vice

Application Pro Hac Vice Aaron M. Heckaman HRG 8-2-19: Comment: Verified Application of Aaron M. Heckaman for Admission Pro Hac Vice

Notice

Notice PHV Application Aaron M. Heckaman and Robert W. Cowan HRG 8-2-19: Comment: Notice of Motion and Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Aaron M. Heckaman and Robert W. Cowan

Stipulation and Order

Stipulation and Order re Notice Period for Certainteed Corp's MSADJ: Comment: Stipulation & Order re Notice Period for Certainteed Corporation's Motion for Summary Adjudication - signed/TEK

Proof of Service

Proof of Service HRG 9-20-19: Comment: PROOF OF SERVICE

Separate Statement

Separate Statement HRG 9-20-19:

Declaration

Andrew L. Sharp Declaration HRG 9-20-19:

Memorandum: Points and Authorities

Memorandum Points and Authorities HRG 9-20-19:

Motion: Summary Judgment

Motion for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication HRG 9-20-19: Comment: DEFENDANT CALAVERAS ASBESTOS, LTD. S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil)

Proof of Service of Summons Complaint:

Order: Deeming Case Complex

Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading Deadline: Comment: Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading Deadline signed/TEK

Civil Case Cover Sheet

Final Civil Cover Sheet.pdf:

Summons: Issued/Filed

Final Summons.pdf:

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies)

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies):

79 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/21/2019
  • Jury Trial: Long Cause - Judicial Officer: Kuhnle, Thomas; Hearing Time: 9:00 AM; Comment: 2 weeks

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/11/2019
  • Conference: Trial Management - Judicial Officer: Kuhnle, Thomas; Hearing Time: 1:30 PM; Comment: FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/09/2019
  • Conference: Settlement Jury - Judicial Officer: Kuhnle, Thomas; Hearing Time: 9:00 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/20/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Motion: Summary Judgment/Adjudication - Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies): Motion for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication HRG 9-20-19: Memorandum Points and Authorities HRG 9-20-19: Andrew L. Sharp Declaration HRG 9-20-19: Separate Statement HRG 9-20-19: Proof of Service HRG 9-20-19: Judicial Officer: Kuhnle, Thomas; Hearing Time: 9:00 AM; Comment: Motion by Defendant Calaveras Asbestos, Ltd. for Summary Judgment, or, in the alternative, Summary Adjudication

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/20/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Motion: Summary Judgment/Adjudication - Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies): Stipulation and Order re Notice Period for Certainteed Corp's MSADJ: Motion Summary Adjudication HRG 9-20-19 CERTAINTEED: Separate Statement hrg 9-20-19: Memorandum Points and Authorities hrg 9-20-19: Samuel D. Jubelirer Declaration HRG 9-20-19: Judicial Officer: Kuhnle, Thomas; Hearing Time: 9:00 AM; Comment: Motion by Defendant Certainteed Corporation for Summary Adjudication

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2019
  • Conference: Case Management - Judicial Officer: Kuhnle, Thomas; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Comment: (4th CMC) Discovery and responsive pleading deadline stayed, as of 5/21/18, when the case was deemed complex. Jury trial demanded by Union Carbide Corporation (6/1/18); Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (6/4/18). Attorneys Duffy Randolph Reagan and Jason Kyle Beale admitted pro hac vice on 8/3/18; renewal fees for Regan and Beale paid 7/15/19. Attorney Alina Marie Gregory admitted pro hac vice on 8/10/18; renewal fee paid 7/15/19.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Hearing: Pro Hac Vice Counsel - Notice PHV Application Aaron M. Heckaman and Robert W. Cowan HRG 8-2-19: Application Pro Hac Vice Aaron M. Heckaman HRG 8-2-19: Application Pro Hac Vice Robert W. Cowan HRG 8-2-19: Judicial Officer: Kuhnle, Thomas; Hearing Time: 9:00 AM; Cancel Reason: Vacated; Comment: Applications to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs: (1) Aaron M. Heckaman, and (2) Robert W. Cowan

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Order - Order Granting PHV Applications Heckaman and Cowan: Comment: Granting PHV Applications of Aaron M. Heckaman and Robert W. Cowan - signed/TEK

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/26/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Deister - Heckaman Cowan No Opposition.pdf: Comment: Notice of Non-Opposition to Pro Hac Vice Applications of Aaron Heckaman and Robert Cowan

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/22/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Declaration - Samuel D. Jubelirer Declaration HRG 9-20-19: Comment: DECLARATION OF SAMUEL D. JUBELIRER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT CERTAINTEED CORPORATION S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

    Read MoreRead Less
94 More Docket Entries
  • 05/22/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil) - Proof of Service of Summons Complaint:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Order: Deeming Case Complex - Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading Deadline: Comment: Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading Deadline signed/TEK

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2018
  • Declaration: Non-Service - Comment: Declaration of Non-service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2018
  • Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil) - Comment: Calaveras

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2018
  • Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil) - Comment: Union Carbide Corporation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2018
  • Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil) - Comment: Honeywell International

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2018
  • Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil) - Comment: Certainteed Corp

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet - Final Civil Cover Sheet.pdf:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Summons: Issued/Filed - Final Summons.pdf:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies) - Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies):

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

GEORGE H. KIM (SBN 162767) KARST & von OISTE, LLP

9766 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, California 90212-1820 Telephone (310) 746-4099

Facsimile (310) 861-0525

AARON HECKAMAN (pro hac pending) J. KYLE BEALE (pro hac pending) RANDY REAGAN (pro hac pending)

BAILEY PEAVY BAILEY COWAN HECKAMAN PLLC

5555 San Felipe St., Suite 900

Houston, Texas 77056

Telephone (713) 425-7100

Facsimile (713) 425-7101

Attorneys for: PLAINTIFFS

E-FILED

4/27/2018 12:08 PM Clerk of Court

Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara

18CV327331

Reviewed By: A. Hwang

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

LINDA DEISTER and CHRISTOPHER DEISTER,

Plaintiffs, V.

ASBESTOS CORPORATION LIMITED; CALAVERAS ASBESTOS, LTD.; CERTAINTEED CORPORATION;

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., f/k/a AlliedSignal, Inc., successor in interest to The

Bendix Corporation;

SPECIAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC.; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; VERMONT ASBESTOS GROUP, INC.;

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY; And DOES 1-350, inclusive,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 18CV327331

COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY

ASBESTOS (NEGLIGENCE; STRICT LIABILITY; NEGLIGENCE AGAINST PREMISES DEFENDANTS; CONCERT OF

ACTION AGAINST METROPOLITAN LIFE

INSURANCE COMPANY; LOSS OF

CONSORTIUM)

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

COME NOW PLAINTIFFS LINDA DEISTER (“Linda Deister””) and CHRISTOPHER DEISTER (“Christopher Deister”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”), and complain and allege as follows:

1. Linda Deister’s father’s name was William Lierly. At all times mentioned herein, Linda Deister was a member of William Lierly’s household.

2. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, governmental or otherwise, of DOES 1-350, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs at this time. Plaintiffs therefore sue said defendants by such fictitious names. When the true names and capacities of the Doe defendants have been ascertained, Plaintiffs will amend this complaint accordingly. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each Doe defendant is responsible, negligently or in some other actionable manner, for the events and happenings and proximately caused the injuries and damages as alleged herein.

3. At all times herein mentioned, each defendant was the agent, servant, employee and/or joint venture of the other defendants, and each of them, and at all relevant times each defendant was acting in the course and scope of said agency, service, employment and/or joint venture.

4. Plaintiffs are informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times herein mentioned, defendants ASBESTOS CORPORATION LIMITED; CALAVERAS ASBESTOS, LTD.; CERTAINTEED CORPORATION; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., f/k/a AlliedSignal, Inc., successor in interest to The Bendix Corporation; SPECIAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC.; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; VERMONT ASBESTOS GROUP, INC.; METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; and DOES 1-200, inclusive (collectively “Products Defendants™), and each of them, were individuals, corporations, partnerships and/or unincorporated associations organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, or the laws of some other state or foreign jurisdiction, and that Products Defendants, and each of them, were and are authorized to do, and were and are doing business in the State of California, and that Products Defendants have regularly conducted

business in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 5. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all times herein mentioned, defendant CERTAINTEED CORPORATION; and DOES 201-350, inclusive (collectively “Premises Defendants’), were an individual, corporation, partnership and/or unincorporated association organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, or the laws of some other state or foreign jurisdiction, and that said defendant, was and 1s authorized to do, and was and is doing business in the State of California, and that said defendant has regularly conducted business in the County of Santa Clara, State of California.

6. The entities identified below are collectively referred to as “Alternate Entities.” At all times herein mentioned, each Product Defendant and each Premises Defendant, and each of them, was the successor, successor in business, successor in product line or a portion thereof, parent, subsidiary, wholly or partially owned by, or the whole or partial owner of its Alternate Entity. Products Defendants and Premises Defendants, and each of them, are liable for the acts of their Alternate Entities, and each of them, in that (1) they were a member of, funded, researched, repaired, marketing, warranted, re-branded, manufactured for others and advertised a substance, the generic name of which is asbestos, and other products containing asbestos; (2) there has been a virtual destruction of Plaintiffs’ remedy against each such Alternate Entity; (3) Products Defendants and Premises Defendants, and each of them, have acquired the assets, product line or a portion thereof, of each such Alternate Entity; (4) Products Defendants and each Premises Defendants, and each of them, have caused the destruction of Plaintiffs’ remedy against each such Alternate Entity; each Product Defendant and each Premises Defendant has the ability to assume the risk-spreading role of each such Alternate Entity; and (5) each Product Defendant and each Premises Defendant enjoys the goodwill originally attached to each Alternate Entity. (Products Detfendants, Premises Defendants, their Alternate Entities, and Does 1-350, inclusive, are referred to collectively herein as “Defendants.”)

/1111 /1111 /1111 /1111

NAMED DEFENDANT ALTERNATE ENTITY

CALAVERAS ASBESTOS, LTD.

CERTAINTEED CORPORATION KEASBEY & MATTISON COMPANY::

EXECUTIVE BUILDING MATERIALS

COMPANY:

WOLVERINE VINYL SIDING: BUFFTECH;

SAINT-GOBAIN INVESTMENTS INC. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., f/k/a

AlliedSignal, Inc., successor in interest to The

Bendix Corporation

SPECIAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC. SPECIAL MATERIALS COMPANY, INC. (WISCONSIN);

SPECIAL MATERIALS COMPANY, INC. (ILLINOIS);

BRAKEGATE LTD.

UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION UNION CARBIDE CHEMICALS AND PLASTICS COMPANY

VERMONT ASBESTOS GROUP, INC.

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

7. Plaintiffs disclaim any cause of action or recovery for injuries caused by exposure to asbestos dust that occurred in a federal enclave. Plaintiffs also disclaim any cause of action or recovery for injuries resulting from exposure to asbestos dust caused by acts or omissions

committed at the direction of an officer of the United States government.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(FOR NEGLIGENCE AGAINST PRODUCTS DEFENDANTS)

8. Linda Deister incorporates herein by reference, as though fully set forth therein, the allegations contained in the General Allegations herein. 9. At all times herein mentioned, Products Defendants were and are engaged in the business of researching, manufacturing, fabricating, designing, modifying, labeling, assembling,

distributing, leasing, buying, offering for sale, supplying, selling, inspecting, servicing, installing, contracting for installation, repairing, marketing, warranting, re-branding, manufacturing for others, packaging, and advertising a certain substance, the generic name of which 1s asbestos, and products and equipment containing asbestos.

10. At all times herein mentioned, Products Defendants, singularly and jointly, negligently and carelessly researched, manufactured, fabricated, designed, modified, tested or failed to test, abated or failed to abate, warned or failed to warn of the health hazards, labeled, assembled, distributed, leased, bought, offered for sale, supplied, sold, inspected, serviced, installed, contracted for installation, repaired, marketed, warranted, re-branded, manufactured for others, packaged and advertised asbestos and asbestos-containing products and equipment, in that asbestos proximately caused personal injuries to users, members of the user’s household, consumers, workers, bystanders, and others (collectively “Exposed Persons,”) including Linda Deister, while being used in a manner that was reasonably foreseeable, thereby rendering asbestos and asbestos-containing products and equipment unsafe and dangerous for use.

11. Products Defendants had a duty to exercise due care in the pursuance of the activities described above.

12. Products Defendants breached their duty of due care in that Products Defendants knew, or should have known, and intended that their asbestos and asbestos-containing products and equipment would be used or misused in a reasonably foreseeable manner resulting in the release of airborne asbestos fibers, and that through such use or foreseeable misuse, Exposed Persons, including Linda Deister, would use or be in proximity of and exposed to asbestos fibers.

13. Linda Deister used, handled, or has been otherwise exposed to asbestos and asbestos-containing products and equipment in a manner that was reasonably foreseeable. Linda Deister’s exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products and equipment occurred at various locations.

14. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Products Defendants, and each of them, as alleged herein, Linda Deister’s exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products

and equipment caused severe and permanent injury. 15. Linda Deister suffers from malignant pleural mesothelioma caused by exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products and equipment. Linda Deister was not aware at the time of exposure that asbestos or asbestos-containing products and equipment presented any risk of injury and/or disease.

16. As adirect and proximate result of the conduct of Products Defendants, and each of them, Linda Deister has suffered, and continues to suffer permanent injuries and/or future increased risk of injuries to this person, body and health, including, but not omitted to, throat cancer, other lung damage and cancer, and the mental and emotional distress attendant thereto, from the effect of exposure to asbestos fibers, all to her general damage in a sum in excess of the jurisdictional limit of a limited civil case.

17. As adirect and proximate result of the conduct of Products Defendants, and each of them, Linda Deister has incurred, is presently incurring, and will incur in the future, liability for physicians, surgeons, nurses, hospital care, medicine, hospices, X-rays, and other medical treatment. The true and exact amount is unknown to Linda Deister at this time. When the true and exact amount is ascertained, Linda Deister will amend this complaint accordingly.

18. As a further direct and proximate result of the conduct of Products Defendants, and each of them, Linda Deister has incurred, and will incur, loss of income, wages, profits, and commissions, a diminishment of earning potential, and other pecuniary losses, the full nature and extent of which are not yet known to Linda Deister. When the true and exact amount 1s ascertained, Linda Deister will amend this complaint accordingly.

19. Products Defendants, and each of them, and their officers, directors and managing agents participated in, authorized, expressly and impliedly ratified, and had full knowledge of, or should have known of, each of the acts set forth herein.

20. Products Defendants, and each of them, are liable for the fraudulent, oppressive, and malicious acts of their Alternate Entities, and each of them, as their officers, directors, and managing agents participated in, authorized, expressly and impliedly ratified, and had full knowledge of, or should have known of, the acts of each of their Alternate Entities as set forth

herein. 21. The conduct of Products Defendants, and each of them, was and 1s willful, malicious, fraudulent, outrageous, and in conscious disregard and indifference to the safety and health of Exposed Persons, including Linda Deister. Linda Deister, for the sake of example and by way of punishing Products Defendants, seeks punitive damages according to proof.

WHEREFORE, Linda Deister prays for judgment against Products Defendants, and each

of them, as hereinafter set forth.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(FOR STRICT LIABILITY AGAINST PRODUCTS DEFENDANTYS)

22. Linda Deister incorporates herein by reference, as though fully set forth therein, the allegations contained in the First Cause of Action herein.

23. Products Defendants, and each of them, knew and intended that their asbestos and asbestos-containing products and equipment would be used by the purchaser or user without inspection for defects, or in any of their component parts, and without knowledge of the hazards involved in such use.

24. Products Defendants’ asbestos and asbestos-containing products and equipment were defective and unsafe for their intended purpose in that the inhalation of asbestos fibers causes serious disease and/or death. The defect existed in Products Defendants’ products at the time they left Products Defendants’ possession. Products Defendants’ asbestos and asbestos containing products and equipment did, in fact, cause personal injuries, including asbestosis, other lung damage, and cancer to Exposed Persons, including Linda Deister, while being used in a reasonably foreseeable manner, thereby rendering Products Defendants’ asbestos and asbestos containing products and equipment defective, unsafe, and dangerous for use.

25. The dangers of Products Defendants’ asbestos and asbestos containing products and equipment were not readily recognizable by Exposed Persons, including Linda Deister. Exposed Persons, including Linda Deister, did not know of the substantial danger of using

Products Defendants’ asbestos and asbestos containing products and equipment. Products Defendants further failed to adequately warn of the risks to which Exposed Persons, including Linda Deister, were exposed.

26. In researching, manufacturing, fabricating, designing, modifying, testing or failing to test, warning or failing to warn, labeling, assembling, distributing, leasing, buying, offering for sale, supplying, selling, inspecting, servicing, installing, contracting for installation, repairing, marketing, warranting, re-branding, manufacturing for others, packaging, and advertising asbestos and asbestos-containing products and equipment, Products Defendants did so with conscious disregard for the safety of Exposed Persons, including Linda Deister, who came in contact with Products Defendants’ asbestos and asbestos-containing products and equipment. Products Defendants’ knowledge was obtained, in part, from scientific studies performed by, at the request of, or with the assistance of, Products Defendants, and each of them, on or before 1930, and thereafter.

27. On or before 1930, and thereafter, Products Defendants, and each of them, were aware that Exposed Persons, including Linda Deister, who came in contact with asbestos and asbestos-containing products and equipment had no knowledge or information that asbestos or asbestos-containing products and equipment could cause injury and believed them to be safe, when in fact exposure to asbestos and asbestos containing products and equipment was extremely hazardous to health and human life.

28. With the knowledge as alleged herein, Products Defendants, and each of them, opted to research, manufacture, fabricate, design, modify, label, assemble, distribute, lease, buy, offer for sale, supply, sell, inspect, service, install, contract for installation, repair, market, warrant, re-brand, manufacture for others, package, and advertise asbestos and asbestos-containing products and equipment without attempting to protect Exposed Persons, including Linda Deister, from or warn Exposed Persons, including Linda Deister, of, the high risk of injury or death resulting from exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products and equipment. Products Defendants, and each of them, intentionally failed to reveal their knowledge of said risk, failed to warn of said risk and consciously and actively concealed and suppressed said knowledge from

Exposed Persons, including Linda Deister, and members of the general public, thus impliedly representing to Exposed Persons, including Linda Deister, and members of the general public that asbestos and asbestos-containing products and equipment were safe for all reasonable foreseeable uses. Products Defendants, and each of them, engaged in this conduct and made these implied representations with the knowledge of their falsity.

29. The above-reference conduct of Products Defendants, and each of them, was motivated by Products Defendants’ financial interest in continuing, uninterrupted, the research, design, modification, manufacture, fabrication, labeling, assembly, distribution, lease, purchase, offer for sale, supply, sale, inspection, installation, contracting for installation, repair, marketing, warranting, re-branding, manufacturing for others, packaging and advertising of asbestos and asbestos-containing products. In pursuit of their financial motivation, Products Defendants, and each of them, consciously disregarded the safety of Exposed Persons, including Linda Deister, consciously allowed and intended to permit asbestos and asbestos-containing products and equipment to cause injury to Exposed Persons, including Linda Deister, and induced Exposed Persons, including Linda Deister, to work with and be exposed to asbestos and asbestos containing products and equipment.

30. Products Defendants, and each of them, impliedly warranted that their asbestos and asbestos-containing products and equipment were safe for their intended use, but their asbestos and asbestos containing products and equipment created an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to Exposed Persons, including Linda Deister.

31. Linda Deister’s injuries are a result of cumulative exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products and equipment manufactured, fabricated, inadequately researched, designed, modified, inadequately tested, labeled, assembled, distributed, leased brought, offered for sale, supplied, sold, inspected, serviced, installed, contracted for installation, repaired, marketed, warranted, re-branded, manufactured for others, packages and advertised by Products Defendants, and each of them, all of which were a substantial contributing factor to Linda Deister’s development of the asbestos disease complained of herein.

32. Linda Deister relied upon Products Defendants’ representations, lack of warnings,

and implied warranties of the fitness of asbestos and asbestos-containing products and equipment. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result thereof, Linda Deister has been injured permanently as alleged herein. 33. As adirect and proximate result of Products Defendants’ actions and conduct alleged herein, Linda Deister has suffered the injuries and damages alleged herein. WHEREFORE, Linda Deister prays for judgment against Products Defendants, and each

of them, as hereinafter set forth.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(NEGLIGENCE AGAINST PREMISES DEFENDANTYS)

34. Linda Deister incorporates herein by reference, as though fully set forth therein, the allegations contained in the First and Second Causes of Action herein.

35. The Premises Defendants, through their officers and employees, knew or should have known at least by 1930 that asbestos-containing products which it supplied and which were used extensively throughout the facilities, were a health hazard to people who worked with and around them, and in the alternative, had no positive proof that prolonged exposure to asbestos was safe.

36. The Premises Defendants, as employers of William Lierly, owed to Linda Deister, a member of William Lierly’s household, a duty to provide a safe place to work and a duty to give William Lierly and Linda Deister timely notice of latent or concealed dangers which were known or should have been known by the Premises Defendants.

37.. Premises Defendants breached its duties to Linda Deister by engaging in the following omissions or commissions:

(a) It negligently furnished asbestos-containing products to William Lierly for use in his duties at the facility thereby allowing William Lierly to carry asbestos fibers home to members of his household;

(2)

(h)

It negligently failed to inform William Lierly and Linda Deister of its known potentially hazardous work place as a result of asbestos exposure;

It negligently failed to replace the hazardous asbestos- containing products with asbestos substitutes which i1t knew or should have known by 1930 were available;

It negligently failed to abate or contain the unsafe work environment although it knew or should have known in the 1930s that containment and abatement were available;

It negligently made William Lierly work in dangerous areas of the facility knowing that it posed a significant health hazard to people because of the friable and deteriorating condition of asbestos-containing products, thereby allowing William Lierly to carry asbestos fibers home to members of his household;

It negligently failed to restrict William Lierly from working in dangerous areas of the facility which had been identified as posing a significant health hazard because of the friable or deteriorating condition of asbestos-containing products, thereby allowing William Lierly to carry asbestos fibers home to members of his household;

It negligently failed to provide any or adequate instructions concerning the safe methods of working with and around the products 1t supplied, including specific instructions on how to avoid inhaling, ingesting or otherwise absorbing the asbestos fibers;

It negligently failed to provide masks, respirators or other protective apparel to William Lierly, thereby permitting William Lierly to work around hazardous asbestos- containing material without protection and allowing William Lierly to carry asbestos fibers home to members of his household; and

It negligently failed 1) to provide medical examinations (until the 1980s), 2) failed to determine past asbestos exposure of its employees and workers, and 3) failed to identify those trades that came into contact with asbestos- containing products it supplied. 38. Premises Defendants undertook a duty to provide a safe work place for William Lierly and Linda Deister. Premises Defendants knew that William Lierly and Linda Deister relied on it to provide a safe work place. In permitting and knowing that William Lierly and Linda Deister would rely on Premises Defendants to provide a safe work place, the Premises Defendants negligently engaged in a false representation of a material fact, knowing it to be false and doing it for the purpose of inducing William Lierly to continue to work at Certainteed Corporation. William Lierly and Linda Deister reasonably believed and relied on Premises Defendants’ representation to their detriment.

39. The breach by Premises Defendants of its duties to Linda Deister was a direct and proximate cause of her development and contraction of an asbestos-related disease, including mesothelioma, and resulted in damages more particularly described below.

40. As adirect and proximate cause of each of the foregoing negligent acts or omissions, both individually and collectively, Linda Deister was exposed to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed great amounts of asbestos fibers without her consent, causing her to develop mesothelioma; Linda Deister has in the past and will in the future be compelled to expend and become liable for large sums of monies for hospital, medical and other health care services necessary for the treatment of her asbestos-induced disease and conditions; Linda Deister has in the past and will in the future experience great physical pain and mental anguish as a result of the inhalation, ingestion and absorption of said asbestos fibers; and that as a further result of her asbestos-induced disease and conditions, Linda Deister has in the past and will in the future be hindered and prevented from pursuing her normal course of employment, thereby losing large sums of money which otherwise would have accrued to her.

41. Premises Defendants and their officers, directors and managing agents participated in, authorized, expressly and impliedly ratified, and had full knowledge of, or should have known of, each of the acts set forth herein.

42. Premises Defendants are liable for the fraudulent, oppressive, and malicious acts of

their Alternate Entities, and each of them, as their officers, directors, and managing agents participated in, authorized, expressly and impliedly ratified, and had full knowledge of, or should have known of, the acts of each of their Alternate Entities as set forth herein.

43. The conduct of Premises Defendants and each of them, was and is willful, malicious, fraudulent, outrageous, and in conscious disregard and indifference to the safety and health of Exposed Persons, including Linda Deister. Linda Deister, for the sake of example and by way of punishing Premises Defendants, seeks punitive damages according to proof.

WHEREFORE, Linda Deister prays judgment be entered against the Premises Defendants

as hereinafter set forth.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(FOR CONCERT OF ACTION AGAINST METROPOLITAN LIFE)

44. Linda Deister incorporates herein by reference, as though fully set forth therein, the allegations contained in the First, Second and Third Causes of Action herein.

45. During the course of her life, Linda Deister was exposed to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed large amounts of asbestos fibers emanating from certain products she or her father were working with and around which were manufactured, sold or distributed by the Defendants named in this Complaint.

46. The Concert of Action Defendant, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (Metropolitan Life”), agreed and conspired with other asbestos manufacturers, distributors, and trade organizations, to injure Linda Deister in the following manner.

47. Beginning in the late 1920's, the conspirators, Johns-Manville, Raybestos- Manhattan, Metropolitan Life, Pneumo Abex, LLC, and others conducted research on asbestos- related health problems and as a result undertook a duty to inform the consuming public about any health risks that could be associated therewith. In approximately 1929, the conspirator, Metropolitan Life, through its agents and employees acting within the scope of their employment, notably Dr. Anthony J. Lanza, began an investigation of asbestos-related health hazards in the United States, by studying asbestos mines in Canada and on the Eastern seaboard of the United

States. In 1935, this study was altered by Lanza, with the full knowledge of Metropolitan Life, at the request of and in concert with the asbestos industry, and the conspirators named herein in order wrongly to influence the United States Public Health Service, the United States medical community and various state legislatures, including the New Jersey Worker's Compensation Commission. At all times mentioned herein, Metropolitan Life was the general medical, disability and life insurance carrier, both occupational and non-occupational, for the conspirators Johns- Manville in the U.S. and Canada, and Raybestos-Manhattan, as well as others in the industry.

48. Dr. Lanza's omission of any citation to the significant English literature from his 1935 published report was a continuation of the policy of Metropolitan Life and its co- conspirators, to misrepresent and suppress relevant information about the seriousness of asbestosis disease, especially to asbestos industry employees and consumers of asbestos products.

49, The following conspirators were members of the trade association known as the Quebec Asbestos Mining Association ("Q.A.M.A."): Johns-Manville Corporation, Carey Canada, individually and as successor to Quebec Asbestos Corporation, National Gypsum Company and Turner & Newall, individually and successor to Bell Asbestos. These conspirators, members of the Q.A.M.A., participated in the above-described material misrepresentations of the work of Dr. Leroy Gardner published by Dr. Arthur Vorwald in the AMA Archives of Industrial Health in 1951. Evidence of the Q.A.M.A.'s involvement in this misrepresentation arises from co- conspirator Johns-Manville's membership in the Q.A.M.A., as well as correspondence from co- conspirators dated 10/29/47, 11/26/47, 3/6/38, 10/15/48, 3/8/49, 3/21/51 and 9/6/50 and all indicating close monitoring of the editing process of Dr. Gardner's work by Q. A.M.A.'s representative Mr. Ivan Sabourin, acting on behalf of all Q.A.M.A. members, and also acting in close concert with the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and Dr. Anthony J. Lanza.

50. In addition to the above described actions, the conspirators, through their agent, Dr. Anthony J. Lanza of the Metropolitan Life, made a concerted effort to discredit and to terminate the studies and experiments of certain scientists who were developing data of profound importance for the area of public health in relation to the lung cancer hazard which in fact did exist for

workers and bystanders in the asbestos industry. 51. Because of the above-described efforts of Dr. Lanza of Metropolitan Life, and the other co-conspirators, many other active scientists in the field of environmental cancer were driven out of their laboratories soon after describing their findings on cancer hazards of asbestos/industrial health origin. This included Dr. Gerritt Schepers, who had conducted in- patient studies in South Africa. (Lanza and Vandiver Brown suppressed the publication of Schepers work while Schepers was affiliated at New York University.) These efforts wrongfully obstructed and confused the real asbestos hazard situation and had a profound retarding effect on the evaluation of the truth in asbestos and asbestos-related health and cancer research. 52. In addition to all allegations above, the conspirators actively suppressed publications concerning asbestosis in the Asbestos Magazine, a trade magazine and important source of information to the public, and also to users of asbestos products, including users such as Linda Deister herein. This magazine was read by sales and marketing personnel in the asbestos industry. 53. The acts of the defendant conspirators, as described above, constitute a fraudulent misrepresentation/concealment which proximately caused the injuries to Linda Deister in the following manner: A. The material published or caused to be published by the conspirators was false and incomplete in that Metropolitan Life knowingly and deliberately deleted references to the known health hazards of asbestos and asbestos-related products. B. Metropolitan Life individually, as a member of a conspiracy, and as an agent of other co-conspirators, intended the publication of false and misleading reports, and/or the non-disclosure of documented reports of the health hazards of asbestos: 1. To maintain a favorable atmosphere for the continued sale and distribution and use of asbestos and asbestos-related products;

2. To assist in the continued pecuniary gain of Metropolitan Life through the sale of asbestos products to an ignorant public;

3. To influence in the Metropolitan Life’s favor legislation to regulate asbestos

exposures and limit medical and disability claims for compensation; 4. To provide a defense in lawsuits brought for injury resulting from asbestos

disease; 5. To prevent relevant medical inquiry about asbestos disease; 6. To mislead the general public, and Linda Deister, about the hazards

associated with asbestos products; and 7. To induce Linda Deister to use and continue to use asbestos products.

C. Linda Deister reasonably relied upon the published medical and scientific data documenting the purported safety of asbestos and asbestos-related products, and the absence of published medical and scientific reports on the hazards of asbestos and asbestos-related products to asbestos because Linda Deisterbelieved it to be safe.

D. Metropolitan Life individually, and as a member of a conspiracy, and as an agent of other co-conspirators intended that Linda Deister rely upon the published reports regarding the safety of asbestos and asbestos-related products and upon the absence of published medical and scientific data regarding the hazards of asbestos and asbestos-related products, to continue their exposure to those products.

E. Metropolitan Life individually, and as a member of a conspiracy, and as an agent of other co-conspirators was in a position of superior knowledge regarding the health hazards of asbestos and therefore the Linda Deister and others deciding to use said asbestos-containing products to which Linda Deister was exposed had a right to rely and did rely on the published reports commissioned by Metropolitan Life regarding the health hazards of asbestos and the absence of published medical and scientific data regarding the hazards of asbestos and asbestos-related products.

F. Linda Deister suffered injuries as a direct and proximate result of the acts alleged

above.

54. As adirect and proximate result of Metropolitan Life's intentional publication of

deceptive and misleading medical data and information, as described in the preceding paragraphs, upon which data Linda Deister reasonably relied, Metropolitan Life caused asbestos and/or

asbestos-containing products to be used by Linda Deister and Linda Deister has inhaled or otherwise ingested hazardous asbestos dust, and/or will inhale or ingest hazardous asbestos dust, resulting in injuries.

55. Additionally and alternatively, as a direct and proximate result of Metropolitan Life's actions and omissions as described above, Linda Deister was caused to remain ignorant concerning the danger of human exposure to asbestos, resulting in damage to Linda Deister by depriving Linda Deister, her agents, employees and the general public, of opportunities to be aware of the hazards of asbestos exposure, and thus the opportunity to take proper safety precautions and/or avoid exposure to asbestos dust. Because of this ignorance on the part of Linda Deister, Metropolitan Life's failure to warn, Metropolitan Life's concealment from Linda Deister of the alteration of its published test results, and the actions and omissions and concerted design and conspiracy of Metropolitan Life and others, all as described above, Linda Deister was exposed to asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products used at her household and has inhaled or otherwise ingested hazardous asbestos dust resulting in her developing mesothelioma.

56. Additionally and alternatively, as a direct result of Metropolitan Life’s actions and omissions, Linda Deister was caused to remain ignorant of all the dangers of asbestos resulting in Linda Deister, her father and the general public to be unaware of the true and full dangers of asbestos, and deprived Linda Deister of the opportunity to decide for herself whether she wanted to take the risk of being exposed to asbestos, denied Linda Deister the opportunity to take precautions against the dangers of asbestos and caused Linda Deister’s damages herein.

WHEREFORE, Linda Deister prays judgment against Metropolitan Life as hereinafter set forth.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(FOR LOSS OF CONSORTIUM AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

57. Christopher Deister incorporates by reference, each and every paragraph of the First, Second, Third and Fourth Causes of Action herein. 58. Linda Deister and Christopher Deister were married on January 1, 1983 and at all

times relevant to this action were, and are now, husband and wife. 59. Prior to Linda Deister’s injuries as alleged, she was able and did perform duties as a spouse. Subsequent to the injuries and as a proximate result thereof, Linda Deister has been unable to perform the necessary duties as a spouse and the work and services usually performed in the care, maintenance, and management of the family home, and she will be unable to perform such work, service and duties in the future.

60. As a proximate result thereof, Christopher Deister has been permanently deprived and will be deprived of the consortium of his spouse, including the performance of duties, all to her damages, in an amount presently unknown but which will be proved at the time of trial.

61. Christopher Deister’s discovery of this cause of his loss of consortium, as herein alleged, first occurred within one year of the date this Complaint was filed.

62. As adirect and proximate result of the acts of Defendants, and each of them, and the severe injuries caused thereby to Linda Deister, as alleged herein, Christopher Deister has suffered, and for a long period of time will continue to suffer, loss of consortium, including, but not limited to, loss of services, marital relations, society, comfort, companionship, love and affection of Linda Deister, and has suffered severe mental and emotional distress and general nervousness as a result thereof.

WHEREFORE, Christopher Deister prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of

them, as is hereinafter set forth.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Linda Deister and Christopher Deister pray for judgment against

Defendants, and each of them, in an amount to be proved at trial in each individual case, as

follows: 1. For general damages, according to proof; 2 For medical and related expenses, according to proof; and 3 For damages for loss of consortium and/or society according to proof. 4, For cost of suit herein; 5 For exemplary or punitive damages, according to proof 6. For damages for fraud according to proof; and i For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper, including costs and prejudgment interest as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 998

5

Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, and related provisions of law.

DATED: April 27, 2018

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs hereby demand trial by jury as to all issues so triable.

DATED: April 27, 2018 KARST & \;O@ISTE, L

//"

EXHIBIT “A”

Linda Deister’s exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products and equipment

occurred at various locations within the state of California including, but not limited to:

Employer Location of Exposure | Job Title Exposure Dates CERTAINTEED San Jose, California William Lierly worked | 1958 — 1977 CORPORATION on a lathe finishing (Father William couplings for Lierly) CertainTeed asbestos

cement pipe at the

Santa Clara plant. n/a San Jose, California Plaintiff’s father and 1960°s -1980

brother were shadetree mechanics

EXHIBIT “B”

Linda Deister’s exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products and equipment caused severe and permanent injury to the Plaintiff including, but not limited to, breathing difficulties, asbestosis, mesothelioma, lung and/or other cancer, and/or other lung damage. Linda Deister was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma on or about January 23, 2018.

Linda Deister works as a secretary for her local public-school district in Whitefish,

EXHIBIT “C” PRELIMINARY FACT SHEET (PERSONAL INJURY COMPLAINT)

L. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Name: Linda Deister

Address: 190 Kallner Lane City: Whitefish State: MT

Date of Birth: December 16, 1958

Based on the current facts, do plaintiff(s) intend on filing a motion for preference?

Know

Have you ever resided in California? XXX Yes No. If YES, provide cities in California where you resided and the dates you resided in each city.

City: San Jose, CA Dates: 1958-1978 & 1979

City: Long Beach, CA Dates: 1979-1981

IL. EXPOSURE Date of First Claimed Asbestos Exposure: 1958

Date of Last Claimed Asbestos Exposure: 1980

For each asbestos-containing product to which you claim you were exposed, please provide the

following information (fill in the chart): Defendant Product at Location of Type of Issue Exposure Exposure

(Direct Occupational, Para- Occupational) or Non- Occupational)

ASBESTOS Asbestos 1958-1977 CertainTeed San Jose, CA |Para- CORPORATION |fibers Corporation Occupational LIMITED (Father William Lierly)

CALAVERAS Asbestos 1958-1977 CertainTeed San Jose, CA |Para- ASBESTOS, fibers Corporation Occupational LTD. (Father William CERTAINTEED |Asbestos 1958-1977 CertainTeed San Jose, CA |Para- CORPORATION |cement pipe Corporation Occupational

and (Father William

couplings Lierly)

HONEYWELL |Bendix 1960°s-1980 San Jose, CA [Non- INTERNATION |Brakes Occupational AL, INC., f/k/a Lierly and

AlliedSignal, Inc., brother Steve

successor in Lierly were

interest to The shadetree

Bendix mechanics

Corporation

SPECIAL Asbestos 1958-1977 CertainTeed San Jose, CA |Para- ELECTRIC fibers Corporation Occupational COMPANY, (Father William INC. Lierly) UNION Asbestos 1958-1977 CertainTeed San Jose, CA |Para- CARBIDE fibers Corporation Occupational CORPORATION (Father William

Lierly) VERMONT Asbestos 1958-1977 CertainTeed San Jose, CA |Para- ASBESTOS fibers Corporation Occupational GROUP, INC. (Father William

Lierly)

Have you ever served in the military? Yes XXX No