`
`IN RE:
`
`STATE OF CONNECTICUT
`BRIDGEPORT ASBESTOS LITIGATION
`
`
`DOCKET NO.: FBT-CV-23-6120092-S
`
`CONRAD JOHNS and ELIZABETH JOHNS
`
`v.
`
`ALFA LAVAL, INC., et al.
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
`FAIRFIELD
`
`AT BRIDGEPORT
`
`FEBRUARY 2, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`ANSWER AND SPECIAL DEFENSES OF
`DEFENDANT York INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
`
`Defendant York International Corporation (hereafter referred
`
`to as “York” or
`
`“Defendant”), hereby files its Answer and Special Defenses to plaintiffs, Conrad Johns and
`
`Elizabeth Johns (“Plaintiffs”), Complaint dated December 13, 2022 (“Complaint”).
`
`ANSWER
`COUNT I
`York is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`1.
`
`of the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint and those allegations are thus denied.
`
`2.
`
`York is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint and those allegations are thus denied.
`
`3.
`
`York denies the allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint to the extent the
`
`allegations relate to York. York is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as
`
`to the truth of the allegations as they relate to other Defendants and those allegations are thus
`
`denied.
`
`4.
`
`York is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint and those allegations are thus denied.
`
`

`

`5.
`
`York is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint and those allegations are thus denied.
`
`6.
`
`York denies the allegations in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint to the extent the
`
`allegations relate to York. York is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the allegations as they relate to other Defendants and those allegations are thus
`
`denied.
`
`7.
`
`York denies the allegations in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint to the extent the
`
`allegations relate to York. York is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the allegations as they relate to other Defendants and those allegations are thus
`
`denied.
`
`8.
`
`York is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint and those allegations are thus denied.
`
`9.
`
`York denies the allegations in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint to the extent the
`
`allegations relate to York. York is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the allegations as they relate to other Defendants and those allegations are thus
`
`denied.
`
`10.
`
`York denies the allegations in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint to the extent the
`
`allegations relate to York. York is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the allegations as they relate to other Defendants and those allegations are thus
`
`denied.
`
`11.
`
`York denies the allegations in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint to the extent the
`
`allegations relate to York. York is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`as to the truth of the allegations as they relate to other Defendants and those allegations are thus
`
`denied.
`
`12.
`
`York denies the allegations in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint to the extent the
`
`allegations relate to York. York is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the allegations as they relate to other Defendants and those allegations are thus
`
`denied.
`
`13.
`
`York denies the allegations in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint to the extent the
`
`allegations relate to York. York is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the allegations as they relate to other Defendants and those allegations are thus
`
`denied.
`
`14.
`
`York denies the allegations in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint to the extent the
`
`allegations relate to York. York is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the allegations as they relate to other Defendants and those allegations are thus
`
`denied.
`
`15.
`
`The allegations in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint contain conclusions of law to
`
`which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, York
`
`denies the allegations in Paragraph 15 to the extent these allegations relate to York. York is
`
`without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as
`
`they relate to other Defendants and those allegations are thus denied.
`
`16.
`
`The allegations in Paragraph 16 (and all subparagraphs) of the Complaint contain
`
`conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is deemed
`
`necessary, York denies the allegations in Paragraph 16 (and all subparagraphs) to the extent these
`
`allegations relate to York. York is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`as to the truth of the allegations as they relate to other Defendants and those allegations are thus
`
`denied.
`
`17.
`
`York denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint to the
`
`extent the allegations relate to York. York is without information or knowledge sufficient to form
`
`a belief as to the truth of the allegations as they relate to other Defendants and those allegations
`
`are thus denied.
`
`18.
`
`The allegations in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint contain conclusions of law to
`
`which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, York
`
`denies the allegations in Paragraph 18 to the extent these allegations relate to York. York is
`
`without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as
`
`they relate to other Defendants and those allegations are thus denied.
`
`19.
`
`York denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint to the
`
`extent the allegations relate to York. York is without information or knowledge sufficient to form
`
`a belief as to the truth of the allegations as they relate to other Defendants and those allegations
`
`are thus denied.
`
`20.
`
`York is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations contained in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint and those allegations are thus denied.
`
`21.
`
`York is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations contained in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint and those allegations are thus denied.
`
`22.
`
`The allegations in Paragraph 22 of the Complaint contain conclusions of law to
`
`which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, York
`
`denies the allegations in Paragraph 22 to the extent these allegations relate to York. York is
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as
`
`they relate to other Defendants and those allegations are thus denied.
`
`23.
`
`The allegations in Paragraph 23 of the Complaint contain conclusions of law to
`
`which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, York
`
`denies the allegations in Paragraph 23 to the extent these allegations relate to York. York is
`
`without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as
`
`they relate to other Defendants and those allegations are thus denied.
`
`COUNT II
`
`
`
`1-23. York’s answers to Paragraphs 1 through 23 above are hereby made answers to this
`
`Count II as if fully set forth herein.
`
`
`
`24.
`
`York denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint to the
`
`extent the allegations relate to York. York is without information or knowledge sufficient to form
`
`a belief as to the truth of the allegations as they relate to other Defendants and those allegations
`
`are thus denied.
`
`25.
`
`York denies the allegations in Paragraph 25 of the Complaint to the extent the
`
`allegations relate to York. York is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the allegations as they relate to other Defendants and those allegations are thus
`
`denied.
`
`26.
`
`York denies the allegations in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint to the extent the
`
`allegations relate to York. York is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the allegations as they relate to other Defendants and those allegations are thus
`
`denied.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`27.
`
`York denies the allegations in Paragraph 27 of the Complaint to the extent the
`
`allegations relate to York. York is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the allegations as they relate to other Defendants and those allegations are thus
`
`denied.
`
`28.
`
`The allegations in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint contain conclusions of law to
`
`which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, York
`
`denies the allegations in Paragraph 28 to the extent these allegations relate to York. York is
`
`without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as
`
`they relate to other Defendants and those allegations are thus denied.
`
`COUNT III
`
`
`
`1-28. York’s answers to Paragraphs 1 through 28 above are hereby made answers to this
`
`Count III as if fully set forth herein.
`
`
`
`29.
`
`York denies the allegations in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint to the extent the
`
`allegations relate to York. York is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the allegations as they relate to other Defendants and those allegations are thus
`
`denied.
`
`SPECIAL DEFENSES AS TO ALL COUNTS
`
`FIRST SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant states that this action was not commenced within the time required by law and
`should be dismissed against this Defendant.
`
`SECOND SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant states that Plaintiffs lacks standing to bring this litigation.
`
`THIRD SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant states that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over this Defendant.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`FOURTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant states that venue for this action is improper.
`
`FIFTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant states that there is insufficiency of process and insufficiency of service of
`process against it.
`
`SIXTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`The Complaint/cross-claim/third-party claim (referred to collectively as “the Complaint”) in
`whole or in part, fails to state a claim or cause of action against Defendant upon which relief can be
`granted.
`
`SEVENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant states that the Plaintiffs have failed to join a party or parties necessary for the
`just adjudication of this matter and have further omitted to state any reason for such failure.
`
`EIGHTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant states Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part under the doctrine of
`spoliation and the failure to properly preserve evidence necessary for the determination of the
`alleged claims.
`
`NINTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant states that Plaintiff, Conrad Johns (“Mr. Johns”), willingly, knowingly and
`voluntarily assumed the risk of the alleged illnesses and injuries for which relief is sought in this
`matter.
`
`TENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant states that because the injuries and the damages complained of herein were
`caused in whole or in part by the negligence of Mr. Johns, his servants or agents, such recovery is
`barred or, in the alternative, subject to diminution.
`
`ELEVENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`This Defendant denies the applicability of the doctrine of strict liability in tort to this
`litigation.
`
`TWELFTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant states that Plaintiffs’ claims against this Defendant are barred in whole or in
`part, or are subject to diminution, because damages or losses experienced, if any, were not due to
`any act or failure to act of this Defendant, but were caused solely by the acts of a third-party or
`parties for whose acts or failure to act this Defendant is not responsible.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`THIRTEENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant states that if Mr. Johns was injured as alleged, said injuries were caused by
`intervening and/or superseding acts of third parties for whom the Defendant is not liable.
`
`FOURTEENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant states that recovery for damages alleged herein are barred in whole or in part in
`that no privity of contract exists between Mr. Johns and Defendant.
`
`FIFTEENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant states that Plaintiffs’ claims based on allegations of express or implied warranty
`are barred for the reason that no sale of goods occurred within the meaning of the Uniform
`Commercial Code and/or within the meaning of Article 2, Conn. Gen. Stat. §42a-2-101 et seq.
`
`SIXTEENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant states that Plaintiffs’ claims based on allegations of express or implied warranty
`are barred for the reason that Defendant gave no warranties or special warranties, either express
`or implied, to Mr. Johns or to anyone acting on his behalf.
`
`SEVENTEENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant states that if any of Defendant’s agents or servants made any express warranties
`(allegations which the Defendant specifically denies), then the agents or servants did so without
`authority, express or implied.
`
`EIGHTEENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant states that if any of Defendant’s agents or servants made any warranties,
`express or implied (allegations which the Defendant specifically denies), then the Defendant
`denies that it breached any of the warranties and Plaintiffs’ recovery is barred.
`
`NINETEENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant states that if there were any express or implied warranties as alleged in the
`Complaint (allegations which the Defendant specifically denies), Plaintiffs’ claims should be
`dismissed as they were not within the scope of any such alleged warranties because Mr. Johns
`was not a purchaser, and no sale to Mr. Johns ever occurred of any product sold or distributed by
`this Defendant.
`
`TWENTIETH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`This Defendant states recovery is barred for the reason that if Defendant, its servants or
`agents made any express warranties (allegations which the Defendant specifically denies) then Mr.
`Johns did not rely on the express warranties and further, there was no such reliance by any person
`or entity authorized to represent Mr. Johns.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`TWENTY-FIRST SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant states that Plaintiffs’ recovery is barred for the reason that Mr. Johns failed to give
`notice of the alleged breach of warranties within a reasonable time as required by applicable statutes
`resulting in delay and prejudice to the Defendant.
`
`TWENTY-SECOND SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant states that recovery is barred for any allegations based on claims of warranty
`for the reason that Mr. Johns was not a third-party beneficiary with reference to any alleged
`warranties, either express or implied.
`
`TWENTY-THIRD SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant states that if it failed to perform any of its agreements contained in any instrument, all
`of which it specifically denies, it was excused from the performance of such agreements.
`
`TWENTY-FOURTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant states that if it were liable, negligent or in breach of any warranty, all of which
`it expressly denies, that recovery is barred for the reason that Defendant’s liability in any or all
`of those events has been terminated by the intervening acts, omissions, or negligence of others
`for whose conduct the Defendant is not legally responsible.
`
`TWENTY-FIFTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant states that pursuant to either 33 U.S.C. §905, as amended, or Conn. Gen. Stat.
`§31-284, the Plaintiffs’ exclusive remedy is either under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’
`Compensation Act or the Connecticut Worker’s Compensation Act, and therefore, the Plaintiffs is
`barred from recovery in this action.
`
`TWENTY-SIXTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`The Defendant states that Plaintiffs’ recovery is barred from this Defendant for the reason
`that Mr. Johns’ alleged injuries/damages were a result of occupational exposure and an
`occupational disease, and therefore, Defendant is not liable.
`
`TWENTY-SEVENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant states that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the applicable Statutes of Repose.
`
`TWENTY-EIGHTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant states that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred under the doctrine of laches.
`
`TWENTY-NINTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant states that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred under the doctrine of estoppel.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`THIRTIETH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant states that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred under the waiver doctrine.
`
`THIRTY-FIRST SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant states that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred for the reason that under the Learned
`Intermediary Doctrine, Defendant was discharged of any duty to warn.
`
`THIRTY-SECOND SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant states that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred for the reason that under the Sophisticated
`User Defense, Defendant owed no duty to warn.
`
`THIRTY-THIRD SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant states that the Complaint should be dismissed under the doctrine of Forum Non
`Conveniens.
`
`THIRTY-FOURTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant states that the Complaint should be dismissed under the doctrine contained in the
`Government Contractor and/or Government Specification defense.
`
`THIRTY-FIFTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant states that the Plaintiffs’ claims are barred as a matter of public policy because
`
`the utility of the products outweighs the alleged hazard.
`
`THIRTY-SIXTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant states that Plaintiffs’ recovery for any injuries alleged herein is barred for the
`reason that no product manufactured, sold or supplied by Defendant caused any injury or harm to
`Mr. Johns.
`
`THIRTY-SEVENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant states that Plaintiffs’ recovery for any injuries alleged herein is barred for the
`reason that no defect or negligence was present, in any alleged asbestos-containing product or
`material referred to in the Plaintiffs’ Complaint, but if there was any defect or negligence as
`alleged, then the Defendant is not liable as it justifiably relied upon inspection by others in the
`regular course of trade and business.
`
`THIRTY-EIGHTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant states that Plaintiffs’ recovery is barred, or subject to diminution, for the reason
`that Defendant’s products were used, if any were used, which Defendant expressly denies, in an
`unreasonable manner not reasonably foreseeable to this Defendant and for a purpose for which the
`products were not intended, manufactured or designed.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`THIRTY-NINTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant states that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because the product
`at issue was designed, manufactured, marketed and labeled with proper warnings, information,
`cautions and instructions, in accordance with the state of the art and the state of scientific and
`technological knowledge.
`
`FORTIETH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant states that Plaintiffs’ recovery is barred, or subject to diminution, for the reason
`that Plaintiffs failed to mitigate damages.
`
`FORTY-FIRST SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant states that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by operation of law for the reasons that
`Plaintiffs have released, settled, and entered into an accord and satisfaction or otherwise
`compromised the claims identified herein.
`
`FORTY-SECOND SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant asserts that it is entitled to any credit or set off for any settlement amount
`between Plaintiffs and any and all entities other than this Defendant.
`
`FORTY-THIRD SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because the product at issue was not
`defective or unreasonably dangerous in that it complied, at all relevant times, with all applicable
`government safety standards.
`
`FORTY-FOURTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant states that Plaintiffs’ recovery is barred for the reason that any alleged exposure
`to this Defendant’s products, which it denies, was so minimal as to be insufficient to cause the
`claimed injury and illness.
`
`FORTY-FIFTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant states that Plaintiffs’ recovery is barred for the reason that this Defendant did
`not manufacture, sell, or supply the asbestos-containing products to which Plaintiffs allege Mr.
`Johns was exposed.
`
`FORTY-SIXTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant states that at all times and places mentioned in the Complaint, Mr. Johns and/or
`other persons without this Defendant’s knowledge and approval redesigned, modified, altered and
`used this Defendant's products contrary to instructions and contrary to the custom and practice of
`the industry. This redesign, modification, alteration, and use so substantially changed the product's
`character that if there was a defect in the product, which the Defendant specifically denies, such
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`defect resulted solely from redesign, modification, alteration, or other such treatment or change
`and not from any act or omission by this Defendant. Therefore, said defect, if any, was created by
`Mr. Johns and/or other persons, as the case may be, and was the direct and proximate cause of the
`injuries and damages, if any, that Plaintiffs allegedly suffered.
`
`FORTY-SEVENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant states that, to the extent Plaintiffs assert a claim predicated on any theory of
`successor liability, Plaintiffs fail to allege sufficient facts to state and support a cause of action for
`successor liability.
`
`FORTY-EIGHTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`The doctrines contained in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, Comment k, bar
`Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant in whole or in part.
`
`FORTY-NINTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant states that no act or omission of Defendant was malicious, willful, wanton,
`reckless, or grossly negligent, and, therefore, any award of punitive or exemplary damages is
`barred.
`
`FIFTIETH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiffs fails to allege facts or state a cause of action against Defendant sufficient to
`support a claim for attorneys’ fees and/or legal costs.
`
`FIFTY-FIRST SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Mr. Johns’ alleged injuries, to the
`extent caused by exposure to asbestos, were the result of Mr. Johns’ unforeseeable idiosyncratic
`condition, unusual susceptibility, or hypersensitive reactions for which Defendant is not liable.
`
`FIFTY-SECOND SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`The Defendant states that Plaintiffs’ recovery is barred for the reason that if it supplied any
`asbestos product, either directly or indirectly, to Mr. Johns’ employer, the alleged product was
`supplied in accordance with specifications established and promulgated by that employer, agencies
`or departments of the United States of America, or other persons and/or entities.
`
`FIFTY-THIRD SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant states that it is entitled to such immunity from liability as exists in favor of the
`United States Government or its agencies in that any asbestos-containing products manufactured
`and sold by this Defendant which give rise to Plaintiffs’ claims herein were designed and
`manufactured pursuant to and in accordance with specifications mandated by the United States
`Government or its agencies, whose knowledge of any possible health hazards from use of such
`products was equal or superior to that of this Defendant.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`FIFTY-FOURTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`The doctrine(s) contained in Restatement (Third) of Torts, Product Liability §§ 1, 2, 4 and
`
`10, bar Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant in whole or in part.
`
`
`FIFTY-FIFTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`This Defendant states that to whatever extent the Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges a claim for
`wrongful death, no recovery thereon may be had because Mr. Johns’ death occurred outside the
`Statute of Limitations to bring suit set forth by Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-555.
`
`FIFTY-SIXTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`To the extent that Plaintiffs’ claims sound in premises liability, this Defendant states that as
`the alleged owner of any premises they are not liable to Plaintiffs for the reason that Mr. Johns
`was an invitee and any alleged injuries resulted from a danger that was obvious or should have
`been obvious in the exercise of ordinary care.
`
`FIFTY-SEVENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`To the extent that Plaintiffs’ claims sound in premises liability, this Defendant states that as
`the alleged owner of any premises entered by Mr. Johns, this Defendant is not liable to Plaintiffs
`for the reason that Mr. Johns was not an employee of this Defendant but was employed by a third
`party to perform the work alleged at the premises.
`
`FIFTY-EIGHTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`To the extent Plaintiffs seeks punitive damages, these damages are improper, unwarranted,
`not authorized by law, are unconstitutional in the context of this litigation, and are not recoverable
`under the applicable law, including but not limited to, Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-555 et seq..
`
`FIFTY-NINTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`At all times during the conduct of their corporate operations, the agents, servants and/or
`employees of Defendant complied with all applicable laws, regulations, standards and the available
`knowledge and technology of the medical, scientific and industrial communities.
`
`SIXTIETH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Insofar as the Complaint, and each cause of action considered separately, allege a cause of
`action accruing on or after June 7, 1977 to recover damages for personal injuries, the amount of
`damages recoverable thereon must be proportionately diminished according to the measure of
`responsibility attributable to Mr. Johns pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-572o.
`
`SIXTY-FIRST SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant states with reference to the claims based on Conn. Gen. Stat. §42-110a et seq.,
`Plaintiffs has failed to allege any act on the part of the Defendant which constitutes an unfair and
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`deceptive trade act or practice or that any alleged conduct described occurred outside the State of
`Connecticut and, therefore, Plaintiffs’ claims are insufficient as a matter of law and should be
`dismissed.
`
`SIXTY-SECOND SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant avails itself and adopts such other defenses raised by any other Defendants as may
`be applicable.
`
`SIXTY-THIRD SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`If Mr. Johns was a user of tobacco products, such use contributed to any lung disease from
`which Mr. Johns suffered and further, the Defendant states that the tobacco industry placed warnings
`on its products notifying the public of potential hazards associated with its use, which hazards, Mr.
`Johns knew or should have known, may have adversely affected his health.
`
`SIXTY-FOURTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`The Defendant did not act individually or engage in concert of action with any one or more
`of the Defendants herein for the purpose of accomplishing an unlawful purpose or to accomplish
`some purpose, not in and of itself unlawful, by unlawful means, nor did Mr. Johns suffer any injury
`as a result of the actions or inactions of the Defendant. Accordingly, Plaintiffs cannot recover against
`the Defendant under a theory of civil conspiracy.
`
`SIXTY-FIFTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant alleges that, to the extent Plaintiffs herein recovered, or in the future may recover,
`any monies in connection with any claim to or against a trust or a bankrupt manufacturer, distributor,
`seller, wholesaler, or retailer of asbestos-containing products, amounts recovered in this action are
`subject to a claim by Defendant for credit or offset.
`
`SIXTY-SIXTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant would show that Mr. Johns’ employers, agents, servants, employees, and/or
`directors failed to act in a manner consistent with the employers’ non-delegable duties as established
`by OSHA and the Connecticut Department of Labor Division of Occupational Safety and Health,
`thereby proximately causing Mr. Johns’ alleged injuries, illness, diseases, disabilities, losses, and/or
`damages, if any. Such failure on the part of Mr. Johns’ employers includes, but is not limited to:
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Failure to adequately train Mr. Johns on how to safely utilize the products, as an
`ordinary prudent employer would have done in like or similar circumstances;
`
`Failure to adequately disseminate product information as to the safe use of
`products as an ordinary prudent employer would have done in like or similar
`circumstances;
`
`Failure to timely establish a written respiratory program;
`
`Failure to provide properly trained supervisors for Mr. Johns’ work crews;
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`E.
`
`F.
`
`Failure to provide appropriate ventilation equipment and respiratory equipment;
`and
`
`Failure to provide proper filtering and monitoring devices for air-fed respiratory
`equipment.
`
`SIXTY-SEVENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant would show that Mr. Johns’ alleged injuries or illnesses, if any, were occupational
`diseases resulting from Mr. Johns’ work and not from any isolated incident or contact with any
`products made, manufactured, packaged, furnished, delivered, distributed, and/or sold by Defendant;
`and which Defendant is not legally liable or responsible for such occupational disease, if any, brought
`about or caused by conditions arising in the course and scope of Mr. Johns’ employment. In addition,
`Defendant would show that Mr. Johns, or Mr. Johns’ employers, owners of various premises in
`which Mr. Johns worked, and the various government entities, including OSHA, were charged with
`the duty of inspecting the safety of Mr. Johns’ working conditions. Therefore, Defendant would
`show that the negligent acts and/or omissions of Mr. Johns, his employers, owners of the various
`premises in which he worked, and the various government agencies were the sole proximate cause
`of Mr. Johns’ alleged injuries, illnesses, or damages, if any.
`
`SIXTY-EIGHTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`The state of the medical, scientific, and industrial knowledge and practice was at all material
`times such that Defendant neither breached any alleged duty owed to Mr. Johns, nor knew, nor could
`have known, that its alleged activities, materials, or products presented a foreseeable risk of harm, if
`any, to Mr. Johns in the normal and expected course of such activities and use of such materials and
`products.
`
`SIXTY-NINTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant alleges that if a duty to warn Mr. Johns of potential danger would be found upon
`Defendant, though the existence of such duty is expressly denied, such warnings would not have
`been heeded by Mr. Johns and, further, that Mr. Johns’ alleged injuries were solely or, in the
`alternative, proximately caused by Mr. Johns’ disregard of all warnings and instructions given.
`Defendant expressly denies that it had a duty to warn Mr. Johns of dangers inherent in the use of
`products or equipment manufactured, sold, and/or distributed by third parties not connected with
`Defendant and over whom Defendant had no actual control or right of control. Additionally, any
`alleged lack of warnings or insufficiency of warnings did not lead to any reliance by Mr. Johns.
`
`SEVENTIETH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant reserves the right to raise additional special defenses after discovery.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`ANSWER TO ALL PENDING AND FUTURE CROSS-CLAIMS
`
`Defendant York International Corporation hereby answers all pending and future cross-
`claims against it as follows:
`
`Defendant York International Corporation denies all cross-claims for indemnification and/or
`contribution made against it by any party and incorporates all of its defenses and affirmative defenses
`set forth herein.
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION,
`
`By its attorneys,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Michael C. D’Agostino
`Michael C. D’Agostino
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`One State Street
`Hartford, CT 06103
`Tel: (860) 240-2700
`Fax: (860) 240-2515
`Email: michael.dagostino@morganlewis.com
`Juris No. 2704
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION
`
`This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent to all counsel of record via
`
`electronic mail on February 2, 2023.
`
`
`
`
`
`DB1/ 135638789.1
`
`
` /s/ Michael C. D’Agostino
`Michael C. D’Agostino
`
`
`
`16
`
`