`
`
`
`
`
`ASB-FBT-CV-23-6120092-S
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CONRAD JOHNS AND ELIZABETH
`JOHNS
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ALFA LAVAL, INC., ET AL.
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`J.D. OF FAIRFIELD
`
`AT BRIDGEPORT
`
`APRIL 5, 2023
`
`
`DEFENDANT AURORA PUMP COMPANY’S ANSWER,
`SPECIAL DEFENSES AND CROSS CLAIMS TO PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`
`Defendant Aurora Pump Company (hereinafter “Aurora” or “Defendant”), hereby
`
`
`
`responds to the allegations of the Third Amended Complaint [#140.00] (hereinafter “Complaint”)
`
`dated March 29, 2023 as follows:
`
`COUNT I (Product liability as against all defendants)
`
`
`
`1. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations of Paragraph 1 and, as such, denies them.
`
`
`
`2. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations of Paragraph 2 and, as such, denies them.
`
`
`
`3. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 3 are directed against Defendant, they are denied.
`
`Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`remaining allegations of Paragraph 3, and therefore denies the remaining allegations contained in
`
`Paragraph 3.
`
`
`
`4. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 4 are directed against Defendant, they are denied.
`
`Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`remaining allegations of Paragraph 4, and therefore denies the remaining allegations contained in
`
`
`
`Paragraph 4.
`
`
`
`5. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 5 are directed against Defendant, they are denied.
`
`Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`remaining allegations of Paragraph 5, and therefore denies the remaining allegations contained in
`
`Paragraph 5.
`
`
`
`6. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 6 are directed against Defendant, they are denied.
`
`Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`remaining allegations of Paragraph 6, and therefore denies the remaining allegations contained in
`
`Paragraph 6.
`
`
`
`7. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 7 are directed against Defendant, they are denied.
`
`Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`remaining allegations of Paragraph 7, and therefore denies the remaining allegations contained in
`
`Paragraph 7.
`
`
`
`8. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 8 are directed against Defendant, they are denied.
`
`Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`remaining allegations of Paragraph 8, and therefore denies the remaining allegations contained in
`
`Paragraph 8.
`
`
`
`9. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 9 are directed against Defendant, they are denied.
`
`Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`remaining allegations of Paragraph 9, and therefore denies the remaining allegations contained in
`
`Paragraph 9.
`
`
`
`10. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 10 are directed against Defendant, they are
`
`denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`
`
`of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 10, and therefore denies the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 10.
`
`
`
`11. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 11 are directed against Defendant, they are
`
`denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 11 and therefore denies the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 11.
`
`
`
`12. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 12 are directed against Defendant, they are
`
`denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 12, and therefore denies the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 12.
`
`
`
`13. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 13 are directed against Defendant, they are
`
`denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 13, and therefore denies the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 13.
`
`
`
`14. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 14 are directed against Defendant, they are
`
`denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 14, and therefore denies the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 14.
`
`
`
`15. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 15 and its subparts are directed against
`
`Defendant, they are denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 15 and its subparts and therefore
`
`denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 15.
`
`
`
`16. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 16 and its subparts are directed against
`
`
`
`Defendant, they are denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 16 and therefore denies the
`
`remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 16 and its subparts.
`
`
`
`17. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 17 are directed against Defendant, they are
`
`denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 17, and therefore denies the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 17.
`
`
`
`18. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 18 are directed against Defendant, they are
`
`denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 18, and therefore denies the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 18.
`
`
`
`19. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 19 are directed against Defendant, they are
`
`denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 19, and therefore denies the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 19.
`
`
`
`20. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 20 are directed against Defendant, they are
`
`denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 20, and therefore denies the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 20.
`
`
`
`21. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 21 are directed against Defendant, they are
`
`denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 22, and therefore denies the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 21.
`
`
`
`
`
`22. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 22 are directed against Defendant, they are
`
`denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 22, and therefore denies the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 22.
`
`
`
`23. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 23 are directed against Defendant, they are
`
`denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 23, and therefore denies the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 23.
`
`COUNT II (Recklessness as to all Defendants)
`
`
`
`1-23. Defendant repeats and incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1-23,
`
`inclusive, as if fully set forth herein.1-23.
`
`
`
`24. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 24 are directed against Defendant, they are
`
`denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 24, and therefore denies the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 24.
`
`25. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 25 are directed against Defendant, they are
`
`denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 25, and therefore denies the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 25.
`
`
`
`26. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 26 are directed against Defendant, they are
`
`denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 26, and therefore denies the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 26.
`
`
`
`
`
`27. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 27 are directed against Defendant, they are
`
`denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 27, and therefore denies the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 27.
`
`
`
`28. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 28 are directed against Defendant, they are
`
`denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 28, and therefore denies the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 28.
`
`COUNT III (As to Plaintiff Elizabeth Johns and all Defendants)
`
`
`
`1-28. Defendant repeats and incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1-28,
`
`inclusive, as if fully set forth herein.1-28.
`
`
`
`29. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 29 are directed against Defendant, they are
`
`denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 29, and therefore denies the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 29.
`
`
`
`To the extent the “Wherefore” Paragraphs of Count III of Plaintiffs’ Complaint can be read
`
`as alleging that any act or omission of Aurora Pump Company caused the alleged damages in the
`
`“Wherefore” paragraph, it is denied. Defendant further denies the damages claimed by Plaintiffs.
`
`SPECIAL DEFENSES
`
`FIRST SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`
`
`Each and every material allegation of the Complaint is denied except as specifically
`
`admitted.
`
`
`
`
`
`SECOND SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiffs are not entitled to the damages claimed or to the relief requested.
`
`THIRD SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`The Complaint is barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
`
`FOURTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`The Complaint is barred by the applicable statute of repose.
`
`FIFTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiffs’ breach of warranty claims are barred for lack of privity.
`
`SIXTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiffs’ warranty claims are barred by reason of the failure of Plaintiffs to give reasonable
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`notice of the alleged breaches.
`
`SEVENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs’ alleged injury or damage was not caused by any act or omission of this
`
`Defendant. Such injury or damage, if any, was caused by the intervening act(s) or omission(s) of
`
`persons or entities other than this Defendant.
`
`EIGHTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`The Court lacks personal jurisdiction over this Defendant.
`
`NINTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Each and every count of Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to state a cause of action for which
`
`
`
`
`
`relief can be granted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs have failed to join all necessary parties for the just adjudication of this matter and
`
`has further omitted reason for such failure.
`
`ELEVENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Service of process on this Defendant was improper and insufficient.
`
`TWELFTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`The doctrine of strict liability in tort is inapplicable to Plaintiffs’ claims against this
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`THIRTEENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Conrad Johns willingly, knowingly and voluntarily assumed the risk of the alleged
`
`injuries for which relief is now sought.
`
`FOURTEENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Conrrad Johns was not in the exercise of due care and his negligence contributed
`
`to or caused the injury or damage complained of in whole or in part.
`
`FIFTEENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`
`
`If Plaintiffs have settled with and/or released other defendants or entities who are
`
`tortfeasors, this Defendant is entitled to a reduction of any judgment, either in the total of all the
`
`settlement amounts or the pro-rata share of fault of said tortfeasors as determined by the Court or
`
`jury - whichever is greater.
`
`SIXTEENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`
`
`The products of this Defendant from which Plaintiff claims injury or damage were
`
`materially altered after the sale of said product.
`
`
`
`SEVENTEENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`
`
`This Defendant is not liable as a matter of law because its product was manufactured in
`
`accordance with contract specifications of a third-party.
`
`EIGHTEENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`
`
`This Defendant is not liable as a matter of law because its product was manufactured in
`
`accordance with contract specification of the United States government.
`
`NINETEENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims against this Defendant are barred by the exclusivity provision of the
`
`Connecticut Workers' Compensation Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-284.
`
`TWENTIETH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries and damages were cause by the abnormal and unintended use of
`
`this Defendant's product(s).
`
`TWENTY-FIRST SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Conrad Johns’ employer and/or the purchaser of this Defendant's product(s)
`
`possessed a high degree of knowledge and sophistication and had equal or superior means and
`
`ability to appreciate and warn of any hazards concerning the use of this Defendant's product(s).
`
`TWENTY-SECOND SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`
`
`At all relevant times the state of medical and scientific knowledge and the state of art and
`
`design and manufacture of Defendant's products was such that this Defendant neither knew nor
`
`should have known that any of its products presented a health risk.’’
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TWENTY-THIRD SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs have released, settled, entered into an accord and satisfaction or otherwise
`
`compromised the claims herein.
`
`TWENTY-FOURTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of laches.
`
`TWENTY-FIFTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`The imposition of punitive damages as to this Defendant would violate public policy and
`
`
`
`
`
`our United States Constitution as the imposition of punitive damages will serve no deterrent
`
`effect and would be duplicative and excessive in nature.
`
`TWENTY-SIXTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs failed to mitigate or otherwise act to lessen or reduce the injuries and damages
`
`alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
`
`TWENTY-SEVENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`
`
`This Defendant gave no warranties, express or implied, to Plaintiffs or to anyone acting on
`
`Plaintiffs’ behalf.
`
`TWENTY-EIGHTEN SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`
`
`As a bulk supplier of a product, this Defendant reasonably relied on purchasers and/or
`
`intermediaries to warn of risks or hazards associated with the product.
`
`TWENTY-NINTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`
`
`This Defendant cannot be held responsible for products manufactured, sold and distributed
`
`by third-parties over which this Defendant had no responsibility or control.
`
`
`
`
`
`THIRTIETH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Conrad Johns knew or reasonably should have known of the potential dangers
`
`associated with this Defendant's products and therefore this Defendant's alleged failure to warn
`
`him have no causal connection to Plaintiffs’ injuries.
`
`THIRTY-FIRST SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Conrad Johns’ alleged exposure to asbestos as a result of working with or around
`
`this Defendant's product(s) - which this Defendant vigorously denies - was so minimal as to be
`
`insufficient to establish a reasonable degree of probability that the product(s) caused Plaintiffs’
`
`alleged injuries.
`
`THIRTY-SECOND SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`
`
`This Defendant is entitled to a set-off of any verdict in the amount of compensation
`
`Plaintiffs have received as a result of any claim for workers' compensation benefits.
`
`THIRTY-THIRD SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrines of estoppel and waiver.
`
`THIRTY-FOURTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`This Defendant denies that it manufactured, sold, or distributed any products which
`
`
`
`
`
`allegedly caused Plaintiffs’ injuries.
`
`THIRTY-FIFTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Conrad Johns’ employer was in control and possession of his worksite and
`
`responsible for maintaining a safe work environment, to the exclusion of this Defendant, and failed
`
`to do so, thereby breaking the chain of causation between this Defendant and Plaintiffs’ alleged
`
`injuries.
`
`
`
`
`
`THIRTY-SIXTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs were users of tobacco products despite being aware of the dangers of using such
`
`products and such use caused or contributed to any injuries or damages Plaintiffs seek
`
`compensation for in this matter.
`
`THIRTY-SEVENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs’ Complaint should be dismissed because it was filed in an improper venue.
`
`THIRTY-EIGHTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiffs’ Complaint should be dismissed pursuant to the doctrine of forum non-
`
`conveniens.
`
`THIRTY-NINTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`
`
`To the extent that there is a prior pending action between the parties, this case should be
`
`dismissed as a matter of law.
`
`FORTIETH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Connecticut choice of law principles, the law of Connecticut is inapplicable
`
`and the law of an alternate forum should be applied.
`
`FORTY-FIRST SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`
`
`This Defendant reserves the right to assert any and all applicable special defenses that
`
`discovery may reveal as appropriate.
`
`FORTY-SECOND SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`
`
`This Defendant avails itself of and adopts such other defenses as raised by any other
`
`defendant as may be appropriate.
`
`
`
`
`
`CROSS CLAIM OF DEFENDANT/CROSS-CLAIM PLAINTIFF AURORA PUMP
`COMPANY AGAINST ALL CO-DEFENDANTS
`
`1. Plaintiffs in this action filed a complaint against Defendant/Cross-Claim Plaintiff
`
`
`
`alleging that Plaintiffs sustained certain asbestos-related diseases and other injuries, and all said
`
`allegations were denied by Defendant/Cross-Claim Plaintiff.
`
`
`
`2. Although Defendant Aurora Pump Company denies all the claims set forth in Plaintiffs’
`
`Complaint, in the event that Defendant Aurora Pump Company is found liable to Plaintiffs, then
`
`all other defendants are liable for equitable contribution and/or statutory contribution pursuant to
`
`Conn.Gen.Stat. §52-572o, and /or allocation of fault.
`
`
`
`3. Only in the event that Defendant Aurora Pump Company is found liable to Plaintiffs,
`
`for purposes of this cross-claim, all allegations set forth in Plaintiffs’ Complaint or related third-
`
`party complaints against said defendants are adopted and incorporated as set forth fully herein.
`
`
`
`4. Only in the event that Defendant Aurora Pump Company is found liable to Plaintiffs, in
`
`whole or in part, then the cross-claim defendants are liable to Defendant Aurora Pump Company
`
`for all or part of Plaintiffs’ claimed damages.
`
`WHEREFORE, Defendant/cross-claim Plaintiff claims:
`
`a.
`
`Contribution for Plaintiffs’ alleged damages pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-
`
`
`
`
`
`572o;
`
`
`
`b.
`
`Equitable contribution from the cross-claim defendants for their share of any
`
`judgment rendered in favor of Plaintiffs;
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`An allocation of responsibility among defendants; and
`
`Such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ANSWER TO ALL CURRENT AND FUTURE CROSS-CLAIMS
`
`Defendant Aurora Pump Company denies each and every allegation contained in any cross-
`
`claim which may be asserted against it, refers all questions of law to the court and leaves cross-
`
`claim Plaintiffs to their proof.
`
`WHEREFORE, Aurora Pump Company demands judgment dismissing Plaintiffs’
`
`Complaint with costs, disbursements, and attorneys’ fees; awarding judgment against Plaintiffs
`
`and/or co-defendants for the full amount of any verdict judgment or for a proportionate share
`
`thereof that Plaintiffs may recover against Aurora Pump Company, and for such other and further
`
`relief as this court may deem just and proper.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DATED: April 5, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THE DEFENDANT,
`AURORA PUMP COMPANY,
`
`
`
`/s/ Cullen W. Guilmartin____________
`John J. Robinson, Esq.
`
`
`Cullen W. Guilmartin, Esq.
`Glenn B. Coffin, Jr., Esq.
`Jenny DeFrancisco Schreier, Esq.
`GORDON & REES SCULLY
`MANSUKHANI
`95 Glastonbury Blvd., Ste. 206
`Glastonbury, CT 06033
`Tel: (860) 494-7513
`Fax: (860) 560-0185
`Juris No. 432541
`Email: jjrobinson@grsm.com
`Email: cguilmartin@grsm.com
`Email: gcoffin@grsm.com
`Email: jschreier@grsm.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION
`
`This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent this 5th day of April, 2023 via
`
`electronic means to all counsel of record.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Kyle R. Navin, Esq.
`Early, Lucarelli, Sweeney & Meisenkothen LLC
`265 Church Street
`11th Floor
`New Haven, CT 06510
`
`
`
` /s/ Cullen W. Guilmartin
` Cullen W. Guilmartin
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1297998/75822727v.1
`
`