IN RE: BRIDGEPORT ASBESTOS LITIGATION
`
`FBT-CV23-6120092-S
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`CONRAD JOHNS and ELIZABETH JOHNS
`
`J.D. OF FAIRFIELD
`
`v.
`
`AT BRIDGEPORT
`
`ALFA LAVAL, INC., et al.
`
`June 30, 2023
`______________________________________________________________________________
`
`DEFENDANT THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’
`THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`The Sherwin-Williams Company (“Sherwin-Williams”), a defendant in the above-
`
`captioned action, respectfully submits the following Answer and Special Defenses to Plaintiffs’
`
`Third Amended Complaint (“Complaint”).
`
`COUNT I
`
`1-2. As to the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Count I of the Complaint,
`
`Sherwin-Williams lacks sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief and
`
`therefore denies same in its entirety. Plaintiffs are left to their proofs.
`
`3.
`
`Sherwin-Williams lacks sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief
`
`as to what is meant by “conducted business in the State of Connecticut” and therefore denies
`
`same at this time. Sherwin-Williams denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 3 of Count I
`
`of the Complaint to the extent the allegations are directed at it. As to the remaining allegations
`
`in this paragraph, Sherwin-Williams does not have sufficient knowledge or information upon
`
`which to form a belief to the extent they relate to other defendants. Plaintiffs are left to their
`
`proofs.
`
`

`

`4.
`
`Sherwin-Williams denies the allegations of Paragraph 4 of Count I of the Complaint to
`
`the extent the allegations relate to Sherwin-Williams. As to the remaining allegations of
`
`Paragraph 4 of Count I of the Complaint, Sherwin-Williams does not have sufficient knowledge
`
`or information upon which to form a belief as they relate to other defendants, and therefore
`
`leaves Plaintiffs to their proofs.
`
`5.
`
`Sherwin-Williams denies Paragraph 5 of Count I of the Complaint to the extent
`
`allegations set forth therein relate to Sherwin-Williams. Sherwin-Williams does not have
`
`sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief as to the remaining allegations
`
`in this paragraph as they relate to other defendants and therefore leaves Plaintiffs to their proofs.
`
`6.
`
`Sherwin-Williams denies the allegations of Paragraph 6 of Count I of the Complaint as
`
`they relate to it. Without limiting its response, Sherwin-Williams specifically denies all
`
`allegations that any of its products or services, conduct, actions, omissions and/or its perceived
`
`knowledge caused or contributed to the Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries, damages, diseases,
`
`limitations, obligations and/or impairments. Sherwin-Williams lacks sufficient knowledge or
`
`information upon which to form a belief as to the remaining allegations of this paragraph to the
`
`extent they relate to other defendants. Plaintiffs are left to their proofs.
`
`7.
`
`Sherwin-Williams denies the allegations of Paragraph 7 of Count I of the Complaint as
`
`they relate to it. Sherwin-Williams lacks sufficient knowledge or information upon which to
`
`form a belief as to the remaining allegations of this paragraph to the extent they relate to other
`
`defendants. Plaintiffs are left to their proofs.
`
`8-10. Sherwin-Williams denies the allegations of Paragraphs 8 through 10 of Count I of the
`
`Complaint as they relate to it. Without limiting its response, Sherwin-Williams specifically
`
`denies all allegations that any of its products or services, conduct, actions, omissions and/or its
`
`perceived knowledge caused or contributed to the Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries, damages, diseases,
`
`2
`
`

`

`limitations, obligations and/or impairments. Sherwin-Williams lacks sufficient knowledge or
`
`information upon which to form a belief as to the remaining allegations of these paragraphs to
`
`the extent they relate to other defendants. Plaintiffs are left to their proofs.
`
`11-15. Sherwin-Williams denies all allegations set forth in Paragraphs 11 through 15 of Count I
`
`of the Complaint as they relate to it. Without limiting its response, Sherwin-Williams
`
`specifically denies all allegations that any of its products or services, conduct, actions, omissions
`
`and/or its perceived knowledge caused or contributed to the Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries, damages,
`
`diseases, limitations, obligations and/or impairments. Sherwin-Williams lacks sufficient
`
`knowledge or information upon which to form a belief as to the remaining allegations of these
`
`paragraphs to the extent they relate to other defendants. Plaintiffs are left to their proofs.
`
`16.
`
`Sherwin-Williams denies the allegations, including all subparts, set forth in Paragraph 16
`
`of Count I of the Complaint to the extent they are directed at it. Without limiting its response,
`
`Sherwin-Williams specifically denies all allegations that any of its products or services, conduct,
`
`actions, omissions and/or its perceived knowledge caused or contributed to the Plaintiffs’ alleged
`
`injuries, damages, diseases, limitations, obligations and/or impairments. To the extent the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 16 relate to other defendants, Sherwin-Williams lacks knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and
`
`therefore denies them.
`
`17-22. Sherwin-Williams denies the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 17 through 22 of Count I
`
`of the Complaint to the extent same are directed at it. Without limiting its response, Sherwin-
`
`Williams specifically denies all allegations that any of its products or services, conduct, actions,
`
`omissions and/or its perceived knowledge caused or contributed to the Plaintiffs’ alleged
`
`injuries, damages, diseases, limitations, obligations and/or impairments. To the extent the
`
`allegations in these paragraphs relate to other defendants, Sherwin-Williams lacks knowledge or
`
`3
`
`

`

`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and
`
`therefore denies them.
`
`23.
`
`As Paragraph 23 of the Complaint does not set forth factual allegations, and only legal
`
`conclusions, Sherwin-Williams does not admit or deny. However, to the extent that it is
`
`determined that factual allegations have been asserted against Sherwin-Williams, same are
`
`denied in their entirety.
`
`COUNT II
`
`1-23. Sherwin-Williams’ responses to Paragraphs 1-23 of the Complaint are hereby
`
`incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
`
`24-28. Sherwin-Williams denies the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 24 through 28 of Count
`
`II of the Complaint to the extent same are directed at it. Without limiting its response, Sherwin-
`
`Williams specifically denies all allegations that any of its products or services, conduct, actions,
`
`omissions and/or its perceived knowledge caused or contributed to the Plaintiffs’ alleged
`
`injuries, damages, diseases, limitations, obligations and/or impairments. To the extent the
`
`allegations in these paragraphs relate to other defendants, Sherwin-Williams lacks knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and
`
`therefore denies them.
`
`COUNT III
`
`1-28. Sherwin-Williams’ responses to Paragraphs 1-28 of the Complaint are hereby
`
`incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
`
`29.
`
`Sherwin-Williams denies the allegations set forth in this paragraph to the extent same are
`
`directed at it. Without limiting its response, Sherwin-Williams specifically denies all allegations
`
`that any of its products or services, conduct, actions, omissions and/or its perceived knowledge
`
`caused or contributed to the Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries, damages, diseases, limitations,
`
`4
`
`

`

`obligations and/or impairments. To the extent the allegations in these paragraphs relate to other
`
`defendants, Sherwin-Williams lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations contained therein and therefore denies them.
`
`SPECIAL DEFENSES
`
`FIRST SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`This Court lacks personal jurisdiction over The Sherwin-Williams Company for the
`
`causes of action alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint, pursuant to applicable statutes. Sherwin-
`
`Williams is neither incorporated nor has its principal place of business in Connecticut. Plaintiffs
`
`are not residents of the State of Connecticut pursuant to the first two paragraphs of this
`
`Complaint.
`
`SECOND SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims set forth in the Plaintiffs’
`
`Complaint.
`
`THIRD SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiffs failed to join a party or parties necessary for a just adjudication of this matter,
`
`and has further omitted to state any reasons for such failure.
`
`FOURTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`The causes of action alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint are barred by the applicable Statutes
`
`of Limitations and Repose set forth in C.G.S. § 52-577a.
`
`FIFTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`The causes of action alleged in the Complaint are barred by the applicable Statute of
`
`Limitations set forth in C.G.S. § 52-577c.
`
`5
`
`

`

`SIXTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of laches, as the plaintiffs inexcusably failed
`
`to notify the necessary parties of the claims or give due and timely notice of her claims against
`
`Sherwin-Williams, to the prejudice of Sherwin-Williams.
`
`SEVENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiffs willingly, knowingly, and voluntarily assumed the risk of the alleged illnesses
`
`and injuries for which relief is sought in this matter and, therefore, recovery is barred.
`
`EIGHTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiffs failed to exercise ordinary care for her own safety and well-being and that
`
`failure to exercise ordinary care proximately and directly caused and/or contributed to the
`
`plaintiff’s alleged illness and injury.
`
`NINTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims against Sherwin-Williams are barred because damages or losses
`
`experienced, if any, were not due to any act or failure to act of Sherwin-Williams, but were
`
`caused solely by the acts or omissions of a third-party or parties, including, but not limited to, the
`
`plaintiff’s employers for whose acts or failure to act Sherwin-Williams is not responsible and
`
`over whom Sherwin-Williams had neither control nor the right of control.
`
`TENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Sherwin-Williams denies that it or its agents or servants made any express warranties as
`
`alleged. If Sherwin-Williams, its servants or agents made any express warranties, allegations
`
`which Sherwin-Williams specifically denies, then the plaintiff did not rely on the express
`
`warranties and, further, there was no such reliance by any person or entity authorized to
`
`represent the plaintiff.
`
`6
`
`

`

`ELEVENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiffs never, prior to the filing of this Complaint, informed Sherwin-Williams, by
`
`notification or otherwise, of any breach of express and/or implied warranties. The plaintiffs
`
`failed to give reasonable notice of the alleged breach of warranties within a reasonable time as
`
`required by law, pursuant to C.G.S. § 42a-2-607. Consequently, the plaintiffs’ claims for alleged
`
`breaches of warranties against Sherwin-Williams are barred.
`
`TWELFTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Sherwin-Williams denies that privity of contract between the plaintiff and it ever existed.
`
`Consequently, the plaintiffs’ claims for alleged breaches of warranties are barred, pursuant to
`
`C.G.S. § 42a-2-318.
`
`THIRTEENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`If Sherwin-Williams was negligent or in breach of warranty, all of which it expressly
`
`denies, Sherwin-Williams’ liability in any or all of these events has been terminated by the
`
`intervening acts, omissions or negligence of others over whom Sherwin-Williams had neither
`
`control, nor the right of control and for whose conduct Sherwin-Williams is not legally
`
`responsible.
`
`FOURTEENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Sherwin-Williams denies that there was any defect or negligent mining, processing,
`
`manufacture, design, testing, investigation, fashioning, packaging, distribution, delivery, and/or
`
`sale, in any asbestos product or material referred to in the Plaintiffs’ Complaint, but if there was
`
`any defect or negligence as alleged, then Sherwin-Williams is not liable as it justifiably relied
`
`upon inspection by others in the regular course of trade and business.
`
`7
`
`

`

`FIFTEENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiff’s employer or employers were negligent with respect to the matters set forth in
`
`the Complaint, and such negligence caused in whole or in part whatever disease, injury, or
`
`disability, if any, which the plaintiff may have sustained, as set forth in the Complaint.
`
`Therefore, even if the plaintiff is entitled to recover against Sherwin-Williams, which Sherwin-
`
`Williams specifically denies, she is not entitled to recover in the amount set forth in the
`
`Complaint because Sherwin-Williams is entitled to set off any and all workers’ compensation
`
`payments against any judgment which might be rendered in the plaintiffs’ favor.
`
`SIXTEENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiffs have released, settled, entered into an accord and satisfaction or otherwise
`
`compromised her claim herein and, accordingly, said claims are barred by operation of law.
`
`SEVENTEENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Sherwin-Williams expressly denies that it manufactured, designed, and/or sold any
`
`products referred
`
`to
`
`in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, which caused
`
`injury
`
`to
`
`the plaintiff.
`
`Notwithstanding at all times and places mentioned in the Complaint, the plaintiffs and/or other
`
`persons without Sherwin-Williams’ knowledge and approval re-designed, modified, altered, and
`
`used Sherwin-Williams’ products contrary to instructions and contrary to the custom and practice
`
`of the industry. This re-design, modification, alteration, and use so substantially changed the
`
`product’s character that if there was a defect in the product, which Sherwin-Williams specifically
`
`denies, such defect resulted solely from the re-design, modification, alteration, or other such
`
`treatment or change and not from any act or omission by Sherwin-Williams. Therefore, said
`
`defect, if any, was created by the plaintiff and/or other persons, as the case may be, and was the
`
`direct and proximate cause of the injuries and damages, if any, the plaintiff allegedly suffered.
`
`8
`
`

`

`EIGHTEENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Sherwin-Williams expressly denies that it manufactured, designed, and/or sold any
`
`products referred
`
`to
`
`in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, which caused
`
`injury
`
`to
`
`the plaintiff.
`
`Notwithstanding, at all times and places mentioned in the Complaint, the plaintiffs and/or other
`
`persons used Sherwin-Williams’ products, if indeed any were used, in an unreasonable manner,
`
`not reasonably foreseeable to Sherwin-Williams, and for a purpose for which the products were
`
`not intended, manufactured, or designed. The plaintiffs’ injuries and damages, if any, were
`
`directly and proximately caused by said misuse and abuse and the plaintiffs’ recovery herein, if
`
`any, is barred or must be diminished in proportion to the fault attributable to the plaintiff and/or
`
`such other parties or persons.
`
`NINETEENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`At all times and places mentioned in the Complaint, the plaintiff has failed to take
`
`reasonable precautions for his own safety and otherwise failed to make reasonable efforts to
`
`mitigate or minimize her injuries and damages, if any, pursuant to C.G.S. § 52-572o.
`
`TWENTIETH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`If it is proven at trial that products of Sherwin-Williams were furnished, as alleged, to the
`
`plaintiff’s employers and said products were used in that fashion alleged, which is specifically
`
`denied, then any product manufactured, processed or supplied which was or may have been so
`
`furnished and which was so used, was supplied in accordance with specifications established and
`
`promulgated by that employer, agencies or departments of the United States of America, other
`
`persons and/or entities.
`
`TWENTY-FIRST SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Sherwin-Williams avers that the state of the medical and scientific knowledge regarding
`
`its products and/or its contents, at all times material hereto, was such that Sherwin-Williams
`
`9
`
`

`

`never knew nor could have known that its products presented any risk or harm to the plaintiff if
`
`such product were properly used.
`
`TWENTY-SECOND SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
`
`TWENTY-THIRD SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`The claims in the Complaint and each Count thereof that seeks exemplary or punitive
`
`damages violates Sherwin-Williams’ right to equal protection under the law and are otherwise
`
`unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and Article
`
`I and all applicable provisions of the Constitution of the State of Connecticut.
`
`TWENTY-FOURTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Sherwin-Williams avers that if the plaintiffs settled with and/or released other defendants
`
`or entities who are tortfeasors, Sherwin-Williams 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.
`
`TWENTY-FIFTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`The plaintiff’s employers, by their agents, servants, and employees, at all times relevant
`
`hereto, possessed a high degree or knowledge and sophistication in relation to Sherwin-Williams,
`
`had superior means and ability to appreciate any alleged hazard regarding the use of asbestos
`
`materials, had means and ability, superior to that of Sherwin-Williams to warn the plaintiff, and
`
`failed to warn the plaintiff of the alleged hazard.
`
`TWENTY-SIXTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries and damages were caused by the abnormal or unintended use
`
`of this Defendant’s product(s).
`
`10
`
`

`

`TWENTY-SEVENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`The Plaintiff’s alleged exposure to asbestos as a result of working with or around this
`
`Defendant’s product(s)-which this Defendant denies-was so minimal as to be insufficient to
`
`establish a reasonable degree of probability that the product(s) caused the Plaintiff’s alleged
`
`injuries.
`
`TWENTY-EIGHTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`This Defendant is entitled to a set-off of any verdict in the amount of compensation
`
`received by the plaintiffs as a result of any claim for workers’ compensation benefits.
`
`TWENTY-NINTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrines of estoppel and waiver.
`
`THIRTIETH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`The plaintiff was a user of tobacco products despite being aware of the dangers of using
`
`such products and such use caused or contributed to any injuries or damages for which Plaintiffs
`
`seeks compensation in this lawsuit.
`
`THIRTY-FIRST SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiffs’ Complaint should be dismissed because it was filed in an improper venue.
`
`THIRTY-SECOND SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiffs’ Complaint should be dismissed pursuant to the doctrine of forum non-
`
`conveniens.
`
`THIRTY-THIRD 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.
`
`11
`
`

`

`THIRTY-FOURTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Pursuant to Connecticut’s choice-of-law principles, the law of Connecticut is inapplicable
`
`and the law of an alternate forum should be applied.
`
`THIRTY-FIFTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`This Defendant reserves the right to assert any and all applicable special defenses that
`
`discovery may reveal as appropriate.
`
`THIRTY-SIXTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`This Defendant avails itself of and adopts such other defenses as raised by any other
`
`defendant as may be appropriate.
`
`CROSS-CLAIM
`
`Plaintiffs in this action have filed a Complaint against the defendant/cross-claimant
`
`alleging that the plaintiffs have sustained certain asbestos-related diseases, other injuries and
`
`damages, and all said allegations have been denied by the defendant/cross-claimant. Although
`
`the defendant denies all the claims set forth in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, in the event that the
`
`defendant is found liable to the plaintiff, then all other cross-claim defendants are liable for
`
`equitable contribution and/or statutory contribution pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572o,
`
`and/or allocation of fault. Only in the event that the defendant is found liable to the 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.
`
`Only in the event that this defendant is found liable to the plaintiffs, in whole or in part, then the
`
`crossclaim defendants are liable to this defendant for all or part of the plaintiffs’ claimed
`
`damages. Defendant/cross-claimant reserves the right to withdraw this cross-claim against
`
`certain defendants prior to the time of trial.
`
`WHEREFORE, the defendant/cross-claimant claims:
`
`12
`
`

`

`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. An allocation of responsibility among defendants; and
`
`d. Such other relied as the Court may deem just and proper.
`
`CROSS-CLAIM FOR COMMON LAW INDEMNIFICATION
`
`While denying liability to plaintiffs for any damages alleged, if a judgment is recovered
`
`by plaintiff against Defendant The Sherwin-Williams Company, it is hereby asserted that
`
`Sherwin-Williams’ alleged negligence was not morally culpable, but was merely constructive,
`
`technical, imputed or vicarious, and that plaintiffs’ damages arose through the direct and primary
`
`negligence of all presently named and later named co-defendants.
`
`ANSWER TO CROSS-CLAIMS
`
`Defendant The Sherwin-Williams Company hereby denies each and every allegation
`
`contained in any cross-claims or cross-complaints which may be asserted against it, refers all
`
`questions of law to the Court and leaves cross-claim plaintiffs to their proof.
`
`13
`
`

`

`WHEREFORE, this answering defendant demands judgment dismissing Plaintiffs’
`
`complaint with costs, disbursements and attorney’s fees; awarding judgment against the
`
`plaintiffs, and/or co-defendants, for the full amount of any verdict and judgment or for a
`
`proportionate share thereof that the plaintiffs may recover against this answering defendant; and
`
`for such other and further relief as this court may deem just and proper.
`
`Dated:
`
`June 30, 2023
`
`DEFENDANT,
`The Sherwin-Williams Company
`
`BY
`
`s/ 420448
`Robert D. Brown, Jr.
`Gibbons P.C.
`One Gateway Center
`Newark, NJ 07102-5310
`Juris # 420448
`(973) 596-4500
`(973) 639-8377 (direct facsimile)
`
`14
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent this 30th day of June 2023 to
`
`plaintiff’s counsel, Christopher Meisenkothen, Esq., Early, Lucarelli, Sweeney & Meisenkothen,
`
`LLC, 265 Church Street, 11th Floor, New Haven, CT 06510, by electronic means.
`
`s/ 420448
`Robert D. Brown, Jr.
`
`15
`
`