FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/11/2024 07:27 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66
`
`INDEX NO. 190011/2024
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
`COUNTY OF NEW YORK
`
`DENNIS KILKENNY AND PATRICIA
`KILKENNY,
`
` Plaintiffs,
` -against-
`
`AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, ind.
`And as suc. To SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO
`BUFFALO PUMPS, INC., et al.
`
`Defendants.
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`INDEX NO.: 190011/2024
`
`VERIFIED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT FLOWSERVE US, INC., SOLELY AS
`SUCCESSOR TO ROCKWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY, EDWARD VALVES,
`INC., NORDSTROM VALVES, AND GESTRA INC., TO PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`Defendant, Flowserve US, Inc., solely as successor to Rockwell Manufacturing
`
`Company, Edward Valves, Inc., Nordstrom Valves, and Gestra Inc. (improperly named as
`
`Flowserve US, Inc. ind. and as suc. to Edward Valves, Inc., Rockwell Manufacturing Inc., Gestra
`
`Inc., Aldrich Pumps, Durco Pumps, Cameron Pumps, Vogt Valves, Nordstrom Valves, and
`
`Wilson-Snyder Centrifugal Pumps) (hereinafter “Defendant”), by its attorneys, McELROY,
`
`DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP, hereby response to Plaintiffs’ Third
`
`Amended Complaint as follows:
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`1.
`
`Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint.
`
`1 of 21
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/11/2024 07:27 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66
`
`INDEX NO. 190011/2024
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024
`
`2.
`
`Except to admit that it has conducted business in the State of New York, the
`
`defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 2 of the Complaint to the extent they are directed
`
`towards it.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraphs 3 through 9 of the
`
`Complaint to the extent that they are directed toward Defendant and refers all questions of law to
`
`the Court.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Defendant repeats and reaffirms each and every response to Paragraphs 1 through 9 of the
`
`Complaint as if set forth at length herein.
`
`4.
`
`Defendant denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`allegations contained in Paragraphs 10 through 35 (inclusive) of the Complaint insofar as these
`
`allegations are not directed at Defendant, otherwise generally denies the truth of the allegations,
`
`and refers all questions of law to the Court.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Defendant repeats and realleges each and every response as to Paragraphs 1 through 35 of
`
`the Complaint as if more fully set forth herein.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`allegations contained in Paragraphs 36 through 39 of the Complaint insofar as these allegations
`
`are not directed at Defendant, otherwise generally denies the truth of the allegations, and refers
`
`all questions of law to the Court.
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Defendant repeats and realleges each and every response as to Paragraphs 1 through 39 of
`
`the Complaint as if more fully set forth herein.
`
`2 of 21
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/11/2024 07:27 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66
`
`INDEX NO. 190011/2024
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024
`
`6.
`
`Defendant denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`allegations contained in Paragraphs 40 and 41 of the Complaint insofar as these allegations are
`
`not directed at Defendant, otherwise generally denies the truth of the allegations, and refers all
`
`questions of law to the Court.
`
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Defendant repeats and realleges each and every response as to Paragraphs 1 through 41 of
`
`the Verified Complaint as if more fully set forth herein.
`
`7.
`
`Defendant denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`allegations contained in Paragraphs 42 through 68 (inclusive) of the Complaint insofar as these
`
`allegations are not directed at Defendant, otherwise generally denies the truth of the allegations,
`
`and refers all questions of law to the Court.
`
`FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Defendant repeats and realleges each and every response as to Paragraphs 1 through 68 of
`
`the Complaint as if more fully set forth herein.
`
`8.
`
`Defendant denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`allegations contained in Paragraphs 69 through 82 (inclusive) of the Complaint insofar as these
`
`allegations are not directed at Defendant, otherwise generally denies the truth of the allegations,
`
`and refers all questions of law to the Court.
`
`SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Defendant repeats and realleges each and every response as to Paragraphs 1 through 82 of
`
`the Complaint as if more fully set forth herein.
`
`9.
`
`Defendant denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`allegations contained in Paragraphs 83 through 98 (inclusive) of the Complaint insofar as these
`
`3 of 21
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/11/2024 07:27 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66
`
`INDEX NO. 190011/2024
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024
`
`allegations are not directed at Defendant, otherwise generally denies the truth of the allegations,
`
`and refers all questions of law to the Court.
`
`SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Defendant repeats and realleges each and every response as to Paragraphs 1 through 98 of
`
`the Complaint as if more fully set forth herein.
`
`10.
`
`Defendant denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 99 of the Complaint insofar as these allegations are not
`
`directed at Defendant, otherwise generally denies the truth of the allegations, and refers all
`
`questions of law to the Court.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`FIRST SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`With respect to plaintiffs’ claim of a duty owed to them, this answering defendant denies
`
`breaching any duty that it may have owed to the plaintiffs.
`
`SECOND SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The answering defendant is free of any and all negligence.
`
`THIRD SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Damages, if any, were the result of the sole negligence of the plaintiffs.
`
`FOURTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Damages, if any, which may have been sustained by the plaintiffs, and for which this
`
`defendant may become liable, were the result of the actions of third-parties over whom the
`
`answering defendant exercised no control and, therefore, plaintiffs are barred from any recovery
`
`against the answering defendant.
`
`FIFTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`4 of 21
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/11/2024 07:27 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66
`
`INDEX NO. 190011/2024
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024
`
`Any damages or injuries that may have been sustained by the plaintiffs were the result of
`
`the sole negligence of the remaining defendants and/or third-party defendants.
`
`SIXTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The answering defendant did not make, nor did it breach, any warranty to the plaintiffs.
`
`SEVENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`While the answering defendant denies that plaintiff used its products, defendant states
`
`that if it is shown that plaintiff did use its products then the incident and injury alleged in the
`
`Complaint were caused by the unauthorized, unintended and improper use of the product
`
`complained of and as a result there can be no recovery.
`
`EIGHTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiffs failed to give the defendant notice of alleged breach of warranty and damage as
`
`required by law.
`
`NINTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Any liability that might otherwise be imposed upon the answering defendant is subject to
`
`reduction or barred by virtue of the doctrine of comparative negligence.
`
`TENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The answering defendant hereby invokes the provisions of Article 16 of the New York
`
`Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”) and requests that the jury herein be charged accordingly.
`
`ELEVENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The action of the plaintiff is barred by the Statute of Limitations.
`
`TWELFTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as against the
`
`answering defendant.
`
`THIRTEENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`5 of 21
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/11/2024 07:27 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66
`
`INDEX NO. 190011/2024
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024
`
`The doctrine of strict liability in tort does not apply to this answering defendant.
`
`6 of 21
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/11/2024 07:27 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66
`
`INDEX NO. 190011/2024
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024
`
`FOURTEENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, from recovery for some or all of the
`
`claims asserted against the answering defendant because the fault or negligent acts or omissions
`
`of plaintiff or plaintiff’s employer caused or contributed to plaintiffs’ alleged injuries.
`
`FIFTEENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The discovery rule does not apply and plaintiffs are barred from maintaining the within
`
`suit.
`
`SIXTEENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Any asbestos or asbestos-containing products that this defendant may have supplied were
`
`de minimis in light of the total sales by all sources and, therefore, plaintiffs fail to state a claim
`
`against the answering defendant.
`
`SEVENTEENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Any damages or injuries that may have been suffered by the plaintiffs were not
`
`proximately caused by the conduct of the answering defendant.
`
`EIGHTEENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The answering defendant never manufactured, sold or distributed any asbestos-containing
`
`material that caused plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos.
`
`NINETEENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The answering defendant is an improper party in this litigation.
`
`TWENTIETH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`All claims brought under New York Law, L.1986 c. 682 Section 4 (enacted July 31,
`
`1986) are time-barred in that said statute is in violation of the Constitution of the United States
`
`and the Constitution of the State of New York.
`
`7 of 21
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/11/2024 07:27 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66
`
`INDEX NO. 190011/2024
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024
`
`TWENTY-FIRST SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The answering defendant had no knowledge or reason to know of any alleged risks
`
`associated with asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products at any time during the periods
`
`complained of.
`
`TWENTY-SECOND SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiffs’ cause of action for exemplary or punitive damages is barred because such
`
`damages are not recoverable or warranted in this action.
`
`TWENTY-THIRD SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiffs’ demand for punitive damages is barred by the due process clauses of the
`
`Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the New York State Constitution.
`
`TWENTY-FOURTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiffs’ demand for punitive damages is barred by the proscription of the Eighth
`
`Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth
`
`Amendment, and Article I, Section 5 of the New York State Constitution prohibiting the
`
`imposition of excessive fines.
`
`TWENTY-FIFTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`If plaintiffs sustained injuries in the manner alleged, all of which has been denied by this
`
`defendant, the liability of this defendant, if any, shall be limited in accordance with Article 16 of
`
`the CPLR.
`
`
`
`TWENTY-SIXTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`At all times relevant to this litigation, the agents, servants and/or employees of this
`
`defendant utilized proper methods in the conduct of its operations, in conformity with the
`
`available knowledge and research of the scientific and industrial communities.
`
`8 of 21
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/11/2024 07:27 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66
`
`INDEX NO. 190011/2024
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024
`
`TWENTY-SEVENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiff contributed to the alleged illness, either in whole or in part, by exposure to or the
`
`use of tobacco products and/or other substances, products, medications or drugs.
`
`TWENTY-EIGHTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`To the extent either of the plaintiffs herein bring suit in a representative capacity, such
`
`plaintiffs have failed to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate legal capacity to sue pursuant to
`
`New York Estate Powers and Trusts Law § 5-41.
`
`
`
`TWENTY-NINTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The purported service upon the answering defendant in this action was not proper, and as
`
`a result, this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the answering defendant.
`
`THIRTIETH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Upon information and belief, any alleged injuries were caused by a pre-existing or
`
`unrelated medical condition, disease or illness of the plaintiff.
`
`THIRTY-FIRST SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrines of laches, waiver and/or estoppel.
`
`
`
`THIRTY-SECOND SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because any product allegedly associated with this answering
`
`defendant was substantially altered after it left the manufacturer’s possession and control.
`
`THIRTY-THIRD SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, to the extent that plaintiff failed to
`
`mitigate damages.
`
`
`
`THIRTY-FOURTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`In the event that plaintiffs recover a verdict or judgment against the answering defendant,
`
`then said verdict or judgment must be reduced by those amounts that have been paid or
`
`9 of 21
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/11/2024 07:27 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66
`
`INDEX NO. 190011/2024
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024
`
`indemnified or will, with reasonable certainty, be paid or indemnified to the plaintiffs, in whole
`
`or in part, for any past or future claimed economic loss, from any collateral source including
`
`insurance, social security, workers compensation or employees benefit programs.
`
`THIRTY-FIFTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The answering defendant hereby invokes the provisions of the New York CPLR §§ 4545
`
`and requests that the damage award, if any, in favor of the plaintiffs be reduced accordingly.
`
`THIRTY-SIXTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiffs have improperly joined claims of multiple parties in violation of Articles 6 and
`
`10 of the New York CPLR and all improperly joined or misjoined parties and/or claims must be
`
`severed and tried separately.
`
`THIRTY-SEVENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The answering defendant hereby invokes the provisions of Article 50-B of the New York
`
`CPLR.
`
`THIRTY-EIGHTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`In the event of a finding of any liability in favor of plaintiffs, or settlement, or judgment
`
`against any defendant, then the answering defendant should be held liable, if at all, only for the
`
`proportion of damages sustained by plaintiffs, if any, as is determined by the jury to be the result
`
`of the allocable percentage of fault or negligence on the part of the answering defendant.
`
`THIRTY-NINTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`To the extent that plaintiffs allege claims based upon oral warranties or representations,
`
`plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the Statute of Frauds.
`
`FORTIETH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The answering defendant cannot be liable to plaintiffs as alleged in the Complaint by
`
`operation of the doctrines of superseding and/or intervening cause.
`
`10 of 21
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/11/2024 07:27 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66
`
`INDEX NO. 190011/2024
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024
`
`FORTY-FIRST SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The answering defendant intends to rely upon such other defenses as may be available or
`
`apparent during discovery proceedings in this case and hereby reserves the right to amend the
`
`Answer to plead said defenses.
`
`FORTY-SECOND SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`No acts or omissions of this defendant proximately caused any damages.
`
`FORTY-THIRD SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Any asbestos-containing product of the answering defendant that may have been present
`
`at plaintiff’s job locations were placed in any such buildings upon specification, approval or at
`
`the instruction of governmental or legislative agencies or bodies.
`
`FORTY-FOURTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`All implied warranties, including the warranties of merchantability and fitness for a
`
`particular purpose, were excluded at the time of the sale, if any, of the answering defendant’s
`
`products.
`
`FORTY-FIFTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`No implied warranties, including the warranties of merchantability and fitness for a
`
`particular purpose, became part of the basis of the bargain in the sale, if any, of the answering
`
`defendant’s products.
`
`FORTY-SIXTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The answering defendant is not liable to plaintiffs for any damages alleged in the
`
`Complaint because such damages are excluded and not recoverable under express warranty.
`
`11 of 21
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/11/2024 07:27 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66
`
`INDEX NO. 190011/2024
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024
`
`FORTY-SEVENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiff did not directly or indirectly purchase any asbestos-containing products or
`
`materials from the answering defendant and plaintiff did not either receive or rely upon any
`
`representation or warranty allegedly made by the answering defendant.
`
`FORTY-EIGHTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Finished asbestos-containing products are not unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law.
`
`FORTY-NINTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`None of the alleged injury or damage was foreseeable at the time of the acts or omissions
`
`complained of in plaintiff’s Complaint.
`
`FIFTIETH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`If a warning was required, the answering defendant was under no duty to warn
`
`purchasers, those who performed work, or those under their control, where another person or
`
`entity was in a better position to warn; their failure to warn was a superseding proximate cause of
`
`injury.
`
`FIFTY-FIRST SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiff was warned of risk of exposure to use of asbestos-containing materials.
`
`FIFTY-SECOND SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Upon information and belief, some or all of the causes of action may not be maintained
`
`because of collateral estoppel.
`
`FIFTY-THIRD SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Upon information and belief, some or all of the causes of action may not be maintained
`
`because of res judicata.
`
`12 of 21
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/11/2024 07:27 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66
`
`INDEX NO. 190011/2024
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024
`
`FIFTY-FOURTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Pursuant to General Obligations Law Section 15-108, this defendant is entitled to set-off.
`
`FIFTY-FIFTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`To the extent the Complaint asserts causes of action for statutory liability based upon
`
`express or implied warranties and/or representations, the allegations as against the answering
`
`defendant are legally insufficient to establish liability by reason of the failure to allege privity of
`
`contract between the plaintiff and this answering defendant.
`
`FIFTY-SIXTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiffs are barred from any recovery against the answering defendant by the doctrine
`
`of assumption of the risk.
`
`FIFTY-SEVENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiff’s employer(s) were sophisticated purchasers and/or users of the products
`
`referred to in plaintiff’s Complaint upon whom devolved all responsibility for such use.
`
`FIFTY-EIGHTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because of plaintiffs’ failure to join necessary and
`
`indispensable parties.
`
`FIFTY-NINTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`No enterprise liability lies against the answering defendant.
`
`SIXTIETH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The answering defendant did not act with recklessness, malice or wantonness, and
`
`accordingly, plaintiffs may not recover herein any exemplary or punitive damages against the
`
`answering defendant.
`
`SIXTY-FIRST SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Insofar as plaintiffs allege that this answering defendant engaged in any willful and
`
`13 of 21
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/11/2024 07:27 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66
`
`INDEX NO. 190011/2024
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024
`
`wanton misconduct, or that this defendant knowingly and/or intentionally sold a product or
`
`products that it knew to be unreasonably dangerous, all of which this defendant denies, any such
`
`cause of action accrued more than one year prior to the commencement of this lawsuit, thus is
`
`time-barred.
`
`
`
`SIXTY-SECOND SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`At all times material hereto, the state of the medical and industrial art was such that there
`
`was no generally accepted or recognized knowledge of any avoidable, unsafe, inherently
`
`dangerous, or hazardous character or nature of products containing asbestos when used in the
`
`manner and purpose described by the plaintiff and, therefore, there was no duty for the
`
`answering defendant to know of any such character or nature or to warn plaintiff or others
`
`similarly situated.
`
`
`
`SIXTY-THIRD SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`To the extent that the answering defendant conformed to the scientific knowledge and
`
`research data available through the industry and scientific community, this defendant has
`
`fulfilled its obligations, if any, herein and plaintiffs’ claims should be barred, in whole or in part.
`
`SIXTY-FOURTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted,
`
`inasmuch as plaintiffs are unable to identify the manufacturer(s) of the substance allegedly
`
`causing injury, and relief granted would deprive this defendant of its right to substantive and
`
`procedural due process of law and equal protection under the law pursuant to the Fourteenth
`
`Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
`
`14 of 21
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/11/2024 07:27 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66
`
`INDEX NO. 190011/2024
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024
`
`SIXTY-FIFTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`To the extent plaintiffs seek damages attributable to products purportedly manufactured
`
`by the answering defendant, plaintiffs are not entitled to damages claimed because plaintiff, his
`
`co-workers and employees misused, mistreated and misapplied the product(s) designated as
`
`asbestos materials as alleged in the Complaint and such misuse, abuse, mistreatment and/or
`
`misapplication attributed to the plaintiff and/or his co-workers and/or employees proximately
`
`caused the alleged injuries or damages.
`
`SIXTY-SIXTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The causes of action asserted herein by the plaintiffs, who are unable to identify the
`
`manufacturer of the alleged injury-causing product(s), fail to state a cause of action upon which
`
`relief can be granted in that plaintiffs have asserted claims for relief which, if granted, would
`
`constitute a taking of private property for public use, without just compensation. Such a taking
`
`would contravene this answering defendant’s constitutional rights as preserved for it by the
`
`Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
`
`
`
`SIXTY-SEVENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`If it should be proved at the time of trial that any of the answering defendant’s product(s)
`
`were furnished to plaintiff’s employer(s) and/or to the United States Government, and that
`
`plaintiff came into contact with said product(s), which this defendant specifically denies, then
`
`any product(s) processed, manufactured, produced, constructed, designed, tested, fashioned,
`
`packaged, sold, distributed, delivered, supplied, advertised and/or otherwise placed in the stream
`
`of commerce by this defendant that was or may have been furnished to plaintiff’s employer(s)
`
`and/or to the United States Government, and with which plaintiff alleges he came, or may have
`
`come into contact, was processed, manufactured, produced, constructed, designed, tested,
`
`fashioned, packaged, sold, distributed, delivered, supplied, advertised and/or otherwise placed in
`
`15 of 21
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/11/2024 07:27 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66
`
`INDEX NO. 190011/2024
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024
`
`the stream of commerce in strict conformity to the conditions specified, or to specifications
`
`furnished by the plaintiff’s employer(s) and/or the United States Government.
`
`
`
`SIXTY-EIGHTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`To the extent that the causes of pled by the plaintiffs herein fail to accord with the
`
`Uniform Commercial Code, including, but not limited to, Section 2-725 thereof, plaintiffs’
`
`Complaint is barred.
`
`SIXTY-NINTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`To the extent that plaintiffs rely on Section 4 of the New York Laws 1986, c.682 as
`
`grounds for reviving or maintaining the action, said statute(s) is/are unconstitutional and
`
`deprive(s) the answering defendant of its constitutional rights and is/are wholly void and
`
`unenforceable.
`
`SEVENTIETH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`To the extent that plaintiffs seek punitive damages against the answering defendant, and
`
`rely on Section 4 of the New York Laws 1986, c. 682 as grounds for reviving and maintaining
`
`the action, such damages are improper and are not authorized by law since this statute does not
`
`revive any claims for punitive damages, leaving such claims time-barred in their entirety.
`
`SEVENTY-FIRST SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`These actions and the causes pled by the plaintiffs herein are barred by virtue of Article
`
`1, Section 10 of the United States Constitution.
`
`SEVENTY-SECOND SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Pursuant to the Case Management Order Section XVII, punitive damages are not
`
`available in this action.
`
`16 of 21
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/11/2024 07:27 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66
`
`INDEX NO. 190011/2024
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024
`
`SEVENTY-THIRD SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiffs’ demand for punitive damages is barred by the “ex post facto” clause of the
`
`United States Constitution.
`
`SEVENTY-FOURTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`With respect to plaintiffs’ claim of a duty owed to them, this answering defendant denies
`
`breaching any duty that it may have owed to the plaintiffs.
`
`SEVENTY-FIFTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The answering defendant reserves the right to move for a severance of the various
`
`allegations in the plaintiffs’ Complaint.
`
`SEVENTY-SIXTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The answering defendant reserves the right to amend its answer and to assert additional
`
`crossclaims and/or otherwise counterclaims as to any party named herein, who may have, is, or
`
`will be declared bankrupt or otherwise files a petition under the Bankruptcy Code, pursuant to
`
`Article 16 of the N.Y.Civ.Prac.L. & R. and to decision of Justice Helen E. Freedman, former
`
`presiding judge for the New York City Asbestos Litigation (October 28, 2002), which was
`
`upheld by the First Department in In re: New York City Asbestos Litigation, Tancredi v. A.C. &
`
`S., Inc., 775 N.Y.S.2d 520 (1st Dep’t. 2004).
`
`SEVENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`If, at the time of trial, it is shown that plaintiff used products manufactured, supplied,
`
`distributed, or sold by the answering defendant, said products or a portion thereof were supplied
`
`to, by, or on behalf of the United States Government, or if those products were supplied or sold
`
`by the United States Government, the answering defendant raises any immunity from suit or
`
`17 of 21
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/11/2024 07:27 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66
`
`INDEX NO. 190011/2024
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024
`
`from liability as conferred by the United States Government, and specifically pleads the
`
`government contractor defense.
`
`SEVENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`The answering defendant incorporates and adopts by reference any and all other and/or
`
`additional defenses, raised or to be raised by any other party, and expressly reserves the right to
`
`amend and supplement its defenses herein to assert additional defenses and to make further
`
`admission upon completion of further investigation and discovery.
`
`SEVENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiff-spouse’s loss of consortium claim is barred as a matter of law because the alleged
`
`asbestos exposure of the plaintiff predates the date of the plaintiff’s and plaintiff-spouse’s
`
`marriage.
`
`EIGHTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`The answering defendant hereby expressly denies that it is a successor to Henry Vogt
`
`Machine Company.
`
`EIGHTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`This court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action.
`
`EIGHTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`This court lacks personal jurisdiction of this Defendant.
`
`WHEREFORE, defendant Flowserve US, Inc., solely as successor to Rockwell
`
`Manufacturing Company, Edward Valves, Inc., and Gestra Inc., requests judgment in its favor
`
`dismissing the Verified Complaint and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem
`
`just and proper.
`
`18 of 21
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/11/2024 07:27 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66
`
`INDEX NO. 190011/2024
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024
`
`CROSSCLAIMS
`
`Defendant Flowserve US, Inc., solely as successor to Rockwell Manufacturing Company,
`
`Edward Valves, Inc., and Gestra Inc., by way of crossclaim against each named co-defendant
`
`says:
`
`FIRST COUNT
`
`Without admitting any liability therein, the answering defendant asserts that should
`
`liability be found against said defendant, it is entitled to and hereby claims contribution from all
`
`co-defendants.
`
`SECOND COUNT
`
`While this defendant denies that it is negligent or liable in any regard, it is certain that its
`
`negligence or liability, if any, was passive, vicarious and imputed, whereas the negligence or
`
`liability of the co-defendants was active and primary.
`
`THIRD COUNT
`
`While denying any negligence or liability in this action, this defendant says that if there
`
`was any negligence or liability, then the negligence or liability of this defendant was secondary
`
`only and the negligence or liability of the co-defendants herein was primary.
`
`Accordingly, the co-defendants are obligated by operation of law, contract and otherwise,
`
`to indemnify this defendant and hold this defendant harmless from any and all claims which are
`
`the subject of the Verified Complaint.
`
`WHEREFORE, this defendant demands judgment by way of indemnity against the co-
`
`defendants for any judgment which may be entered in favor of the plaintiffs against this
`
`defendant.
`
`19 of 21
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/11/2024 07:27 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66
`
`INDEX NO. 190011/2024
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024
`
`ANSWER TO CROSSCLAIMS
`
`The answering defendant denies any and all crossclaims filed or to be filed against it in
`
`the within action.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`The answering defendant hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues.
`
`Dated: March 8, 2024
`New York, New York
`
`
`
`/s/ Brian Sorensen, Esq.
`Brian Sorensen, Esq.
`Attorneys for Defendant Flowserve US, Inc., solely as
`successor to Rockwell Manufacturing Company, Edward
`Valves, Inc., Nordstrom Valves, and Gestra Inc.
`McELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP
`225 Liberty Street, 26th Floor
`New York, New York 10281
`(212) 483-9490
`
`20 of 21
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/11/2024 07:27 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66
`
`INDEX NO. 190011/2024
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024
`
`ATTORNEY’S VERIFICATION
`
`The undersigned affirms the following statement to be true under penalties of perjury
`
`pursuant to Rule 2106 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules.
`
`That he is an attorney at law and an associate of the firm of McELROY, DEUTSCH,
`
`MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP, attorneys for defendant Flowserve US, Inc., solely as
`
`successor to Rockwell Manufacturing Company, Edward Valves, Inc., Nordstrom Valves, and
`
`Gestra Inc.
`
`That he has read the foregoing document and knows the contents thereof, and that the
`
`same is true to the knowledge of your affirmant except as to the matters therein alleged upon
`
`information and belief and that as to those matters he believes them to be true.
`
`That the reason why this affirmation is being made by your affirmant and not the
`
`defendant is that the defendant is not a domestic corporation and does not maintain an office with
`
`an officer having knowledge of the facts in the county where your affirmant’s firm maintains its
`
`offices.
`
`That the source of your affirmant’s information and the grounds of his belief as to all the
`
`matters therein alleged upon information and belief are reports from and communication had
`
`with said corporations.
`
`Dated: March 8, 2024
` New York, New York
`
`/s/ Brian Sorensen, Esq.
`Brian Sorensen, Esq.
`
`
`
`21 of 21
`
`