2018 03:09 pm - iapps.courts.state.ny.us

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKEIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

In Re Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation

This Document Applies to:

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKCOUNTY OF ERIE

MICHELLE SULLIVAN, Administratrix

d.b.n. of the Estate of RONALD J. JARNOT,Deceased

Plaintiff, SECOND AMENDEDCOMPLAINT

vs.

AIR 8 LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION Index 0 812420/2016

as Successor by Merger to

BUFFALO PUMPS, INC.,

BEAZER EAST, INC., formerly known as

BEAZER MATERIALS 8 SERVICES, INC.,

formerly known as KOPPERS CO. INC.

CBS CORPORATION, f/k/a VIACOM, INC.

Successor by Merger to CBS CORPORATION

f/k/a WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION,

CINCINNATI VALVE COMPANY,CRANE CO.

FERRO ENGINEERING DIVISION OF

ON MARINE SERVICES, COMPANY, INC.,

FLOWSERVE US, solely as successor to

ROCKWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY,

EDWARD VALVES, INC., NORDSTROM VALVES,lNC

and EDWARD VOLT VALVE COMPANY,

FOSECO, INC.

FRONTIER INSULATION CONTRACTORS f/k/a

FRONTIER INSULATION AND ASBESTOS, INC.,

GOULDS PUMPS, INC.,

FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 05/23/2018 03:09 PM INDEX NO. 812420/2016

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2018

1 of 31

GRINNELL CORPORATION,HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.

as Successor-in-Interest toWILPUTTE

COKE OVEN, DIVISIONof ALLIEDSIGNAL, INC.,

INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANYINSULATION DISTRIBUTORS INC.,

J.H. FRANCE REFRACTORIES C O.

JOHN CRANE INC.

LACO SALES, INC., Individually and as

Successor to LACO ROOFING ANDASBESTOS COMPANY, INC.,

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE CONIAGARA NSULATIONS f/k/a

NIAGARA ASBESTOS CO., INC.,

NIBCO INC.,

OWENS ILLINOIS,

RILEY POWER, INC. f/k/a BABCOCKBORSIG POWER, INC. f/k/a DB RILEY INC.

f/k/a RILEY STOKER CORPORATION,SEALING DEVICES, INC.,

THIEM CORPORATION, as Successor by

Merger to THIEM CORPORATION, as

Successor by Merger to UNIVERSAL REFRACTORIES

CORP.

UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION,ZURN INDUSTRIES, INC. a/k/a and

Successor-in-Interest to ERIE CITY IRON WORKS,

Defendants.

The plaintiff, MICHELLE SULLIVAN, Administratrix d.b.n. of the Estate of RONALD

J. JARNOT, by her attorneys, LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP for her Second

Amended Complaint against each and every defendant allege:

1. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the plaintiff, was and still is a

citizen of the State of New York and resident of the County of Erie.

2. That on or about the 3rd day of April, 2018, the plaintiff, MICHELLE

-2-



2 of 31

SULLIVAN, was appointed Administratrix d.b.n. of the Estate of RONALD J. JARNOT,

pursuant to an Order of the Surrogate's Court of the County of Erie, State of New York,

and Letters of Administation d.b.n. of the Estate of RONALD JARNOT were

served on the plaintiff, MICHELLE SULLIVAN, and the said plaintiff thereupon duly

qualified and thereafter acted and is still acting as such Administratrix.

3. If it is deemed that Article 16 of the CPLR applies to this action, the plaintiff

asserts that this action falls within one or more of the exceptions set forth in CPLR 1602

including, but not limited to, the exception for cases where a person is held liable for

causing the claimant's injury by having acted with reckless disregard for the safety of

others; the exception for cases involving any person held liable for causing claimant's

injury by having unlawfully released into the environment asubstance hazardousto public

health, safety or the environment; and the exception for any parties found to have acted

knowingly or intentionally and in concert to cause the acts or failures upon which liability

is based.

4. Upon information and belief, at all times hereinafter mentioned, the

defendant, AIR 8 LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION as Successor by Merger to

BUFFALO PUMPS, INC., was and still is a foreign corporation doing business and/or

transacting the State of New York. At all times relevant, it has engaged in the

manufacture, sale and distribution of materials and products containing the substance

asbestos.


defendant, BEAZER EAST, INC. formerly known as BEAZER MATERIALS 8

- 3-



3 of 31

SERVICES, INC., formerly known as KOPPERS CO. INC. was and still is a foreign

business corporation which transacted business in the State of New York, with its

principal place of business outside the State of New York. At all times relevant, it has

engaged in the design, construction, maintenance and repair of coke ovens and coke

oven batteries, as well as in the sale of goods and contracting services or the

construction of coke ovens at the former Bethlehem Steel Corporation facility in

Lackawanna, N ew York. The said defendant engaged in the direction and control of the

installation and maintenance of asbestos-containing materials used in the construction,

maintenance, and repair of coke oven facilities at the Lackawanna site. Upon information

and belief, the defendant, in connection with the construction of coke ovens at the

Lackawanna site, sold to the former Bethlehem Steel Corporation asbestos rope,

asbestos paper, asbestos pipe insulation, asbestos block insulation, insulating cement,

asbestos millboard, asbestos felt, castables, gaskets, gunnite and bitumastic products,

all of which contained the substance asbestos.


Defendant CBS CORPORATION f/k/a VIACOM INC., Successor by Merger to CBS

CORPORATION f/k/a WESTINGHOUS ELECTRIC CORPORATION was and is a duly

organized foreign corporation doing business and/or transacting business in the State of

New York. At all times relevant, it has engaged in the sale and distribution of material and

products containing the substance asbestos.

7. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the

defendant, CINCINNATI VALUE COMPANY, was and is a foreign corporation doing

business and/or transacting business in the State of New York. At all times, it has

engaged in the sale and distribution of material and products containing the substance

- 4-



4 of 31

asbestos.


defendant, CRANE CO., was and is a foreign corporation doing business and/or

transacting business in the State of New York. At all times, it has engaged in the sale and

distribution of material and products containing the substance asbestos.


defendant, FERRO ENGINEERING DIVISION OF ON MARINE SERVICES

COMPANY, LLC., was and still is a foreign corporation unauthorized to transact

business in the State of New York, with its principal place of business outside the State

of New York. At all times relevant, it has engaged in the manufacture, sale and

distribution of materials and products containing the substance asbestos.


defendant, FLOWSERVE US, INC., solely as successor to ROCKWELL

MANUFACTURING COMPANY, EDWARD VALVES, INC., NORDSTROM VALVES,

INC. and EDWARD VOGT VALVE COMPANY, was and still is a foreign corporation

authorized to and transacting business in the State of New York, with its principal place

of business outside the State of New York. At all times relevant, it has engaged in the

manufacture, sale and distribution of materials and products containing the substance

asbestos.


defendant, FOSECO, INC. was and still is a foreign corporation authorized to and

transacting business in the State of New York, with its principal place of business

outside the State of New York. At all times relevant, it has engaged in the manufacture,

sale and distribution of materials and products containing the substance asbestos.

- 5-



5 of 31

12. Upon information and belief, the defendant, FRONTIER INSULATON

CONTRACTORS, INC. f/k/a FRONTIER INSULATION AND ASBSTOS, INC. was and

still is a domestic corporation duly organized and existing under add by virtue of the laws

of the State of New York. At all times relevant, it has engaged in the sale and distribution

of materials and products containing the substance asbestos.


defendant, GOULDS PUMPS, INC. was and still is a foreign corporation authorized to

and transacting business in the State of New York, with its principal place of business




defendant, GRINNELL, LLC, was and still is a foreign corporation which transacted

business in the State of New York with its principal place of business outside the State

of New York. At all times relevant, it has engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution

of materials and products containing the substance asbestos.


defendant, HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. as Successor in Interest to

WILPUTTE COKE OVEN, DIVISION OF ALLIED SIGNAL, INC. was and still is a foreign

business corporation which transacted business in the State of New York, with its

principal place of business outside the State of New York. At all times relevant, it has

engaged in the design, construction, maintenance and repair of coke ovens and coke

oven batteries, as well as in the sale of goods and contracting services or the

construction of coke ovens at the former Bethlehem Steel Corporation facility in

Lackawanna, New York. The said defendant engaged in the direction and control of the

- 6-



6 of 31

installation and maintenance of asbestos-containing materials used in the construction,

maintenance, and repair of coke oven facilities at the Lackawanna site. Upon information

and belief, the defendant, in connection with the construction of coke ovens at the

Lackawanna site, sold to the former Bethlehem Steel Corporation asbestos rope,

asbestos paper, asbestos pie insulation, asbestos block insulation, insulating cement,

asbestos millboard, asbestos felt, castables, gaskets, gunnite and bitumastic products,

all of which contained the substance asbestos.


defendant, INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY, was and still is a foreign corporation

authorized to do business within the State of New York with its principal place of business




defendant, INSULATION DISTRIBUTORS, INC., was and still is a domestic corporation

duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the Laws of the State of New York. At

all times relevant, it has engaged in the sale and distribution of materials and products

containing the substance asbestos.


defendant, J.H. FRANCE REFRACTORIES CO., INC., a subsidiary of ADIENCE INC.,

was and still is a foreign corporation, not authorized to transact business in the State of

New York with its principal place of business outside the State of New York. At all

times relevant, it has engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of materials and



- 7-



7 of 31

defendant JOHN CRANE, INC., was and is a foreign corporation doing business and/or

transacting business in the State of New York. At all times relevant, it has engaged in

the sale and distribution of materials and products containing the substance asbestos.


defendant, LACO SALES INC., individually and as successor to LACO ROOFING AND

ASBESTOS COMPANY INC., was and still is a domestic corporation duly organized and

existing under and by virtue of the Laws of the State of New York. At all times relevant,

it has engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of materials and products



defendant, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, was and still is a foreign

corporation doing business and/or transacting business in the State of New York. At all

times, it has engaged in the sale and distribution of material and products containing the

substance asbestos.


defendant, NIAGARA INSULATIONS, INC., f/k/a NIAGARA ASBESTOS CO., INC., was

and still is a domestic corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the

Laws of the State of New York. At all times relevant, it has engaged in the sale and

distribution of materials and products containing the substance asbestos.


defendant NIBCO INC. was and still is a foreign corporation doing business and/or

transacting business in the State of New York. At all times relevant, it has engaged in the



- 8-



8 of 31

defendant, OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC. was and still is a foreign corporation authorized to

transact business in the State of New York, with its principal place of business outside

the State of New York. At all times relevant, it has engaged in the sale and distribution of

materials and products containing the substance asbestos.


defendant, RILEY POWER INC. f/k/a BABCOCK BORSIG POWER, INC. f/k/a DB

RILEY, INC. f/k/a RILEY STOKER CORPOlRATION, was and still is a foreign corporation

authorized to transact business in the State of New York. At all times relevant, it has

engaged in the sale and distribution of materials and products containing the substance

asbestos.


defendant, SEALING DEVICES INC., was and still is a domestic corporation duly

organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, At all

times relevant, it has engaged in the sale and distribution of materials and products



defendant THIEM CORPORATION, as Successor by Merger to THIEM

CORPORATION,as Successor by Merger to UNIVERSAL REFRACTORIES CORP., was

and still is a foreign business corporation authorized to and transacting business in the

State of New York, with its principal place of business outside the State of New York. At

alltimes relevant it has engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of materials and



defendant, UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, was and still is a domestic corporation

9



9 of 31

duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York,

At all times relevant, it has engaged in the sale and distribution of materials and products



defendant, ZURN INDUSTRIES INC. a/k/a and Successor-in-Interest to ERIE CITY IRON

WORKS was and is a foreign corporation doing business and/or transacting business in

the State of New York. At all times, it has engaged in the sale and distribution of material

and products containing the substance asbestos.

30. Plaintiff's decedent handled in the course of his employment, or was

otherwise exposed to large amounts of various asbestos-containing products and

materials manufactured and marketed by the above-captioned defendants due to the use

of asbestos materials and products by his co-employees and others.

31. Asbestos-containing products and materials were manufactured,

compounded and fabricated by the defendants, acting through their agents, employees

and representatives, and were subsequently placed in the market and sold in commerce.

32. Upon information and belief, the named defendants manufactured,

marketed, sold, distributed, relabeled and commingled those asbestos-containing

products which plaintiff's decedent was exposed to during the course of his employment.

33. That the defendants, acting in concert, failed to disclose to plaintiff's

decedent and those similarly situated, or warn them of the known dangers associated

with the use ofdefendants'

asbestos-containing products.Defendants'

concerted action

took either the form of an express or implied agreement not to warn or was achieved by

providing substantial assistance or encouragement to one another in their wrongful

course of conduct. As a result ofdefendants'

concerted action, plaintiff's decedent

- 10-



10 of 31

suffered personal injuries which led directly to his untimely death.

34. Defendants collectively comprised virtually the entire asbestos

manufacturing industry supplying the geographical locations wherein plaintiff's decedent

worked during the course of his employment. Defendants, acting as part of an industry-

wide enterprise to manufacture asbestos-containing products, failed to disclose to the

plaintiff's decedent and those similarly situated, or warn them of the known dangers

associated with the use ofdefendants'

asbestos-containing products. As participants in

a joint enterprise, the defendants had the capacity to reduce, eliminate or affect the risks

of exposure to asbestos but nonetheless they embraced, endorsed and profited from a

policy not to warn plaintiff's decedent. As a result ofdefendants'

joint action, plaintiff's

decedent suffered personal injuries which led directly to his untimely death.

35. Defendants, acting in combination with one or more of the others, failed to

disclose to plaintiff's decedent and those similarly situated, or warn them of the known

dangers associated with the use ofdefendants'

asbestos-containing products.

Defendants manufactured and supplied those asbestos-containing products to which

plaintiff's decedent was exposed during the course of his employment and are

therefore liable collectively or in the alternative for all of the personal injuries plaintiff's

decedent suffered therefrom.

36. As manufacturers and suppliers of a substantial share of the asbestos-

containing products to which plaintiff's decedent was exposed during his employment,

defendants should be held liable for the personal injuries suffered by plaintiff's decedent

on the basis of at least the proportionate share of the relevant market enjoyed by each

defendant.

- i1-



11 of 31

AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION, THE

PLAINTIFF, MICHELLE SULLIVAN, ALLEGES:

37. The plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs"1"

through"36"

of the Second Amended Complaint herein with the same

force and effect as if fully set forth herein.

38. The inhalation of asbestos dust and asbestos-containing particles is highly

dangerous, proximately causing mesothelioma, asbestosis and other severe lung

diseases, and cancer.

39. By reason of exposure to and inhalation of asbestos particles and dust,

and other contaminates found indefendants'

products and materials plaintiff's decedent

contracted an incurable asbestos-related disease which ultimately led to his untimely

death.

40. It is well established and has been well-known for many years that the

inhalation of asbestos dust and particles is extremely hazardous and dangerous. The

defendants, as manufacturers or distributors of asbestos products and materials knew,

or should have known, of its hazards and dangers.

41. The defendants knew, or should have known, that plaintiff's decedent

would not have knowledge of the hazards of asbestos products and materials with which

he worked and which the defendants manufactured and marketed.

42. The defendants did not adequately test their asbestos-containing products

and materials and did not take reasonable precautions in their manufacture and

marketing, nor did they exercise reasonable care to warn of the dangers of use or

exposure to their products and materials; they also failed to give sufficient instructions in

the safe use and handling thereof.

I2-



12 of 31

43. The defendants intentionally and willfully failed to adequately warn of the

known dangers of exposure to their products and materials and/or to give adequate

instruction in the safe use and handling thereof.

44. As a proximate result of thedefendants'

negligence in their failure to

properly manufacture, test and label their products, and their willful and intentional failure

to warn plaintiff's decedent and other reasonably foreseeable users of the severe hazards

inherent in the use or exposure to their asbestos products and materials, plaintiff's

decedent contracted an incurable asbestos-related disease.

45. Plaintiff's decedent did not contribute in any manner to his own injuries.

46. By reason of the injuries to and the death ofplaintiffs'

decedent, the Estate

of the decedent has paid for necessary medical treatment, hospitalization and funeral

expenses.

47. As a result of the foregoing, the deceased prior to his premature death,

sustained bodily injury and suffered great pain and suffering, and accordingly the

plaintiff seeks appropriate recompense in such sum as the trier of fact shall determine.

The amount of damages sought herein exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all other courts,

which might otherwise have jurisdiction herein.

48. The intentional and willful conduct above complained of against the

defendants was aimed against the public as well as plaintiff's decedent; was grossly

unjust and involved high moral culpability for which punitive damages should be

assessed in the sum as the trier of fact shall determine. The amount of damages sought

herein exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all other courts which might otherwise have

- 13-



13 of 31

jurisdiction herein.

AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION, THE


49. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs"1"

through"48"

of the Second Amended Complaint.

50. The defendants willfully and intentionally refused to disclose known

defects and hazards in the asbestos-containing products they manufactured and/or

placed into the stream of commerce.

51. As a result of thedefendants'

failure, among other things, to test their

products for hazards, or to give adequate warning of their danger, or to give instructions

in their use and handling, thedefendants'

products were manufactured and marketed in

a defective condition, were unreasonably dangerous to users such as plaintiff's decedent,

and proximately caused plaintiff decedent's injuries and death.

52. Plaintiff's decedent used the products manufactured and sold by

defendants for the purpose and in the manner normally intended.

53. Plaintiff's decedent could not have, in the exercise of reasonable care

discovered the defects and hazardous nature of the products manufactured and

marketed by the defendants, nor perceived the dangers thereof, nor otherwise averted

his injuries and damages.

54. By reason of the foregoing, the defendants are strictly liable to plaintiff in

the amount as the trier of fact shall determine. The amount of damages sought herein

exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all other courts, which might otherwise have jurisdiction

herein.

- 14-



14 of 31

AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION, THE



through"54"


56. The following acts complained of occurred continuously and

simultaneously with thedefendants'

manufacture, marketing, sale, distribution, relabeling,

commingling, loaning or exchanging of their asbestos containing products.

57. Each defendant, individually and/or in combination with one or more of the

co-defendants, falsely stated, advertised or otherwise represented to plaintiff's decedent,

to other purchasers and users of their asbestos products, and to the public that, as a

matter of fact, there were no health hazards of any significance associated with the

purchase, use or exposure todefendants'

asbestos products.

58. The defendants knew such statements, representations and

advertisements to be false, misleading or incomplete at the time they were made.

59. The defendants made such statements, advertisements or

misrepresentations with reckless indifference as to whether they were true or complete

at the time they were made.

60. The facts were that their asbestos products were known by the defendants

to be unsafe to the health of purchasers, users, or those otherwise exposed to their

asbestos products.

61. In contradiction to that known data, or in reckless indifference to its

the defendants intentionally misrepresented, advertised or otherwise

knowingly and intentionally created the false impression in plaintiff's decedent, other

purchasers and users of asbestos products, and among the public that, in fact their

- 15-



15 of 31

asbestos products carried little or no health hazards and that no question existed as to

the safety of their purchase, use or exposure.

62. That impression was false because medical and historical data known by

the defendants indicated the presence and/or potential of significant health hazards in

the purchase, use and exposure to their asbestos products.

63. These false or recklessly indifferent representations, advertisements or

statements by the defendants, and this false impression of safety, were made with the

intent to deceive the plaintiff's decedent and others into purchasingdefendants'

asbestos products and/or into using, working with, in or about or exposing one self to

defendants'asbestos products.

64. In regard to known or suspected health hazards, the defendants did not

have a good faith belief in the truth, accuracy or completeness of the advertisements,

representations or statements about their asbestos products.

65. Plaintiff's decedent was unaware of the false or incomplete character of

those misrepresentations, advertisements or statements, or of thedefendants'

reckless

indifference to the truth, accuracy or completeness of their content, and was unaware of

the false nature of the impression of safety thereby created by the defendants.

66. In response to the above complained of conduct by the defendants,

plaintiff's decedent, and others, relied, in fact, upon those representations,

advertisements, statements and false impressions of safety to be true, accurate and

complete, and consequently were induced into, deceived into, and did purchase, use,

work with, in or about or otherwise expose themselves todefendants'

asbestos products.

67. Each defendant intentionally suppressed and concealed by affirmative act

material facts, in whole or in part, as to the health hazards associated with the purchase,

- 16-



16 of 31

use, or exposure to thedefendants'

asbestos products. The defendants knew such facts

to be significant and material as to the safety of their asbestos products. The defendants

suppressed and concealed the material facts from plaintiff's decedent, purchasers and

users of asbestos products, and the public.

68. The defendants intentionally and willfully concealed and suppressed these

material facts with the intent to deceive, induce or mislead plaintiff's decedent and others

into purchasing, using, working with, in or about, or otherwise exposing themselves to the

asbestos products manufactured or distributed by the defendants.

69. Upon information and belief, the affirmative acts of intentional suppression

and concealment consisted in part, but not exclusively, of the following:

(a) The editing out or alteration by defendants in

in industry supported research studies of

references to asbestos caused diseases;

(b) Prevention of publication to the public and/or

release to the scientific community of medical

research, data and findings as related to

asbestos caused diseases, said data beingproduced by research and studies financed

by the defendants at various research projects;

(c) The intentional refusal to place in its

advertisements of asbestos products available

or known information of known or suspected

health hazards associated with the use of

asbestos products;

(d) The intentional refusal to disclose all or

significant parts of information regarding health

hazards associated with the use of asbestos

products which the defendants acquired from

Workmen's Compensation Insurance carriers

and shared among the defendants;

- 17-



17 of 31

(e) The intentional refusal to disclose all or significant

parts of information regarding health hazards associated

with the use of asbestos products which the

defendants acquired throughtheir association or

membership in industry committees, organizations

or gatherings.

70. Upon information and belief, other acts of intentional concealment and

suppression of material facts as to the safety of asbestos products were performed by

the defendants, the details of which lie within knowledge still peculiar to the defendants.

71. Plaintiff's decedent, other users and purchasers of asbestos products, and

the public relied upon thedefendants'

superior knowledge and familiarity with their own

asbestos products and such reliance was known by, or should have been known by, the

defendants.

72. Thedefendants'

intentional failure to disclose known medical and scientific

data on the health hazards of their asbestos products, by itself or in conjunction with this

known reliance upon the defendants to disclose any such information, did in fact

deceiveand induce plaintiff's decedent, the public, and other purchasers and users of

defendants'asbestos products to purchase, use, work with, in or about or otherwise

expose themselves to those asbestos products.

73. Plaintiff's decedent, the public, and other purchasers and users of

asbestos products were otherwise unaware of these intentionally undisclosed and willfully

concealed facts.

74. The defendants did not have a good faith belief that such data was

immaterial or insignificant to plaintiff's decedent, to the public, or to users and

purchasers of asbestos products, or that such data was erroneous, inaccurate or

- 18-



18 of 31

otherwise unworthy of dissemination to the scientific community and/or to the public or

plaintiff's decedent.


acts above complained of,plaintiffs'

decedent did, in fact, suffer severe and permanent physical injuries, conscious pain

and suffering, incur medical expenses, and was otherwise damaged by each and every

defendant in such sum, as the trier of fact shall determine. The amount of damages

sought herein exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all other courts, which might otherwise

have jurisdiction herein.

76. The fraudulent conduct above complained of against the defendants was

aimed against the public as well as the decedent, was grossly unjust and involved high

moral culpability, for which punitive damages should be assessed as the trier of fact shall

determine. The amount of damages sought herein exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all

other courts, which might otherwise have jurisdiction herein.

AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION, THE


77. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs

"1"through

"76"of the Second Amended Complaint and alleges that the defendants in

the manufacturer, marketing, distribution, sale, relabeling, commingling, loaning or

exchanging of their asbestos products did as follows:

78. The defendants, in combination or in concert with one or more of the

others, did willfully, purposely and by common design, conspire to intentionally defraud

and thus willfully injure the decedent, purchasers and users of asbestos products, and

the public, through the overt affirmative acts complained of in paragraphs"56"

through

- 19-



19 of 31

ii 70ii"70".

79. Thedefendants'

intent to defraud the decedent and others was unlawful

and without legal justification or excuse.

80. The decedent and others did in fact rely upon the false representations

and impressions of safety made by the defendants.

81. The decedent, purchasers and users of asbestos products, and the public

were successfully deceived by thedefendants'

conspiracy to defraud, as they did

purchase, use, work with, in or about or otherwise expose themselves todefendants'

asbestos products.


successful conspiracy to defraud, the

decedent did, in fact, sustain severe and permanent physical injury, experience

conscious pain and suffering, incur medical expenses, and was otherwise damaged by

each and every defendant in such sum as the trier of fact shall determine. The amount

of damages sought herein exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all other courts, which might

otherwise have jurisdiction herein.

83. Thedefendants'

conspiracy to defraud was public or quasi-public in nature

as well as directed to this decedent and was grossly unjust and involved moral

culpability for which punitive damages should be assessed against the defendants in such

sum as the trier of fact shall determine. The amount of damages sought herein exceeds

the jurisdictional limits of all other courts, which might otherwise have jurisdiction herein.

- 20-



20 of 31

84. Had the decedent known the truth as to the health hazards associated with

the use of thedefendants'

asbestos products, he would have successfully avoided any

harmful exposure to those products.

AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST

DEFENDANTS BEASER EAST, INC., formerly known

as BEAZER MATERIALS 8 SERVICES, INC., formerlyknown as KOPPERS CO. INC and HONEYWELLINTERNATIONAL INC. as Successor-in-interest

to WILPUTTE COKE OVEN, DIVISION OF ALLIEDSIGNAL,

INC., THE PLAINTIFF, MICHELLE SULLIVAN, ALLEGES:


through"84"


86. That upon information and belief, at all times hereinafter mentioned, the

defendant BEAZER EAST, INC., formerly known as BEAZER MATERIALS 8 SERVICES,

INC., formerly known as KOPPERS CO., INC. and HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL as

Successor-in-Interest to WILPUTTE COKE OVEN, Division of ALLIEDSIGNAL, INC., was

a contactor of coke ovens and supplied coke ovens and services to the former

Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Lackawanna, New York, were plaintiff's decedent worked.

87. Upon information and belief, during the construction and maintenance of

coke ovens, BEAZER EAST, INC., formerly known as BEAZER MATERIALS 8

SERVICES, INC., formerly known as KOPPERS CO., INC. and HONEYWELL

INTERNATIONAL as Successor-in-Interest to WILPUTTE COKE OVEN, Division of

ALLIEDSIGNAL, INC., failed to properly apply, repair and/or remove asbestos-containing

materials, failed to properly advise those in the area that asbestos was being applied,

repaired and/or removed, failed to provide appropriate respiratory equipment and failed

to advise those in the area they may be exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos.

- 21-



21 of 31

88. That upon information and belief, at all times hereinafter mentioned, the

Defendant HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. as Successor-in-Interest to WILPUTTE

COKE OVEN, DIVISION OF ALLIEDSIGNAL, INC. was a contractor of coke ovens and

supplied coke ovens and services to the former Bethlehem Steel Corporation,

Lackawanna, New York, where plaintiff's decedent worked.

89. Upon information and belief, during the construction and maintenance of

coke ovens, HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. as Successor-in-Interest to

WILPUTTE COKE OVEN, DIVISION OF ALLIEDSIGNAL, INC. failed to properly apply,

repair and/or remove asbestos-containing materials, failed to properly advise those in the

area that asbestos was being applied, repaired and/or removed, failed to provide

appropriate respiratory equipment and failed to advise those in the area they may be

exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos.

90. That as a result of the negligence of BEAZER EAST, INC. formerly known

as BEAZER MATERIALS & SERVICES, INC, formerly known as KOPPERS CO. INC.

and HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. as Successor-in-Interest to WILPUTTE

COKE OVEN, DIVISION OF ALLIEDSIGNAL, INC. the plaintiff has sustained damages

in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all other courts which might

otherwise have jurisdiction herein.

AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE

DEFENDANTS BEAZER EAST, INC. formerly known as

BEAZER MATERIALS 8 SERVICES, INC., formerly known

as KOPPERS CO., INC. and HONEYWELL INTERNATIONALINC. as Successor-in-Interest to WILPUTTE COKE OVEN,DIVISION OF ALLIEDSIGNAL, INC., FRONTIER INSULATION

CONTRACTORS f/k/a FRONTIER INSULATION AND ASBESTOS,

INC., INSULATION DISTRIBUTORS INC. AND NIAGARA

INSULATIONS f/k/a NIAGARA ASBESTOS CO., INC, THE


- 22-



22 of 31

91. The plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation containing in

paragraphs"1"

through"90"



92. Upon information and belief, the aforesaid accident and resultant injuries

were caused by the negligence, carelessness, recklessness and unlawful conduct on the

part of the defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees in the ownership of the

construction site and/or as contractor and said negligence was exhibited in, among other

things, failing and omitting to ensure plaintiff's decedent was provided with a safe and

proper place in which to work, and in failing and omitting to comply with the applicable

laws, rules, codes and regulations.

93. Upon information and belief, the defendants, by their agents, servants

and/or employees, as owner of the subject premises and/or contractor at the construction

site, violated the Labor Law of the State of New York, the Industrial Code of the State of

New York and the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the regulations and

standards promulgated thereunder, and all other applicable provisions, statutory laws,

regulations and rules, both of the State of New York and the United States, thereby

rendering the defendant statutorily an absolutely liable to plaintiff's decedent.

94. As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff has sustained general and special

damages in an amount that exceeds the jurisdiction limits of all lower courts in an amount

that exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lowers courts which might otherwise have

- 23-



23 of 31

jurisdiction.

AS AND FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST

DEFENDANTS, FRONTIER INSULATION CONTRACTORSf/k/a FRONTIER INSULATION AND ASBESTOS, INC.,

INSULATION DISTRIBUTORS, INC. AND NIAGARA

INSULATIONS, INC. f/k/a NIAGARA ASBESTOS CO. INC.

THE PLAINTIFF, MICHELLE SULLIVAN, ALLEGES:

95. The plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs"1"

through'94"



96. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, FRONTIER

INSULATION CONTRACTORS, INC., f/k/a FRONTIER INSULATION AND

ASBESTOS, INC., was a contractor of insulation services and supplied asbestos-

containing products and services throughout the former Bethlehem Steel plant in

Lackawanna, New York.

97. During the course of asbestos application, FRONTIER INSULATION

CONTRACTORS, INC., f/k/a FRONTIER INSULATION AND ASBESTOS, INC. failed

to properly apply the asbestos, failed to properly advise those in the area that asbestos

was being applied, failed to provide appropriate respiratory equipment and failed to

advise those in the area that they may be exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos.

98. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, INSULATION

DISTRIBUTORS, INC., was a contractor of insulation services and supplied asbestos-

containing products and services throughout the former Bethlehem Steel plant in

Lackawanna, New York.

99. During the course of asbestos application, INSULATION DISTRIBUTORS,

- 24-



24 of 31

INC. failed to properly apply the asbestos, failed to properly advise those in the area

that asbestos was being applied, failed to provide appropriate respiratory equipment and

failed to advise those in the area that they may be exposed to dangerous levels of

asbestos.

100. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, NIAGARA

INSULATIONS, INC., f/k/a NIAGARA ASBESTOS CO., INC., was a contractor of

insulation services and supplied asbestos-containing products and services throughout

the former Bethlehem Steel plant in Lackawanna, New York.

101. During the course of asbestos application, NIAGARA INSULATIONS,

INC., f/k/a NIAGARA ASBESTOS CO., INC. failed to properly apply the asbestos, failed

to properly advise those in the area that asbestos was being applied, failed to provide

appropriate respiratory equipment and failed to advise those in the area that they may be

exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos.

102. As a result of the negligence of FRONTIER INSULATION

CONTRACTORS, INC., f/k/a FRONTIER INSULATION AND ASBESTOS, INC.,

INSULATION DISTRIBUTORS, INC., and NIAGARA INSULATIONS, INC., f/k/a

NIAGARA ASBESTOS CO., INC., the plaintiff has sustained general and special

damages in an amount that exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lowers courts which

might otherwise have jurisdiction.

AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION, THE



through"102"


104. Decedent died of an incurable disease caused exclusively by exposure to

- 25-



25 of 31

asbestos.

105. Decedent left him surviving his children, who were dependent upon him at

the date of his death.

106. The said children, were to a degree dependent upon the deceased to

an extent for their support and maintenance, and have been damaged in the sum as the

trier of fact shall determine. The amount of damages sought herein exceeds the

jurisdictional limits of all other courts, which might otherwise have jurisdiction herein.

107. The intentional and willful intentional and willful conduct above complained

of against the defendants was aimed against the public as well as the decedent; was

grossly unjust and involved high moral culpability for which punitive damages should be

assessed in such sum as the trier of fact shall determine. The amount of damages sought

herein exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all other courts, which might otherwise have

jurisdiction herein.

108. Decedent died on November 12, 2014 solely as a result of injuries inflicted

by the defendants acting individually, in concert, as participants in a joint enterprise, in

various combinations with one another, and as profiteers in the asbestos products market.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against the defendants on each and

every cause of action alleged in this Second Amended Complaint for compensatory and

punitive damages in such sum as shall be determined by the trier of fact, together with

such other and further relief as may be just and proper together with the costs and

disbursements of this action.

- 26-



26 of 31

)

Dated: Buffalo, New York

April 23, 2018

You c.

CHERIE L. PETERSON, ESQ.

LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Office and Post Office Address

42 Delaware Avenue, Suite 120

Buffalo, New York 14202-3857

(716) 849-1333

- 27-



27 of 31

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKEIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

In re EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ASBESTOS LITIGATION

This document applies to:

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKCOUNTY OF ERIE

MICHELLE SULLIVAN Administratrix

d.b.n. of the Estate of RONALD J.

JARNOT, Deceased

AMENDED PLAINTIFF'S

STATEMENT

Plaintiff,Index No. 812420/2016

-vs-

AIR 8 LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATIONas Successor by Merger to BUFFALO PUMPS, INC.,et al.,

Defendants.

PLEASE STATE:

Nature of Action: Personal Injury XWrongful Death X

As to PLAINTIFF:

1. Full Name: Michelle Sullivan

2. Date of Birth: August 7, 1967

3. Present Address: 6705 Burke Road

Lakeview, New York 14085

4. Social Security Number:

- 28-



28 of 31

As to PLAINTIFF'S SPOUSE, if applicable:

5. Full Name:

6. Date of Birth:

7. Present Address:


As to PLAINTIFF'S DECEDENT, if applicable:

9. Full Name: RONALD J. JARNOT

10. Date of Birth: June 2, 1937

11. Last Address: 3452 A. Emerling Dr., Blasdell, New York 14219


Date and Place of Death: November 12, 2014

3452 S. Emerling Dr. Blasdell, New York 14219

14. Cause of Death: lung cancer

As to alleged ASBESTOS EXPOSURE:

15. Indicate which of the following types of activities resulted in plaintiff's/decedent's

alleged exposure to asbestos:

(a) Insulating Trade:

(b) Boiler Trade (indicate trade):

(c) Construction Trade (indicate trade):

(d) Plant Worker (indicate plant): Bethlehem Steel Plant - 1957-2000

(e) Brake Lining or Friction Worker:

(f) Non-Occupational (describe):

-29-



29 of 31

(g) Other (describe):

16. Date of First Exposure: 1957

17. Date of Last Exposure: 2000

18. Asbestos containing products to which plaintiff/decedent was allegedly exposed:

Asbestos-containing insulations including pipecovering, block, felts, blankets,

cement, paper, cloth, rope, tape, spray materials, transite pipe and panels, joint

compounds, refractory products, and rock wool.

19. Nature of alleged asbestos related illness and date of diagnosis:

Date of Diagnosis

Asbestosis

Lung Cancer 11/12/14

Mesothelioma

Pleural Changes

Other (identify)

20. Has plaintiff or did decedent ever smoke cigarettes?

Yes X No

If so, state the number of years and the number of packs per day of

plaintiff's/decedent's smoking:

Plaintiff smoked approximately 1 pack of cigarettes per day from 1945 and quit in

1990

21. Has plaintiff been or was decedent exposed to non-asbestos containing products

or substances which have been demonstrated to cause or contribute to lungdisease, injury or dysfunction?

Yes No X

If so, state all such products or substances:

- 30-



30 of 31

By:

To the extent plaintiffs (or decedent's) asbestos-related injuries (and subsequent death)are peculiarly associated with exposure to asbestos, no.

22. State all other prior or pending asbestos actions:

Title: None

Venue:

Index or Docket Number:

Status of Action:___________________________________________

Title: None

Venue:


Status of Action:______________________________________-------

Title: None

Venue:


Status of Action:______________________________________________

DATED: Buffalo, New York

April 23, 2018

CHERIE L. PETERSON, ESQ.

LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Office and P. O. Address

42 Delaware Avenue, Suite 120

Buffalo, New York 14202-3857

(716) 849-1333

- 31-



31 of 31

2018 03:09 pm - iapps.courts.state.ny.us

Documents