FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/06/ :03 AM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/06/2017

Transcription

1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK LEROY BAKER Index No /2017 -against- Plaintiff, FIRST MENDED SUMMONS AND FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT Plaintiff designates New York County as the place of trial The basis ofvenue is defendant's place of business and location of exposure AF SUPPLY USA INC., AMERICAN BOILER TANK & WELDING CO., INC., TEXTRON INC., Individually and as Successor-in- Interest to AVCO CORPORATION, BURNHAM LLC, CBS CORPORATION, a DELAWARE CORP., f/k/a VIACOM, INC., successor by merger to CBS CORP., a PENNSYLVANIA CORP., f/k/a WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, CLEAVER-BROOKS, a division of AQUA-CHEM, INC., CRANE COMPANY, DANA COMPANIES, LLC., DAP, INC., DAVIS & WARSHOW TRANSITION COMPANY INC., FITZGIBBONS BOILER COMPANY, INC., FLOWSERVE U.S., INC., Solely as Successor to Rockwell Manufacturing Company, Edward Valves, Inc., McCanna Corporation and Nordstrom Valves, Inc., FULTON BOILER WORKS, INC., GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC, f/k/a GEORGIA PACIFIC CORPORATION, Plaintiff resides at Brooklyn, NY 1 1 of 36

2 J.H. FRANCE REFRACTORIES, CO., JOHNSTON BOILER, JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., 3M COMPANY, THE MARLEY-WYLAIN COMPANY f/k/a WEIL MCLAIN, PECORA CORPORATION, PEERLESS INDUSTRIES INC Individually and As Successor in Interest to Peerless Heater Company, PHOENIX ENERGY MANAGEMENT, INC., Individually and as Successor- in-interest to BEST BOILERS, RILEY POWER INC., f/k/a RILEY STOKER CORPORATION, ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC., Oc/a ALLEN-BRADLEY COMPANY, INC., Individually and Successor-in-Interest to ROSTONE CORPORATION, SID HARVEY INDUSTRIES, INC., S.O.S. PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC., SPX COOLING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., as Successor-in-Interest to MARLEY COOLING TOWER, TRANE US, INC., f/k/a AMERICAN STANDARD INC., YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, ZURN INDUSTRIES, L.L.C. f/k/a ZURN INDUSTRIES, INC., as SUCCESSOR to ERIE CITY IRON WORKS, and METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE CO., AND DEFENDANTS: BEST BOILERS, INC., H.C. OSWALD SUPPLY CO., INC. HEXION SPECIALTY CHEMICALS, INC., f/k/a BORDEN CHEMICAL, INC., SUPERIOR BOILER WORKS, INC. Defendants. To the above named Defendants: YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED, to answer the first amended complaint in this action 2 2 of 36

3 and to serve a copy ofyour answer, or, ifthe first amended complaint is not served with this first amended summons to serve a Notice ofappearance, on the Plaintiffs Attomey(s) within 20 days after the service ofthis first amended summons, exclusive ofthe day ofservice (or within 30 days after the service is complete if this first amended summons is not personally delivered to you within the State ofnew York); and in case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the first amended complaint. Date: March 6,2017 Defendants address: See attached rider Gori Julian & Associates, P.C. Attorneys for the Plaintiffs 360 Lexington Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY of 36

4 SERVICE RIDER FOR LEROY BAKER As of 3/6/2017 AF SUPPLY USA INC THAVE BROOKLYN, NEWYORK, AMERICAN BOILER, TANK & WELDING CO., INC. 53 PLEASANT STREET ALBANY, NEW YORK, TEXTRON INC., Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to AVCO CORPORATION, C T CORPORATION SYSTEM 111 EIGHTH AVENUE NEW YORK, NEW YORK, BEST BOILER, INC., 340 Jackson Avenue Bronx, New York BURNHAM LLC P.O. Box Harrisburg Pike Lancaster, PA CBS CORPORATION, a DELAWARE CORP., f/k/a VIACOM, INC., successor by merger to CBS Corp., a PENNSYLVANIA CORP., fitc/a WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY 80 STATE STREET ALBANY, NEW YORK, CLEAVER-BROOKS, a division ofaqua-chem, INC c/o CSC-Lawyers Incorporating Service Company, 8040 Excelsior Drive, Suite 400, Madison, WI CRANE COMPANY CT Corporation System 208 South LaSalle Street, Suite 814 Chicago, IL DANA COMPANIES, LLC., C.T. Corporation System, 1300 East Ninth Street, Ste. 1010, Cleveland, OH DAP, INC Boston Street, Suite 200 Baltimore, MD DAVIS & WARSHOW TRANSITION COMPANY INC. 282 PORTO VECCHIO WAY PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, FITZGIBBONS BOILER COMPANY, INC., 1242Philadelphia National Bank Building 4 of 36

5 Philadelphia, PA FLOWSERVE U.S., INC., Solely as Successor to Rockwell Manufacturing Company, Edward Valves, Inc., McCanna Corporation andnordstrom Valves, Inc., C T CORPORATION SYSTEM 111 EIGHTH AVENUE NEW YORK, NEW YORK, FULTON BOILER WORKS, INC., c/o The Fulton Companies, 3981 Port St., PO Box 257, Pulaski, New York, GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 3135 EASTONTPKE FAIRFIELD, CONNECTICUT, GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC, Tt/a GEORGIA PACIFIC CORPORATION CT CORPORATION SYSTEM 111 EIGHTH AVENUE NEW YORK, NEW YORK, HEXION SPECIALTY CHEMICALS, INC. C/O Corporation Service Company 80 State Street Albany, New York H.C. OSWALD SUPPLY CO., INC. 725 Whittier Street Bronx, New York J.H. FRANCE REFRACTORIES, CO., c/o Donald E. Ward, President, Special Claims Services Inc., 809 Coshocton Avenue, Ste. I, Mount Vemon, OH JOHNSTON BOILER c/o Ronald R. Whitehouse, 300 Pine St., Ferrysburg, MI JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. CT CORPORATION SYSTEM 111 EIGHTH AVENUE 13TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NEW YORK, M COMPANY CT CORPORATION SYSTEMS 111 EIGHTH AVENUE 13TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NEW YORK, THE MARLEY-WYLAIN COMPANY f/k/a WEIL MCLAIN, C T CORPORATION SYSTEM 155 WASHINGTON AVENUE 5 of 36

6 ALBANY, NEW YORK, PECORA CORPORATION, 165 Wambold Road, Harleysville, PA PEERLESS INDUSTRIES INC, Individually and as Successor in Interest to Peerless Heater Company, c/o Philip J.O'Rourke, Esq., Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, 77 Water Street, Suite 2100, New York, NY PHOENIX ENERGY MANAGEMENT, INC., Individually and as Successor- in-interest to BEST BOILERS 2402 NEPTUNE AVENUE BROOKLYN, NEW YORK, RILEY POWER INC., fdc/a RILEY STOKER CORPORATION, CT CORPORATION SYSTEM 111 EIGHTH AVENUE NEW YORK, NEW YORK, ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC., fit^a ALLEN-BRADLEY COMPANY, INC., Individually and Successor-in-Interest to ROSTONE CORPORATION, C T CORPORATION SYSTEM 111 EIGHTH AVENUE NEW YORK, NEW YORK, SID HARVEY INDUSTRIES, INC. CT CORPORATION SYSTEM 111 EIGHTH AVENUE NEW YORK, NEW YORK, S.O.S. PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC. 4'"'Street Railroad Ave. EastGreenville, PA SPX COOLING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., as Successor-in-Interest to MARLEY COOLING TOWER, C T CORPORATION SYSTEM 111 EIGHTH AVENUE NEW YORK, NEW YORK, SUPERIOR BOILER WORKS, INC., 3524 E. 4*^ Avenue Hutchinson, KS TRANE U.S., INC., f/k/a AMERICAN STANDARD INC. Corporation Service Company 80 State Street Albany, New York, YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION The Corporation Trust Company (DE) Corporation Trust Center 1209 Orange Street New Castle, DE ZURN INDUSTRIES, L.L.C. ffk/a ZURN INDUSTRIES, INC., as SUCCESSOR to ERIE CITY IRON WORKS CT CORPORATION SYSTEM 6 of 36

7 111 EIGHTH AVENUE NEW YORK, NEW YORK, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY The Corporation Trust Company 1209 Orange Street Wilmington, DE of 36

8 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK LEROY BAKER Plaintiff, Index No /2017 FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT -against- AF SUPPLY USA INC., AMERICAN BOILER TANK & WELDING CO., INC., TEXTRON INC., Individually and as Successor-in- Interest to AVCO CORPORATION, BURNHAM LLC, CBS CORPORATION, a DELAWARE CORP., f/k/a VIACOM, INC., successor by merger to CBS CORP., a PENNSYLVANIA CORP., f/k/a WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, CLEAVER-BROOKS, a division of AQUA-CHEM, INC., CRANE COMPANY, DANA COMPANIES, LLC., DAP, INC., DAVIS & WARSHOW TRANSITION COMPANY INC., FITZGIBBONS BOILER COMPANY, INC., FLOWSERVE U.S., INC., Solely as Successor to Rockwell Manufacturing Company, Edward Valves, Inc., McCanna Corporation and Nordstrom Valves, Inc., FULTON BOILER WORKS, INC., GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC, f/k/a GEORGIA PACIFIC CORPORATION, J.H. FRANCE REFRACTORIES, CO., JOHNSTON BOILER, JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., 3M COMPANY, THE MARLEY-WYLAIN COMPANY f/k/a WEIL MCLAIN, PECORA CORPORATION, PEERLESS INDUSTRIES INC Individually and As Successor in Interest to Peerless Heater Company, 8 of 36

9 PHOENIX ENERGY MANAGEMENT, INC., Individually and as Successor- in-interest to BEST BOILERS, RILEY POWER INC., f/k/a RILEY STOKER CORPORATION, ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC., f/k/a ALLEN-BRADLEY COMPANY, INC., Individually and Successor-in-Interest to ROSTONE CORPORATION, SID HARVEY INDUSTRIES, INC., S.O.S. PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC., SPX COOLING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., as Successor-in-Interest to MARLEY COOLING TOWER, TRANE US, INC., f/k/a AMERICAN STANDARD INC., YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, ZURN INDUSTRIES, L.L.C. f/k/a ZURN INDUSTRIES, INC., as SUCCESSOR to ERIE CITY IRON WORKS, and METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE CO., AND DEFENDANTS: BEST BOILERS, INC., H.C. OSWALD SUPPLY CO., INC. HEXION SPECIALTY CHEMICALS, INC., f/k/a BORDEN CHEMICAL, INC., SUPERIOR BOILER WORKS, INC. Defendants. 9 of 36

10 COMPLAINT 1) Plaintiffs LEROY BAKER (hereinafter referred to as "plaintiff'). 2) Each of the defendants named in the caption above has conducted business in the City and State ofnew York and has produced, manufactured, specified, supplied, installed or distributed asbestos and/or asbestos products with the reasonable expectation that such products would be used or consumed in this state, which products were so used or consumed, and/or has committed the tortious acts set forth below in this state, 3) Each ofthe defendants named in the caption above has manufactured, specified, supplied, sold, distributed and/or installed asbestos containing products to which the plaintiffwas exposed, or was a contractor at a location where the plaintiffwas exposed to asbestos, or manufactured, sold and/or installed equipment which had asbestos components or specified such components for operation, or owned or operated jobsites where asbestos containing products or equipment were used and where the plaintiffwas thereby exposed to asbestos. 4) If is deemed that Article 16 of the CPLR applies to this action, the plaintiff asserts that this action falls within one or more ofthe exceptions set forth in CPLR1602 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 (CPLR 1602(7)); the exception for cases involving any person held liable for causing claimant's injury having unlawfully released into the environment a substance hazardous to public health, safety or the environment (CPLR 1602(9)); the exception for any parties found to have acted knowingly or intentionally and in concert to cause the acts or failtire upon which liability is based (CPLR 1602(11)); the exception based upon defendants' non-delegable duty to warn ofthe health hazards ofasbestos (CPLR 2602(2)(iv)); and the exception for persons held liable in a product liability action where the manufacturer ofthe of 36

11 product is not a party to the action and jurisdiction over the manufacturer could not with due diligence be obtained (CPLR 1602(10)). 5) The plaintiff, in the course of plaintiffs employment, worked with and/or in the vicinity of asbestos containing products and equipment with asbestos containing components, which products and components gave offairborneasbestos fibers, whichthe plaintiffwas therebyforced to inhale. Plaintiff sustained exposure to asbestos in New York and New Jersey including while working from 1968 to 1974 as a Welder at Bell Boiler Repair, from 1974 to 1977 as a Welder at JNL, and from 1977 to 2015 as a Welder for Brooklyn Boiler Repair at various locations throughout the New York and New Jersey area. The Plaintiff was secondarily exposed to asbestos containing products through his step-father, who worked for some time as a Sharecropper on a farm. The Plaintiffwas secondarily exposed to asbestos containing products through his mother, who worked for some time as a Sharecropper on a farm. 6) Upon information and belief, the named defendants manufactured, designed, sold, supplied, distributed, relabeled, commingled, applied and/or installed those asbestos containing products and/or equipment with asbestos containing components to which the plaintiffwas exposed during plaintiffs employment. 7) Defendants, acting in concert, failed to warn the plaintiff and those similarly situated, of the known dangers and hazards ofusing their asbestos containing products. This concert of action was achieved by the defendants providing substantial assistance and encouragement to one another in their wrongful course of conduct, and/or by expressly or impliedly agreeing not to warn the plaintiffand others similarly situated, ofthe hazards ofsaid asbestos containing products of 36

12 8) The inhalation of asbestos fibers is inherently dangerous, in that it proximately causes mesothelioma, lung cancer, asbestosis, pleural scarring and other severe diseases. Plaintiff, LEROY BAKER, was diagnosed with Mesothelioma in December of2016. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Paragraphs 1 through 8 are incorporated herein as ifset forth in full. 9) The employer or employers ofthe plaintiff, were engaged in various businesses in which they bought and/or installed asbestos products and materials. 10) The plaintiff, in the course of plaintiffs employment, worked with and/or in the vicinity of asbestos containing products and equipment with asbestos containing components, which products and components gave offairborne asbestos fibers, which the plaintiffwas thereby forced to inhale. Plaintiff sustained exposure to asbestos in New York and New Jersey including while working from 1968 to 1974 as a Welder at Bell Boiler Repair, from 1974 to 1977 as a Welder at JNL, and from 1977 to 2015 as a Welder for Brooklyn Boiler Repair at various locations throughout the New York and New Jersey area. The Plaintiff was secondarily exposed to asbestos containing products through his step-father, who worked for some time as a Sharecropper on a farm. The Plaintiffwas secondarily exposed to asbestos containing products through his mother, who worked for some time as a Sharecropper on a farm. 11)During the period oftime set forth above, the plaintiff was exposed to and did inhale and/or ingest asbestos dust, fibers, and particles, which dust, fibers, and particles came from the asbestos products which were contracted for, mined, milled, processed, manufactured, designed, tested, assembled, fashioned, fabricated, packaged, supplied, distributed, delivered, marketed and/or sold by the defendants of 36

13 12) upon information and belief, the defendants, through their agents and employees, mined, processed, manufactured, designed, tested and/or packaged various asbestos-containing products, and supplied, distributed, delivered, marketed and/or sold said asbestos-containing products to the employer(s) ofthe plaintiff, or to others working at the various job sites in New York where the plaintiff was employed, or to third persons who, in turn, delivered and sold such products and materials to such employers or to others working at suchjob sites for use by employees, including the plaintiff. 13) At all relevant times that the plaintiff was working, he was exposed to asbestos materials and products which, as part ofplaintiff's employment, he was forced to come into contact with and breathe, inhale, and ingest asbestos fibers and particles coming from said asbestos products and materials. 14) At all times pertinent hereto, defendants were engaged in the business of contracting for, mining, milling, processing, manufacturing, designing, testing, assembling, fashioning, fabricating, packaging, supplying, distributing, delivering, marketing, selling and/or installing asbestos and asbestos products. 15)At all times pertinent hereto, the asbestos products contracted for, mined, milled, processed, manufactured, designed, tested, assembled, fashioned, fabricated, packaged, supplied, distributed, delivered, marketed, sold and/or installed by the defendants reached the plaintiff without any substantial change in their condition from the time they left the custody and control of the defendants. 16) The foregoing asbestos products and equipment with asbestos-containing components were defective in one or more ofthe following ways: of 36

14 a) in that they were inherently dangerous to those who used, handled, came in contact with and/or inhaled said products and materials; b) in that they failed to carry proper, adequate and correct warnings and information concerning the dangers ofsaid products; c) in that they lacked proper safety precautions to be observed by users, handlers and persons, including the plaintiff who would reasonably and foreseeably come into contact with the said products and materials; d) in that they were packaged, bagged, boxed and/or supplied to the plaintiffs' decedent in packing, bagging, boxes or other containers that were inadequate and/or improper; e) in that the products were delivered to and reached the plaintiff without adequate or proper handling instructions, face masks and/or respirators; f) in that any warnings, information and/or safety instructions said products may have carried were improper and inadequate in that they failed to adequately and reasonably apprise users, handlers and persons coming into contact with the said products and materials, including the plaintiff, ofthe fiill scope and danger to their health ofcontact with asbestos products and materials, including the risk ofcancer; g) in that the said asbestos products and materials were not ofmerchantable quality; and h) in that the said asbestos products and materials were not fit and safe for their known and intended purposes and uses. 17) As a result of the above, the plaintiff was caused to sustain permanent injuries caused by plaintiffs coming into contactwith breathing, inhaling and ingesting asbestos fibers. The injuries and diseases from which the plaintiffis suffering will continue to cause the plaintiffto suffer pain and suffering, mental anxiety, distress ofmind, emotional trauma and mental anguish of 36

15 18) The disease, diseases or injuries from which the plaintiffsuffers were directly and proximately caused by plaintiffs exposure to asbestos and asbestos products which were mined, milled, manufactured, designed, assembled, fabricated, supplied, constructed, processed, packaged, distributed, delivered, purchased, sold and/or installed by the defendants. 19) As a result thereof, the plaintiffs life span may have been shortened and plaintiffs capacity to carry on life's activities has been impaired along with plaintiffs capacity to enjoy life and family. 20) As a result of said illness, tlie plaintiff has been obligated to incur expenses for medical treatment, x-rays and in the future will be obliged to incur further expenses for such purposes. 21) As a frirther result ofsaid illness, the plaintiffs earning capacity may be impaired in the future. 22) The defendants knew or should have known that the asbestos products and materials were inherently dangerous to those who used, handled or came in contact with said products and materials. 23) The defendants failed to provide proper, adequate and correct warnings and information concerning the dangers of the products and materials to persons using, handling, or coming into contact therewith. 24) The defendants failed to provide proper, adequate and correct warnings and instruction of safety precautions to be observed by users, handlers and persons, including the plaintiff, who would reasonably and foreseeably come into contact with the said products and materials. 25) Any warnings, information and/or instruction of safety precautions were improper and inadequate in that, among other things, they failed to adequately and reasonably apprise users, handlers and persons coming into contact with the said products and materials, including the plaintiff, of the full scope and danger to their health of contact with asbestos products and materials, including the risk ofcancer or mesothelioma of 36

16 26) The defendants have been possessed ofmedical and scientific data, studies and reports before 1929, which information clearly indicated that asbestos and asbestos-containing products were hazardous to the health and safety ofthe plaintiffand other human beings. 27) The defendants, during the 1930's, 1940's, 1950's and 1960's became possessed ofvoluminous medical and scientific data, studies and reports, which information conclusively established that asbestos and asbestos-containing products were hazardous to the health and safety ofthe plaintiff and all humans exposed to the products. Defendants were members of organizations like the National Safety Council which widely disseminated information about asbestos disease to its members, beginning in the 1930's. 28) The defendantshave since the 1930's had numerousworkers' compensation claims filed against them in this state and many other states by employees or former employees alleging asbestos related pneumoconiosis, going back to the 1930's. This State and other states provided compensation for individuals with asbestos related injuries under workers' compensation laws beginning in the 1930's. 29) The defendants, since the 1920's, have consistently failed to acknowledge, publish, or in any way advise plaintiff of studies and reports known throughout the industry, including studies conducted by or on behalfofvarious defendants in the asbestos industry. 30) Notwithstanding that the defendants possessed the foregoing information, the defendants wrongfully contracted for, mined, milled, processed, manufactured, designed, specified, tested, assembled, fashioned, fabricated, packaged, supplied, distributed, delivered, installed, marketed, and/or sold asbestos products and materials to the plaintiff, plaintiffs employer(s) and/or to others working at the various job sites and places of employment ofthe plaintiff and/or the defendants installed, used and/or applied such products and equipment so as to exposethe plaintiffto asbestos of 36

17 and said defendants failed to render proper, adequate and correct warnings, advice, instruction and information and so acted in a grossly negligent, malicious, willful and wanton manner, and failed to use reasonable care under all circumstances, and wrongfully acted in other respects. 31) It was the continuing duty of the defendants to advise and warn purchasers, consumers, and users, and all prior purchasers, consumers, and users, ofall dangers, characteristics, potentialities and/or defects discovered subsequent to their initial marketing or sale ofsaid asbestos and asbestos products. 32) The defendants breached these duties by: a) failing to warn the plaintiff of the dangers, characteristics, and/or potentialities of the product or products when they knew or should have known that the exposure to the product(s) would cause disease and injury; b) failing to warn the plaintiff of the dangers to which he was exposed when they knew or should have known ofthe dangers; c) failing to exercise reasonable care to warn the plaintiff ofwhat would be safe, sufficient, and properly protective clothing, equipment, and appliances when working with, near or during exposure to asbestos and asbestos products; d) in that they were packaged, bagged, boxed, and/or supplied to the plaintiffin packaging, bagging, boxes or other containers that were inadequate and/or improper; e) in that the products were delivered to and reached the plaintiffwithout adequate or proper handling instructions, face masks and/or respirators; f) failing to test the asbestos and asbestos products in order to ascertain the extent ofdangers involved upon exposure; of 36

18 g) failing to conduct such research that should have been conducted in the exercise of reasonable care in order to ascertain the dangers involved upon exposure; h) failing to remove the product or products from the market when the defendant corporations knew or should have known ofthe hazards ofexposure to asbestos and asbestos products; i) failing upon discovery ofthe dangers, hazards, and potentialities ofexposure to asbestos to adequately warn and apprise the plaintiff of the dangers, hazards, and potentialities discovered; and j) generally using unreasonable, careless, and negligent conduct in the contracting for, mining, milling, processing, manufacturing, designing, testing, assembling, fashioning, fabricating, packaging, supplying, distributing, delivering, marketing, and/or selling of their asbestos and asbestos products. 33) The acts and omissions set forth above constitute misconduct that is intentional, willful, and reckless. 34)As a direct and proximate result of the defendant's misconduct hereinbefore set forth, the plaintiffcontracted the diseases and injuries set forth in paragraph 8. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff claims: Compensatory damages in the amount of$20,000,000.00; and Punitive damages in the amount of$20,000, SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Paragraphs 1 through 34 are incorporated herein as ifset forth in fiill of 36

19 35) The plaintiff was a foreseeable user and consumer of the defendants' asbestos and asbestos products. 36) The defendants owed the plaintiff a duty ofreasonable care to avoid causing him harm from exposure to their products. 37) The defendants breached their duty in the numerous and various manner set forth above. 38) The defendants' negligence directly and proximately caused the plaintiffs asbestos disease and other lawful damages set forth above. WHEREFORE, the plaintiffclaims; Compensatory damages in the amount of$20,000,000.00; and Punitive damages in the amount of $20,000, THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Paragraphs 1 through 38 are incorporated herein as ifset forth in full. 39) The asbestos containing products hereinbefore described reached the plaintiff in a condition substantially unchanged from when they left the custody and control ofthe defendants, and were used by the plaintiff, and/or his coworkers in the manner intended by the defendants. 40) The defendants are, therefore, strictly liable to the plaintiff in accordance with Section 402A ofthe Restatement (Second) oftorts. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff claims: Compensatory damages in the amount of$20,000,000.00; and Punitive damages in the amount of$20,000, of 36

20 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTTON Paragraphs 1 through 40 are incorporated herein as ifset forth in full. 41) Plaintiffrepeats and reiterates the prior allegations ofthis complaint as ifalleged more fully below: 42) Defendants, their subsidiaries, agents and/or servants were/are owners, possessors, lessors, lessees' operator, controllers, managers, supervisors, general contractors, subcontractors, architects, engineers or were otherwise responsible for the maintenance, control And/or safety at the premises on which plaintiffwas lawfully frequenting and exposed to asbestos. 43) Defendants, their subsidiaries, agents and/or servants had a legal duty to maintain and keep those premises in a safe and proper condition. 44) At all times relevant hereto, plaintiffwas lawfully frequenting the premises on which plaintiff was exposed to asbestos. 45) At all times relevant hereto, plaintiffs presence on the premises on which plaintiff was exposed to asbestos was known or knowable to the defendants. 46) Defendants, their subsidiaries, agents, and/or servants negligently created, caused and/or permitted to exist, an unsafe, hazardous and/or dangerous condition to exit by specifying, using and/or permitted the presence of asbestos and/or asbestos containing products, equipment and/or fixtures at the premises on which plaintiff was exposed to asbestos. 47) Defendants, their subsidiaries, agents, and/or servants negligently permitted a defective, hazardous and/or dangerous condition to remain uncorrected and/or unchanged at the premises on which the plaintiffwas present and exposed to asbestos. 48) Defendants, their subsidiaries, agents, and/or servants knew, or should have knovm, of of 36

21 the existence ofthe unsafe, hazardous and/ or dangerous condition and failed to correct this dangerous condition. 49) Defendants, their subsidiaries, agents, and/or servants knew, or should have known of the existence ofunsafe, hazardous and/or dangerous condition and failed to warn the plaintiffof the existence of the dangerous condition and/or provide the plaintiff the means to protect himself from the dangerous condition 50) Defendants, their subsidiaries, agents, and/or servants were negligent in that they violated the common law duty to maintain a safe work place for individuals, such as plaintiff, who were working in, lawfully frequenting and exposed to asbestos on premises owned, maintained and/or controlled by them. 51) Defendants, their subsidiaries, agents, and/or servants violated New York Labor law section 200 et seq: including, but not limited to, section 200 and 241 (6) and the New York Industrial Code 12NYCR section 12 and 23 by their failure to provide a safe workplace, including, but not limited to, (g); and 12 NYCRR 12, under the pass through provisions of (g), including but not limited to, (b)(3)(4), (b), (c), (a), (c), (a), (b)(l)(5), (b)(l)(6), , , and by its failure to provide a safe workplace, including but not limited to, failure to make reasonable inspection to detect dangerous conditions and hidden defects and to warn of dangers of which it knew or should have known, and by its failure to provide reasonable and adequate protection for individuals, such as Plaintiff, who was lawfully at a construction site owned, maintained, and/or controlled by it. Inter alia: (a) Defendants, their subsidiaries, agents, and/or servants violated the New York State Industrial Code Section 12, and 14, which states that: I. All operators or processes which produce air contaminants shall be so conducted of 36

22 that the generation, release or dissemination ofsuch contaminants is kept at the lowest practicable level in compliance with this Part (rule). Using proper control ofprotective procedure and equipment, a. Every employer shall effect compliance with the provision ofthis Part (rule) relating to the prevention and removal ofair contaminants, the storage and use of flammable liquids and the provision, installation, operation and maintenance ofcontrol or protective equipment. II. Every employer shall instruct his employees as to the hazards oftheir work, the use ofthe protective equipment and their responsibility for complying with Provision ofthis Part (rule). III. No employee shall suffer or permit an employee to work in a room in which there exist dangerous air contaminants in a work atmosphere. IV. No employee shall suffer or permit dangerous air contaminants to accumulate remain in any place or area subject to the provision ofthis Part (rule) a) Defendants, their subsidiaries, agents, and/or servants violated New York State Industrial Code Section 12, and 15, which states that: b) Personal respiratory equipment shall not be used in lieu of other control methods, except for protection of employees' emergencies and in the repair, maintenance or adjustment or equipment or processes, or upon specific approval by the board. c) Defendants, their subsidiaries, agents, and/or servants violated New York States Industrial Code Section 12, subsection 1.9 (formerly section 12.9) which states that: of 36

23 d) One or more of the following methods shall be used to prevent, remove or control dangerous air contaminants: e) Substitution of a material of a method which does not produce dangerous air contaminants. f) Local exhaust ventilation conforming on the requirements of Industrial Code Part (Rule No.) 18. g) Dilution Ventilation. h) Application ofwater or other wetting agent. i) Other methods approved by the board. j) As evidence ofdefendants' their subsidiaries', agents' and/or servants violation ofthe abovementioned section of the New York Stated Industrial Code, defendants, their subsidiaries, agents, and/or servants permitted asbestos dust concentrations above the Smppcf threshold limit value specified in section 12, subsection 3.1, without providing the requires reasonable and adequate protective measures, thereby rendering the premises unsafe. k) Defendants, their subsidiaries, agents, and/or servants violated section 23 3(d) ofthe New York Industrial Code which state that: 1) Provision shall be made at every demolition site control the amount of airborne dust resulting from demolition by wetting the debris and other materials with the appropriate spraying agents or other means. 52) That by reason ofthe foregoing, plaintiffwas injured. 53) That the aforementioned injury was caused solely by reason of the careless, negligence of 36

24 wanton and willful disregard by defendants without any negligence on the part ofthe plaintiffs contributing thereto. 54) That this action falls within one or more exceptions set forth in CPLR ) Pursuant to CPLR 1602(2)(iv), defendants are jointly and severally liable for all ofplaintiffs' damages, including, but not limited to, plaintiffs' non-economic loss, irrespective of the provisions of CPLR 1601, by reason offthe fact that it owed plaintiffs a non-delegable duty of care. 56) Pursuant to CPLR 1602(2)(iv), defendants are jointly and severally liable for All ofplaintiffs' damages, including, but not limited to, plaintiffs' non-economic loss, irrespective of the provisions ofcplr 1601, by reason offthe fact that it is vicariously liable for the negligent acts and omissions ofothers who caused or contributed to plaintiffs' damages. 57) That at all times herein mentioned, defendant, its subsidiaries, agents, servants, permittees, contractors, and/or employees failed to maintain the construction site and the work, labor, and services performed thereat in a reasonably safe, suitable and adequate condition and repair. 58) That at all times herein mentioned, defendant, its subsidiaries, agents, servants, permittees, contractors, and/or employees failed to provide for the safety, protection, and well-being of persons lawfully working upon the construction site, in violation ofthe Labor Law ofthe State of New York. 59) That at all times herein mentioned, defendant, its subsidiaries, agents, servants, permittees, contractors, and/or employees failed to provide and/or ensure the use ofreasonably safe, suitable and adequate safety equipment, safeguards, apparatus, and/or instrumentalities for use in conjunction with the work and the work, labor and or/services which was being performed at the construction site of 36

25 60) Defendants, their subsidiaries, agents, and/or servants negligently designed and/or specified the use of asbestos containing products, equipment and/ or fixtures at the premises on which plaintiff was lawfully frequenting and exposed to asbestos. 61) Defendants, their subsidiaries, agents, and/or servants negligently breached their contractual duty to the plaintiff, third party beneficiary, to provide for the health, welfare and/ or safety of those, such as plaintiff, lawfully frequenting the premises on which plaintiff was exposed to asbestos. 62) Defendants, their subsidiaries, agents, and/or servants, breached their warranty to provide for the health, welfare, and/or safety ofthose such as plaintiff, lawfully frequenting the premises on which plaintiffwas exposed to asbestos. 63) Defendants, their subsidiaries, agents, and/or servants breached the duty imposed on possessors of land, contractors and subcontractors and codified in the restatement of the law, Second, Torts, including, but not limited to, section 342,410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 414A, 416, 422 and ) These acts and/ or omissions ofthe defendants constitute willful misconduct and conscience disregard ofthe health ofthe public, including the p 1a i n t i f f. 65) As a direct and proximate result ofthe defendant's conduct plaintiffwas exposed to asbestos and asbestos containing products and sustained serious injuries and described above. 66) Plaintiffwas seriously injured. 67) Plaintiff further alleges that the defendants, their subsidiaries, agents, and/or servants violated the New York State Industrial Code (g) and its predecessor, which states: "Air-contaminated or oxveen deficient work areas. The atmosphere ofany unventilated confined area includingbut not limitedto a sewer, pit, tank or chimneywheredangerous air contaminants of 36

26 may be present or where there may not be sufficient oxygen to support life shall be tested by the employer, his authorized agent or by a designated person before any person is suffered or permitted to work in such area. Such testing shall be in accordance with the provisions of Industrial Code Part (rule) 12 relating to the "Control of Contaminants" and such areas shall be subject to the other pertinent provisions ofindustrial Code Part (rule) 12 and ofindustrial Code Part (rule) 18 relating to "Exhaust Systems'''' WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffclaims: Compensatory damages in the amount of$20,000,000.00; and Punitive damages in the amount of$20,000, FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Paragraphs 1 through 67 are incorporated herein as ifset forth in full. 68) Plaintiff repeats and reiterates the prior allegations of this complaint as if alleged more fully below: 69) The term "contractor(s)" refers to any business entity, concern, individual, or other engaged, employed or otherwise contracted to perform in whole or any part there of construction work, renovation, excavation, demolition, installation of equipment and/or such other activities commensurate with the term "contractor" as used in the ordinary course ofbusiness. 70) These Defendant contractor(s) individually and by and/or through their subcontractors, agents, servants, assigns and employees developed, authored, devised and/or implemented specifications and plans relating to the construction, renovation, excavation, and/or demolition ofbuildings and other structures at which the Plaintiffwas present and which Defendant contractor(s) knew, or should have reasonably ascertained in the exercise of due care, involved the use, application, of 36

27 installation, and/or removal of asbestos, asbestos-containing materials and/or equipment calling for the use and/or installation of asbestos-containing materials. 71) These Defendant contractor(s), knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, that the above specifications and/or plans were dangerous and/or unsafe and presented a potential and/or actual health hazard to those individuals present at such sites where construction, renovation, excavation and/or demolition as above described was being carried out, including this Plaintiff. 72) These Defendant contractor(s) hired, employed, contracted with or otherwise engaged subcontractors and others to carry out the work required by and in accordance with the abovedescribed specifications and plans. 73) These Defendant contractor(s) supervised, oversaw and directed the activities, conduct and work of the both their own employees as well as the employees, agents and assigns of its subcontractors in the performance and carrying out ofthe above described specifications and plans at various locations including the Plaintiffs' work site(s). 74) Additionally, Defendant contractor(s) purchased and/or delivered and/or caused to be delivered to Plaintiffs work site(s), and other locations and subsequently inventoried and/or warehoused at Plaintiffs work site(s) various asbestos-containing materials and/or machinery and equipment calling for the use ofand/or installation ofasbestos-containing materials. 75) Defendant contractor(s) exercised control over the work sites at which their employees, subcontractors, agents and assigns were engaged in carrying out the specifications and plans of construction, renovation, excavation and/or demolition as described above, retained unlimited access to these work sites and directed all related construction, remodeling, excavating and demolition activities concerned therewith of 36

28 76) Plaintiffwas exposed to asbestos-containing products at various work sites and other locations within the State of New York where construction, renovation, excavation and demolition of buildings and/or other structures was being performed, while Plaintiff was engaged in his occupational duties and responsibilities or while Plaintiff was otherwise lawfully upon at such work sites and locations. 77) Plaintiff sustained asbestos-related personal injuries as a consequence ofhis exposure to asbestos, asbestos-containing products and machinery at such locations described above. 78) Plaintiff s injuries resulted from Defendant contractor(s)' breach ofcommon law and statutory obligations including, inter alia, violations ofthe New York State Labor Law Sections 200, 240 and 241 as a consequence of Plaintiff s exposure to and inhalation of dust from asbestos and asbestos-containing products delivered to, installed, used or employed at those work sites owned, operated, directed and controlled by the Defendant contractor(s). 79) The above-described exposures were caused solely and wholly by the acts and /or omissions ofthe Defendant contractor(s), their agents, servants, employees and assigns as a consequence of their negligent, careless and reckless ownership, management, direction and control of the various premises and work sites where construction, renovation, demolition and excavation activities, as above described, occurred. 80) Defendant contractor(s) were negligent, careless and reckless in inter alia: (1) permitting Plaintiff to work under dangerous and unsafe conditions; (2) requiring the Plaintiff to work in areas in which he was exposed to asbestos products; (3) in permitting and allowing the dangerous conditions to remain in working areas and other locations; (4) in failing to warn the Plaintiff and other members ofthe work force ofthe dangerous conditions; (5) in failing to provide a safe place to work; (5) in failing to follow or implement the usual workplace safety customs and of 36

29 procedures; (6) in failing to abide by, inter alia, Sections 200,240 and 241 ofthe Labor Law; and (7) in otherwise acting without due regard for, and in reckless disregard of, the safety, well-being and health ofthe Plaintiffand the work force in general. 81) Defendant contractor(s) are strictly liable for the injuries sustained by the Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffclaims: Compensatory damages in the amount of$20,000,000.00; and Punitive damages in the amount of$20,000, SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Paragraphs 1 through 81 are incorporated herein as ifset forth in full. 82) Plaintiff repeats and reiterates the prior allegations of this complaint as if alleged more fully below: 83) Plaintiff, was exposed to asbestos-containing products, materials and machines and equipment calling for the use of and/or installation of asbestos-containing products while working at certain facilities owned by certain named Defendants (hereinafter "Premises Owners"). 84) Each Premises Owner, at all times relevant to this Complaint, has been either the operator and/or the manager and/or the owner and occupier of various facilities within the State of New York as more fully specified in individual pleadings. 85) Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos and asbestos-containing materials while he/she was an invitee at such Defendant Premises Owners' New York State facility or facilities during all relevant time periods. Said facilities were defective in that the asbestos and asbestos-containing materials in Defendants* facilities created an unreasonable risk ofharm to the Plaintiffand other of 36

30 persons thereupon. The defective conditions of the facilities were a proximate cause of the Plaintiffs asbestos-related injuries and damages. 86) Said Premises Owners are liable to Plaintifffor their respective failure to exercise reasonable care to protect Plaintifffrom the foreseeable dangers associated with exposure to asbestos. 87) Defendants Premises Owners as the premises operators and/or managers and/or owners and occupiers and/or custodians of their respective premises, had a non-delegable duty to keep the premises safe for invitees and others such as the Plaintiffherein. 88) Said Defendant Premises Owners knew or should have knovra of the unreasonable risk of harm inherent in exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing materials but failed to protect Plaintifffrom said risk ofharm. 89) Defendant Premises Owners' failure to protect Plaintiff from known and/or foreseeable dangers constitutes negligence which such negligence is/was a proximate cause of Plaintiffs asbestos-related injuries and damages. 90) By reason ofthe foregoing Plaintiff has sustained grievous personal and physical injuries, physical and emotional pain and suffering, all as more fully described herein and has been damaged as against each Defendant. 91) Each Manufacturer Defendant corporation or its predecessor-in-interest, is, or at times material hereto, has been engaged in the mining, processing and/or manufacturing, sale and distribution of asbestos or asbestos-containing products, or machinery requiring or calling for the use ofasbestos or asbestos-containing products. 92) Plaintiffwould show that or a period of many years, they worked with and/or were exposedto asbestos-containing products and or machinery requiring or calling for the use ofasbestos or asbestos-containing products while working in various shipyards, steel mills of 36

31 refineries, paper mills, chemical plants and/or other facilities in the United States. Plaintiff will show that they have been exposed, on numerous occasions, to asbestos-containing products and/or machinery requiring or calling for the use of asbestos or asbestoscontaining products and/or sold by Manufacturer Defendants and, in so doing, have inhaled great quantities of asbestos fibers. Further Plaintiff alleges, as more specifically set out below, that they have suffered injuries proximately caused by their exposure to asbestoscontaining products designed, manufactured and sold by Manufacturer Defendants. 93) Plaintiff alleges that Plaintiffwas exposed to asbestos, asbestos-containing products, or machinery requiring or calling for the use ofasbestos or asbestos-containing products in his occupation. In that each exposure to such products caused or contributed to Plaintiffs injuries, Plaintiff invokes the doctrine ofjoint and several liability and states that it should be applied to each Defendant herein. 94) This cause ofaction is governed by Substantive Law ofadmiralty and is, therefore, non removable. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff claims: Compensatory damages in the amount of$20,000,000.00; and Punitive damages in the amount of$20,000, WHEREFORE, Plaintiffdemand judgment against the defendants in the First Cause ofaction in the sum of Twenty Million ($20,000,000.00) Dollars in Compensatory Damages and Twenty Million ($20,000,000.00) Dollars in Punitive Damages; in the Second Cause ofaction in the sum of Twenty Million ($20,000,000.00) Dollars in Compensatory Damages and Twenty Million ($20,000,000.00) Dollars in Punitive Damages; in the Third Cause ofaction in the sum oftwenty Million ($20,000,000.00) Dollars in Compensatory Damages and Twenty Million of 36

32 ($20,000,000.00) Dollars in Punitive Damages; in the Fourth Cause of Action in the sum of Twenty Million ($20,000,000.00) in Compensatory Damages and Twenty Million ($20,000,000.00) in Punitive Damages; in the Fifth Cause ofaction in the sum oftwenty Million ($20,000,000.00) in Compensatory Damages and Twenty Million ($20,000,000,00) in Punitive Damages; and in the Sixth Cause ofaction in the sum of Twenty Million ($20,000,000.00) in Compensatory Damages and Twenty Million ($20,000,000.00) in Punitive Damages. Dated at New York, New York, this 6 dav of March Yours, etc. Bv: GORI, JULIAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C., /s/jason M. Hodrinskv Jason M. Hodrinsky Attorneys for Plaintiffs Identification No Gori Julian & Associates, PC 360 Lexington Ave., 20th Floor New York, NY (office) & Bv: /s/ Randv L. Gori Randy L. Gori, # Barry Julian # Attorneys for Plaintiff 156 N. Main St. Edwardsville, IL Phone: (618) Fax: (618) randy@gorijulianlaw.com of 36

33 ATTORNEY'S VERIFICATION The undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the Courts ofthe State ofnew York, shows that: Affirmant is associated with the attorney ofrecord for plaintiffin the within action; Affirmant has read the foregoing FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT and knows the contents thereof to be true to Affirmant's own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and that as to those matters, Affirmant believes tliose matters to be true. The grounds ofaffirmant's beliefas to all matters not stated upon his knowledge are based upon information contained in the file maintained in Affirmant's office. This verification is made by Affirmant and not by the plaintiffbecause the plaintiffs reside outside the county wherein Affirmant maintains his office. The undersigned affirms that the foregoing statements are true under the penalties ofperjury. /s/jason M. Hodrinskv Jason M. Hodrinsky, Esq. Dated: March 6,2017 /s/jason M. Hodrinskv Jason M. Hodrinsky, Esq of 36

34 THIS IS AN ASBESTOS MATTER of 36

35 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK X Index No IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION This Document Relates To: LEROY BAKER V. AMERICAN BILTRITE, INC., et al PLAINTIFF'S INITIAL FACT SHEET For each claimant or deceased claimant, please answer each ofthe following questions: 1. Full Name: LEROY BAKER 2. Date of Birth: 01/20/ Address: 529 Kingsborough 5th Walk Apartment 5D Brooklyn, NY Date of Death: N/A 5. Social Security Number: To be provided 6. Date of claimant's claimed asbestos exposure: See attached 7. Smoking History: For all cigarettes, pipes, cigars, please state the inclusive dates ofclaimant's smoking history, the products smoked and the amount ofproducts consumed per day: To be provided 8. At this preliminary stage ofthe proceedings, please provide as much ofthe following information as is presently available: worksites, inclusive dates, and trade or occupation for each site. (Each worksite should be identified as specifically as possible, i.e. ships worked on in a given shipyard): See attached of 36