2016 04:23 PM - iapps.courts.state.ny.us

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKEIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

I n Re Eighth Judicial DistrictAsbestos Litigation

This Document Applies to:

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKCOUNTY OF ERIE

DOLORES A. JARNOT, Administratrix of theEstate of RONALD J. JARNOT, Deceasedand Individually and as the Surviving Spouseof RONALD J. JARNOT

againstPlaintiff,

AIR &LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION,as Successor by Merger to BUFFALO PUMPS, INC.c/o CT Corporation System116 Pine Street, Suite 320Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101

BEAZER EAST, INC.f/k/a KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.c/o Corporation Service Company2711 Centerville RoadWilmington De. 19808

BEAZER EAST, INC.f/k/a KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.f/k/a THIEM CORPORATION in its ownright and as Successor in Interest toUNIVERSAL REFRACTORIES, INC.c/o Corporation Service Company2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400Wilmington, Delaware 19808

EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICTASBESTOS LITIGATION

Index No.

Plaintiffs designate ERIE Countyas the place of trial.

The basis of the venue isplaintiff's place of residence.

SUMMONS

Plaintiff resides at3452 S. Emerling DriveBlasdell, New York 14219

County of Erie

FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 11/08/2016 04:23 PM INDEX NO. 812420/2016

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/08/2016

1 of 34

CBS CORPORATION f/k/a VIACOM INC.,Successor by Merger to CBS CORPORATIONf/k/a WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATIONc/o Adrienne Harriston51 West 52"d StreetNew York, New York 10019

CINCINNATI VALVE COMPANYRick A. Hopkins602 Main StreetCincinnati, Ohio 45202

CRANE CO.Robert S. Evans100 First Stamford PlaceStamford, Connecticut 06902

FERRO ENGINEERING DIVISION OFON MARINE SERVICES COMPANY, INC.c/o National Registered Agents, Inc.1300 East Ninth StreetCleveland, Ohio 44114

FLOWSERVE US, INC. solely as successor toROCKWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY,EDWARD VALVES, INC., NORDSTROM VALVES, INC.and EDWARD VOLT VALVE COMPANYGeneral Counsel5215 North O'Connor Blvd. Suite 2300Irving, Texas 75039

FOSECO, INC.c/o CT Corporation111 Eighth AvenueNew York, New York 10011

FRONTIER INSULATION CONTRACTORS f/k/aFRONTIER INSULATION AND ASBESTOS, INC.2101 Kenmore AvenueBuffalo, New York 14207

GOULDS PUMPS INC.ITT-Goulds Pumps Headquarters

- 2 -

2 of 34

240 Fall StreetSeneca Falls, New York 13148

GRINNELL CORPORATION3 Tyco ParkExeter, New Hampshire 03833

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.as Successor-in Interest toWILPUTTE COKE OVEN DIVISIONOF ALLIEDSIGNAL, INC.c/o Corporation Service Company2711 Centerville RoadWilmington De. 19808

INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANYc/o CT Corporation System111 Eighth AvenueNew York, New York 10011

INSULATION DISTRIBUTORS, INC.356 Hertel AvenueBuffalo, New York 14207

J.H. FRANCE REFRACTORIES CO.P.O. Box 307Clarence, Pa. 16829

JOHN CRANE INC.6400 West OaktonMorton Grove, Illinois 60053

LACO SALES INC., Individually and asSuccessor to LACO ROOFING AND ASBESTOSCOMPANY, INC.421 West Main StreetFalconer, New York 14733

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE CO.One Madison AvenueNew York, New York 10010

- 3 -

3 of 34

NIAGARA INSULATIONS, INC. f/k/aNIAGARA ASBESTOS CO., INC.c/o CT Corporation80 State StreetAlbany, New York 12207

NIBCO INC.c/o CT Corporation System111 Eighth AvenueNew York, New York 10011

OWENS ILLINOIS INC.One SeagateToledo, Ohio

RILEY POWER INC.f/k/a BABCOCK BORSIG POWER, INC.f/k/a DB RILEY, INC.f/k/a RILEY STOKER CORPORATIONThomas F. Barile5 Neponset StreetWorcester, Massachusetts 01606

SEALING DEVICES INC.4400 Walden AvenueLancaster, New York 14083

UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION2030 Dow CenterMidland, Michigan 48674

ZURN INDUSTRIES, INC. a/k/a andSuccessor-in-Interest to ERIE CITYIRON WORKS1801 Pittsburg AvenueErie, Pennsylvania 16510

Defendants.

To the above named Defendants

- 4 -

4 of 34

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action and to

serve a copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve

a notice of appearance on the Plaintiff's Attorneys) within 20 days after the service of this

summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within 30 days after the service is complete

if this summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York); or, in the

alternative, where this case is an asbestos personal injury or wrongful death action

governed by Case Management Order No. 1 in the Eighth Judicial District Asbestos

Litigation signed and granted by the Honorable James B. Kane, Justice of the Supreme

Court, on December 3, 1987 and duly filed under Master Index No. H-95716 in the Erie

County Clerk's Office, you are hereby summoned and required to serve upon Plaintiff's

Attorneys) an acknowledgement of service or answer or motion or other response to the

complaint in this action not later than sixty (60) days from the date of service of this

summons and complaint; and in case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will

be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint.

Dated: Buffalo, New York DIRECT INQUIRIES TO:November 8, 2016 ~.~~

CHERIE L~ETERSON, ESQ.LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLPAttorneys) for PlaintiffOffice and P.O. Address42 Delaware Avenue, Suite 300Buffalo, NY 14202-3857(716) 849-1333

- 5 -

5 of 34


In Re Eighth Judicial DistrictAsbestos Litigation

This Document Applies to:

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKCOUNTY OF ERIE

DOLORES A. JARNOT, Administratrix of theEstate of RONALD J. JARNOT, Deceasedand Individually as the Surviving Spouse ofRONALD J. JARNOT

Plaintiff,

vs. COMPLAINT

AIR &LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATIONas Successor by Merger toBUFFALO PUMPS, INC.,BEAZER EAST, INC.f/k/a KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.,BEAZER EAST, INC. f/k/a KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.f/k/a THIEM CORPORATION in its own rightand Successor in Interest to UNIVERSAL REFRACTORIES, INC.CBS CORPORATION, f/k/a VIACOM, INC.Successor by Merger to CBS CORPORATIONf/k/a WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION,CINCINNATI VALVE COMPANY,CRANE CO.FERRO ENGINEERING DIVISION OFON MARINE SERVICES, COMPANY, INC.,FLOWSERVE US, solely as successor toROCKWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY,EDWAD VALVES, INC., NORDSTROM VALVES,INC and EDWARD VOLT VALVE COMPANY,FOSECO, INC.FRONTIER INSULATION CONTRACTORS f/k/aFRONTIER INSULATION AND ASBESTOS, INC.,

6 of 34

GOULDS PUMPS, INC.,GRINNELL CORPORATION,HONEYWELL INTRNATIONAL, INC.as Successor-in-Interest toWILPUTTE COKE OVEN DIVISIONof ALLIEDSIGNAL, INC.,

INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANYINSULATION DISTRIBUTORS INC.,J.H. FRANCE REFRACTORIES CO.JOHN CRANE INC.LACO SALES, INC., Individually and asSuccessor to LACO ROOFING ANDASBESTOS COMPANY, INC.,METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE CO.NIAGARA INSULATIONS f/k/aNIAGARA ASBESTOS CO., INC.,NIBCO INC.OWENS ILLINOIS,RILEY POWER, INC. f/k/a BABCOCKBORSIG POWER, INC. f/k/a DB RILEY STOKERCORPORATION,SEALING DEVICES, INC.,UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION,ZURN INDUSTRIES, INC. a/k/a andSuccessor-in-Interest to ERIE CITY IRONWORKS

Defendants.

The plaintiff, by her attorneys, LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP for her

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 3 d̀ day of November, 2016, the plaintiff, DOLORES

- 2 -

7 of 34

JARNOT, was appointed Executrix of the Estate of RONALD JARNOT, pursuant to an

Order of the Surrogate's Court of the County of Erie, State of New York, and Letters

Testamentary of the Estate of RONALD JARNOT were served on the plaintiff, DOLORES

JARNOT, and the said plaintiff thereupon duly qualified and thereafter acted and is still

acting as such Executrix.

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 a substance hazardous to 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 &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. f/k/a KOPPERS COMPANY, 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

- 3 -

8 of 34

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 he construction

of coke ovens at the firmer Bethlehem Steel Corporation facility in Lackawanna, new

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

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 BEAZER EAST, INC., f/k/a KOPPERS COMPANY, INC. f/k/a THIEM

CORPORATION in its own right and as Successor in Interest to UNIVERSALE

REFRACTORIES, INC. 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 all times relevant it has engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of

materials and products containing 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.

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

- 4 -

9 of 34

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

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


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

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, FOSECC, INC. way end still is a foreign corporation authorized to aid

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

- 5 -

10 of 34

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.

13. 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 Yok. At all times relevant, it has engaged in the sale and distribution

of materials ad 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

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, 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 INTRNATIONAL INC. as Successor in Interest to WILPUTTE

COKE OVEN DIVISIONS OF ALLIEDSIGNAL, 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

~,~ell as in the sale of goods and contracting services or the construction of coke ovens at

the firmer Bethlehem Steel Corporation facility in Lackawanna, New York. The said

- 6 -

11 of 34

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 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

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



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



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

- ~ -

12 of 34

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



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

containing the substance asbestos.


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.


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



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

- 8 -

13 of 34

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

materials and products containing the substance.


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

RILEY, INC. f/k/a RILEY STOKER CORPOIRATION, 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.


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

containing the substance.


defendant, UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, 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.


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 ar.~

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

- 9 -

14 of 34

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 of defendants' 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 of defendants' concerted action, plaintiff's decedent

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 of defendants' 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 of defendants' 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

- to -

15 of 34

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

dangers associated with the use of defendants' 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.

AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION, THEPLAINTIFF, DOLORES A. JARNOT, ALLEGES:

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

paragraphs "1" through "36" of the 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 in defendants' 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

- 11 -

16 of 34

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.

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 the defendants' 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 of plaintiffs' decedent, the Estate

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

expenses.

~7. As a result ~f the foregoing, the ~Eceased prior to his premature death,

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

- 12 -

17 of 34

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 limes of all other courts which might otherwise have jurisdiction

herein.

AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION, THEPLAINTIFF, DOLORES A. JARNOT, ALLEGES:

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

through "48" of the 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 the defendants' 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, the defendants' 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,

- 13 -

18 of 34

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.

AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION, THEPLAINTIFF, DOLORES A. JARNOT, ALLEGES:



56. The following acts complained of occurred continuously and simultaneously

with the defendants' 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 to defendants' 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.

- 14 -

19 of 34

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

existence, 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 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 purchasing defendants' 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 the defendants' reckless

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

the false nature of the impression of s~fPty th?reby ~rPated by the defendants.

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

- 15 -

20 of 34

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 to defendants' 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,

use, or exposure to the defendants' 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

industry supported research studies ofreferences to asbestos caused diseases;

(b) Prevention of publication to the public and/orrelease to the scientific community of medicalresearch, data and findings as related toasbestos caused diseases, said data beingproduced by research and studies financed bythe defendants at various research projects;

(c) The intentional refusal to place in itsadvertisements of asbestos products availableor known information of known or suspectedhealth hazards associated with the use ofasbestos products;

- 16 -

21 of 34

(d) The intentional refusal to disclose all orsignificant parts of information regarding healthhazards associated with the use of asbestosproducts which the defendants acquired fromWorkmen's Compensation Insurance carriersand shared among the defendants;

(e) The intentional refusal to disclose all orsignificant parts of information regarding healthhazards associated with the use of asbestosproducts which the defendants acquired throughtheir association or membership in industrycommittees, 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 the defendants' superior knowledge and familiarity with their own

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

defendants.

72. The defendants' 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 deceive

and 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.

- 17 -

22 of 34

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 otherwise unworthy

of dissemination to the scientific community and/or to the public or plaintiff's decedent.

75. As a result of the defendants' 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, THEPLAINTIFF, DOLORES A. JARNOT, ALLEGES:

77. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in

paragraphs "1" through "76" of the Complaint and alleges that the defendants in

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

exchanging of their asbestos products did as follows:

- ls -

23 of 34

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 "70".

79. The defendants' 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 the defendants' conspiracy to defraud, as they did

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

asbestos products.

82. Asa result of the defendants' 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. The defendants' 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

- 19 -

24 of 34

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.

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

the use of the defendants' asbestos products, he would have successfully avoided any

harmful exposure to those products.

AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINSTDEFENDANTS BEAZR EAST, INC. f/k/a KOPPERSCOMPANY, INC. and HONEYWELL INTERNATIONALINC. as Successor I Interest to WILPUTTE COKE OVENDIVISION OF ALLIEDSIGNAL, INC., THE PLAINTIFF,DOLORES A. JARNOT, ALLEGES:



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

Defendant BEAZER EAST, INC. f/k/a KOPPERS COMPANY, 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.

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

coke ovens, BEAZER EAST, INC. f/k/a KOPPERS COMPANY, 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.

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

- 20 -

25 of 34

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


90. That as a result of the negligence of BEAZER EAST, INC. f/k/a KOPPERS

COMPANY, 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 THEDEFENDANTS BEAZER EAST, INC. f/k/a KOPPERSCOMPANY, INC. and HONEYWELL INTRENATIONS INC.As Successor in Interest to WILPUTTE COKE OVENDIVISION OF ALLIEDSIGNAL, INC., FRONTIER INSULATIONCONTRACTORS f/k/a FRONTIER INSULATION ANDASBESTOS, INC., INSULATION DISTRIBUTORS INC.and NIAGARA INSULATIONS f/k/a NIAGARA ASBESTOSCO., INC, THE PLAINTIFF, DOLORES A. JARNOT, ALLEGES:

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

paragraphs "1"through "90" of the Complaint herein with the same force and effect as if


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

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

- 21 -

26 of 34

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

jurisdiction.

AS AND FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINSTDEFENDANTS, FRONTIER INSULATION CONTRACTORS f/k/aFRONTIER INSULATION AND ASBESTOS, INC., INSULATIONDISTRIBUTORS, INC. and NIAGARA INSULATIONS, INC. f/k/aNIAGARA ASBESTOS CO. INC. THE PLAINTIFF, DOLORES A.JARNOT, ALLEGES:

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

paragraphs "1" through `94" of the Complaint herein with the same force and effect as if


- 22 -

27 of 34

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 out 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,

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

- 23 -

28 of 34

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


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 PLAINTIFF,DOLORES A. JARNOT, ALLEGES:



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

asbestos.

105. Decedent left him surviving his spouse DOLORES JARNOT and his four

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.

107. The 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

- 24 -

29 of 34

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 complaint for compensatory and punitive damages in

such as shall be determined by the trier of fact, together with such other and further relief

as may be just and proper tougher with the costs and disbursements of this action.

Dated: Buffalo, New YorkNovember 8, 2016 Yours, etc.

CHERIE L. PETERSON, ESQ.LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIDA LLPAttorneys for PlaintiffOffice and Post Office Address42 Delaware Avenue, Suite 120Buffalo, New York 14202-3857(716) 849-1333

- 25 -

30 of 34


In re EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICTASBESTOS LITIGATION

EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICTASBESTOS LITIGATION

PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENTThis document applies to:

Index No.SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKCOUNTY OF ERIE

DOLORES A. JARNOT, Administratrix of theEstate of RONALD J. JARNOT, Deceasedand Individually as the Surviving Spouse ofRONALD J. JARNOT

Plaintiffs,

-vs-

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

Defendants.

PLEASE STATE:Nature of Action Personal Injury x

Wrongful Death x

As to PLAINTIFF:1. Full Name: DOLORES JARNOT

2. Date of Birth: June 2, 1937

3. Present Address: 3452 S. Emerling Dr.Blasdell, New York 14219

4. Social Security Number: 124-30-1809

As to PLAINTIFF'S SPOUSE, if applicable:5. Full Name:

6. Date of Birth:

7. Present Address:

1

31 of 34

8. Social Security Number:

As to PLAINTIFF'S DECEDENT, if applicable:

9. Full Name: RONALD JARNOT

10. Date of Birth: June 2, 1937

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

12. Social Security Number: 068-289-9697

13. Date and Place of Death: November 12, 20143452 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 inplaintiff'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:

(~ Non-Occupational (describe):

(g) Other (describe):

16. Date of First Exposure: 1957

17. Date of Last Exposure: 2000

32 of 34

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

Asbestos-containing insulations including pipecovering, block, felts, blankets,cement, paper, cloth, rope, tape, spray materials, transite pipe and panels, jointcompounds, 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 ofplaintiff's/decedent's smoking:

Plaintiff smoked approximately 1 pack of cigarettes per day from 1945 and quitin 1990

21. Has plaintiff been or was decedent exposed to non-asbestos containingproducts or substances which have been demonstrated to cause or contributeto lung disease, injury or dysfunction?

Yes No X

If so, state all such products or substances:

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

33 of 34

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 YorkNovember 8, 2016

By:CHERIE L. PETERSON, ESQ.LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIAAttorneys for PlaintiffOffice and P. O. Address42 Delaware Avenue, Suite 120Buffalo, New York 14202-3857(716) 849-1333

34 of 34

2016 04:23 PM - iapps.courts.state.ny.us

Documents

Transcript of 2016 04:23 PM - iapps.courts.state.ny.us