Date: 04-10-2014

Case Style: Robert Bush and Talitha Bush v. Cushing Lumber Co., et al.

Case Number: CJ-2012-2699

Judge: Thomas E. Prince

Court: District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Steve Horton and Brent Neighbors for Robert and Tabitha Bush

Defendant's Attorney: Brian A. Burget, Rodney Lynn Cook, Amy D. White and Joseph Walters for CNH America, LLC

Brita H. Cantrell and Vani Rani Singhal for Ford Motor Company

Kymala B. Carrier and James R. Webb for Georgia-Pacific, LLC

Michael D. Carter and Calvin G. Sharpe for Welco Manufacturing Co.

William R. Cubbage for Cushing Lumber Company

Sharla J. Frost for Union Carbide Corporation

B. Gore Gaines for Cyprus Amax Minerals Company

Kayce L. Gisinger for Red Devil Incorporated

Harry Parrish for DAP Products, Inc.

A. Mark Smiling for Genuine Parts Company

Derrick Teague for Honeywell International, Inc.

Robert J. Winter for Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

Description: PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION

COMES NOW the Plaintiffs, ROBERT BUSH and TALITHA BUSH, and for their Petition against the Defendants, allege and state as follows:

I.

PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Plaintiffs are, and at all times herein mentioned have been, residents of the City of Cushing, Payne County, State of Oklahoma.

2. The damages sought by the Plaintiffs, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds
$75,000.00, the minimum jurisdictional limits of the Court.

3. Defendant CNH AMERICA LLC (successor-by-merger to AMERICAN
TRACTOR COMPANY and successor-in-interest to INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER
COMPANY). is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 700 State St.,
Rancine, WI 53404 and is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant may be served with
process by sending a copy of the Summons and Petition to its registered agent, The Corporation
Company, 1833 S. Morgan Rd., Oklahoma City, OK 73128.

4. Defendant CUSHING LUMBER CO., is an Oklahoma corporation that is
subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant may be served with process by sending a
copy of the Summons and Petition to its corporate headquarters c/o Larry E. Holderbread, 1600
S. Wilson Ave., Cushing, OK 74023-5 108.

5. Defendant CYPRUS AMAX MINERALS COMPANY (successor to SIERRA TALC COMPANY and UNITED TALC COMPANY), is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 1 N. Central Ave. #100, Phoenix, AZ 85004-4416 and is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant may be served with process by sending a copy of the Summons and Petition to its registered agent, Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington. DE 19808.

6. Defendant DAP PRODUCTS, INC., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 2400 Boston St., Suite 200, Baltimore, MD, 21224 and is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant may be served with process by sending a copy of the Summons and Petition to its registered agent, The Prentice Hall Corporation System, Inc., 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, DE 19808.

7. Defendant GENUINE PARTS COMPANY cl/b/a NATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE PARTS ASSOCIATION (aka NAPA) and d/b/a as RAYLOC, div of NAPA. is a Georgia corporation with its principal place of business at 2999 Circle 75 Parkway Southeast, Atlanta, GA 30339 and is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant may be served with process by sending a copy of the Summons and Petition to its registered agent, The Corporation Company, 1833 S. Morgan Rd., Oklahoma City, OK 73128.

8. Defendant GEORGIA-PACIFIC EEC, f/kia GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION, is a Georgia corporation with its principal place of business at 133 Peachtree St. NE, Atlanta, GA 30303 and is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant may be served with process by sending a copy of the Summons and Petition to its registered agent, The Corporation Company, 1833 S. Morgan Rd., Oklahoma City, OK 73128.

9. Defendant HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. (sued indixidually and as successor-in-interest to BENDIX CORPORATION), is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 101 Columbia Rd., Morristown, NJ 07962-1057 and is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant may be served with process by sending a copy of the Summons and Petition to its registered agent, Corporation Service Company, 115 S.W. 89th Street, Oklahoma City, OK 73139-8511.

10. Defendant KENTILE FLOORS, INC., is a California corporation with its principal place of business 0/0 Gary S. Gropper, Registered Agent for Service of Process, 4 Rita Street, Syossett, NY 11791 and is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant may be served with process by sending a copy of the Summons and Petition to its registered agent, Sanders W. Gropper, G&K Consultants, 4 Rita St., Syosset, NY 11791.

11. Defendant METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY is a New York corporation that is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant may be served with process by sending a copy of the Summons and Petition to its corporate headquarters located at 1095 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036.

12. Defendant OFFICEMAX INCORPORATED (sued individually and as successor-in-interest to BOISE CASCADE CORPORATION), is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 263 Shuman Blvd., Naperville, IL 60563 and is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant may be served with process by sending a copy of the Summons and Petition to its registered agent, Corporation Service Company, 115 S.W. 89th Street, Oklahoma City, OK 73139-8511.

13. Defendant PNEUMO ABEX LLC (sued as successor-in-interest to ABEX CORPORATION), is a Delaware corporation that is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant may be served with process by sending a copy of the Summons and Petition to its registered agent in Delaware located at Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Wilmington, Delaware 19808.

14. Defendant RED DEVIL, INCORPORATED is a New Jersey corporation that is
subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant may be served with process by sending a
copy of the Summons and Petition to its corporate headquarters do Legal Department, 1437 S.
Boulder Avenue, Suite 750, Tulsa, OK 74119.

15. Defendant RT VANDERBILT COMPANY, INC. (sued individually and as successor-in-interest to INTERNATIONAL TALC COMPANY), is a New York corporation that is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant may be served with process by sending a copy of the Summons and Petition to its corporate headquarters located at 30 Winfield Street, Norwalk, CT 06856.

16. Defendant UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION is a New York corporation with its principal place of business at 1254 Enclave Parkway, Houston, TX 77077 and is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant may be served with process by sending a copy of the Summons and Petition to its registered agent, The Corporation Company, 1833 S. Morgan Rd., Oklahoma City, OK 73128.

17. Defendant WELCO MANUFACTURING CO. is a Missouri corporation that is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant may be served with process by sending a copy of the Summons and Petition to its corporate headquarters located at 1225 Ozark Street, North Kansas City, MO 64116.

18. Each Defendant corporation listed above, or its predecessor-in-interest is, or at times material hereto has been, engaged in the mining, processing, manufacturing, sale and/or distribution of asbestos and asbestos-containing products, machinery andlor equipment requiring or calling for the use of asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products.

19. Each of the Defendants, at all times pertinent hereto, were and/or are doing business in the State of Oklahoma.

20. Plaintiffs will show that, starting from 1958-1964 intermittently, Plaintiff ROBERT BUSH worked at Kerr-McGee Deep Rock Service Station in Cushing, Oklahoma; worked for William Sneed Building Contractor as a trim carpenter from 1965-1972 in Cushing, Oklahoma; worked as a finish carpenter for Bush Construction Co. from 1972-2004 in Cushing, Oklahoma. Plaintiffs will also show that, Plaintiff ROBERT BUSH performed automotive friction work to his personal vehicles in the late 1950s; and performed remodeling and construction projects to his personal residence from approximately 1975-1976. During this time Plaintiff ROBERT BUSH worked with and/or was exposed to asbestos and/or asbestos- containing products, machinery and/or equipment requiring or calling for the use of asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products. Plaintiffs will show that Plaintiff ROBERT BUSH was exposed, on numerous occasions, to asbestos-containing products, machinery and/or equipment manufactured and/or sold by Defendants CNH AMERICA LLC (successor-by-merger to AMERICAN TRACTOR COMPANY and successor-in-interest to INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY) (for Farmall Tractors); CUSHING LUMBER CO. (as a supplier defendant); CYPRUS AMAX MINERALS COMPANY (successor to SIERRA TALC COMPANY and UNITED TALC COMPANY) (as a supplier of asbestos-containing talc); DAP PRODUCTS, INC. (for DAP caulk); GENUINE PARTS COMPANY d/b/a NATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE PARTS ASSOCIATION (aka NAPA) and dlb/a as RAYLOC, div of NAPA (as
a supplier of asbestos-containing friction products and Raylock brakes); GEORGIA-PACIFIC
LLC, f/k]a GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION (for Georgia-Facic joint compound);
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. (sued individually and as successor-in-interest to
BENDIX CORPORATION) (for Bendix friction products); KENTILE FLOORS, INC.
(Kentile floor tile); METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (as a conspiracy
defendant); OFF1CEMAX INCORPORATED (sued individually and as successor-in-interest
to BOISE CASCADE CORPORATION) (as a supplier defendant); PNEUMO ABEX LLC
(sued as successor-in-interest to ABEX CORPORATION) (for Pneumo Abex brake linings);
RED DEVIL, INCORPORATED (for Red Devil caulks, sealants and fillers); RT
VANDERBILT COMPANY, INC. (sued individually and as successor-in-interest to
INTERNATIONAL TALC COMPANY) (as a supplier of asbestos-containing talc); UNION
CARBIDE CORPORATION (as a supplier of asbestos fibers); WELCO
MANUFACTURING CO. (for Welcote joint compound).

21. Plaintiffs allege that ROBERT BUSH was regularly and repeatedly exposed to asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products, machinery and/or equipment requiring or calling for the use of asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products during his work in the construction and automotive industry. Each and every exposure to such products caused, or contributed to, Plaintiff ROBERT BUSH’s asbestos-related malignant mesothelioma which he was diagnosed with on or about January 20,2012.

22. Plaintiff ROBERT BUSH contracted asbestos-related malignant mesothelioma through the inhalation of the asbestos fibers contained in the products manufactured, sold, and/or distributed by each of the Defendants.
Venue is proper in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma pursuant to Okia. Stat. tit. 12 0.S. § 137.

II.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

COMES NOW the Plaintiffs, ROBERT BUSH and spouse TALITHA BUSH, and for their first claim for relief against said Defendants, state and allege as follows:

23. Plaintiff ROBERT BUSH’s asbestos-related malignant mesothelioma is a direct and proximate result of the negligence and gross negligence of each Defendant and/or its predecessor-in-interest in that said entities produced, sold, distributed and/or otherwise put into the stream of commerce, asbestos, asbestos-containing products, machinery and/or equipment requiring or calling for the use of asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products, which the Defendants knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care, should have known were deleterious and highly harmful to Plaintiff ROBERT BUSH’s health and well-being. The Defendants were negligent in one, some and/or all of the following respects, among others, same being the proximate cause of Plaintiff ROBERT BUSH’s asbestos related malignant mesothelioma:

(a) in failing to timely and adequately warn Plaintiff ROBERT BUSH of the dangerous characteristics and serious health hazards associated with exposure to asbestos, asbestos-containing products, and/or machinery requiring or calling for the use of asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products;

(b) in failing to provide Plaintiff ROBERT BUSH with information as to what would be reasonably safe and sufficient wearing apparel and proper protective equipment and appliances, if in truth there were any, to protect Plaintiff ROBERT BUSH from being harmed and disabled by exposure to asbestos, asbestos-containing products, and/or machinery requiring or calling for the use of asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products;

(c) in failing to place timely and adequate warnings on the containers of said asbestos, or asbestos-containing products, or on the asbestos-containing products themselves, and/or machinery requiring or calling for the use of asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products to warn of the dangers to health of coming into contact with said asbestos, asbestos-containing products, machinery and/or equipment;

(d) in failing to take reasonable precautions or exercise reasonable care to publish, adopt and enforce a safety plan and/or safe method of handling and installing asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products, or utilizing the machinery requiring or calling for the use of asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products in a safe manner;

(e) in failing to develop and utilize a substitute material to eliminate asbestos fibers in the asbestos-containing products, and/or the machinery requiring or calling for the use of asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products;

(1) in failing to properly design and manufacture asbestos, asbestos- containing products, and/or machinery requiring or calling for the use of asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products for safe use under conditions of use that were reasonably anticipated;

(g) in failing to properly test said asbestos or asbestos-containing products or machinery before they were released for consumer use; and

(h) in failing to recall and/or remove from the stream of commerce said asbestos or asbestos-containing products or machinery or machinery requiring or calling for the use of asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products despite knowledge of the unsafe and dangerous nature of such products or machinery.

III.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

COMES NOW the Plaintiffs, ROBERT BUSH and spouse TALITHA BUSH, and for their second claim for relief against Defendants, reallege and restate all the allegations contained in the previous paragraphs, and further state and allege as follows:

24. Plaintiff ROBERT BUSH was exposed to asbestos, asbestos-containing products, machinery and/or equipment requiring or calling for the use of asbestos and/or asbestoscontaining products that were manufactured, sold and/or distributed by the Defendants and/or their predecessors-in-interest for use in commercial, residential and industrial operations. Plaintiffs would show that the defective condition of the products rendered such products unreasonably dangerous, and that the asbestos, asbestos-containing products, machinery and/or equipment were in this defective condition at the time they left the hands of Defendants. Such condition also resulted in a breach of warranty owed to Plaintiff ROBERT BUSH, for which the claim is being made.

25. These Defendants were engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling and/or distributing asbestos, asbestos-containing products, machinery and!or equipment requiring or calling for asbestos or asbestos-containing products, and these asbestos-containing products, machinery and/or equipment, without substantial change in the condition in which they were sold, were a proximate cause of Plaintiff ROBERT BUSH’s asbestos-related malignant mesothelioma.

26. Defendants knew that the asbestos, asbestos-containing products, machinery and/or equipment would be used without inspection for defects and, by placing them on the market, represented that they would safely do the job for which they were intended, which must necessarily include safe manipulation and/or installation of the asbestos-containing products and/or operation, maintenance and/or repair of the machinery requiring or calling for the use of asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products.

27. Plaintiff ROBERT BUSH was unaware of the hazards and defects in the asbestos and asbestos-containing products of the Defendants which made them unsafe fEw purposes of manipulation and/or installation. Similarly, Plaintiff ROBERT BUSH was unaware of the hazards and defects in the machinery requiring or calling for the use of asbestos and/or asbestos- containing materials.

28. During the periods that Plaintiff ROBERT BUSH was exposed 1.0 the asbestos, asbestos-containing products, machinery and/or equipment of the Defendants, the asbestos, asbestos-containing products, machinery and/or equipment were being utilized in a maimer which was intended by Defendants.

Iv.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

COMES NOW the Plaintiffs, ROBERT BUSH and spouse TALITHA BUSH, and for their third claim for relief against Defendants, reallege and restate all the allegations contained in the previous paragraphs, and further state and allege as follows:

29. The actions and inactions of Defendants and their predecessors-in-interest, as specifically alleged herein above, whether taken separately or together, were of such a character as to constitute a pattern or practice of intentional wrongful conduct and/or malice resulting in damages and Plaintiff ROBERT BUSH’s asbestos-related illness. More specifically, these Defendants and their predecessors-in-interest, consciously and/or deliberately engaged in oppression, willfulness, wantonness and/or malice with regard to Plaintiff ROBERT BUSH and should be held liable in punitive and exemplary damages to Plaintiffs.

V.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

COMES NOW the Plaintiffs, ROBERT BUSH and spouse TALITHA BUSH, and for their fourth claim for relief against Defendants, reallege and restate all the allegations contained in the previous paragraphs, and further state and allege as follows:

48. The actions and inactions of Defendants and their predecessors-in-interest, as specifically alleged herein above, whether taken separately or together, were of such a character as to constitute a pattern or practice of intentional wrongful conduct and/or malice resulting in damages and Plaintiff ROBERT BUSH’s asbestos-related malignant mesothelioma.
Defendants’ conduct was specifically intended by Defendants to cause substantial injury to Plaintiff ROBERT BUSH, or was carried out by Defendants with a flagrant disregard for the rights of others and with actual awareness on the part of Defendants that the conduct would, in reasonable probability, result in human deaths and/or great bodily harm. More specifically, these Defendants and their predecessors-in-interest, consciously and/or deliberately engaged in oppression, willflulness, wantonness and/or malice with regard to Plaintiff ROBERT BUSH and should be held liable in punitive and exemplary damages to Plaintiffs.

VI.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

COMES NOW the Plaintiffs, ROBERT BUSH and spouse TALITHA BUSH, and for their fifth claim for relief against Defendants, reallege and restate all the allegations contained in the previous paragraphs, and further state and allege as follows:

49. Defendant METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY rendered substantial aid and assistance to the manufacturers of asbestos-containing products to which Plaintiff ROBERT BUSH was exposed, and such assistance by Metropolitan Life aided and abetted the negligence and the marketing of unreasonably dangerous asbestos-containing products by such manufacturers which proximately caused Plaintiff ROBERT BUSH’s illness, injuries and disabilities.

50. Defendant, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, through its Policyholders Service Bureau undertook duties owed by the asbestos-producing Defendants to Plaintiff ROBERT BUSH by the testing of asbestos workers and the conduct of scientific studies. These duties included without limitation, the duty:

(1) to test fully and adequately for health risks concomitant to the normal and intended use of their products; and

(2) to instruct fully and adequately in the uses of their products so as to eliminate or reduce the health hazards concomitant with their normal or intended use.

In undertaking these duties, METROPOLITAN LIFE knew or should have known that it was providing testing services for the ultimate protection of third persons, including Plaintiff
ROBERT BUSH.

51. In both conducting said tests and in publishing their alleged results, METROPOLITAN LIFE failed to exercise reasonable care to conduct or publish complete, adequate and accurate tests of the health effects of asbestos. METROPOLITAN LIFE also caused to be published intentionally false, misleading, inaccurate and deceptive information about the health effects of asbestos exposure.

52. Plaintiff ROBERT BUSH unwittingly but justifiably relied upon the thoroughness of METROPOLITAN LIFE’s tests and information dissemination, the results of which Metropolitan Life published in leading medical journals.

53. As a direct and proximate contributing result of METROPOLITAN LIFE’s failures to conduct or accurately publish adequate tests or disseminate accurate and truthful information, after undertaking to do so; (i) the risk of harm to Plaintiff ROBERT BUSH from asbestos exposure was increased, and (ii) Plaintiff ROBERT BUSH developed asbestos related malignant mesothelioma.

54. In failing to test fully and adequately for the adverse health effects from exposure to asbestos; in delaying the publication of such results; and in falsely editing such results as were
obtained; in suppressing relevant medical inquiry and knowledge about those hazards to promote the sale and distribution of asbestos as a harmless product; and in collaborating with the asbestos-producing Defendants materially to understate the hazards of asbestos exposure, all for its own profit and gain, METROPOLITAN LIFE acted recklessly, wantonly, and in calculated disregard for the welfare of the general public, including Plaintiff ROBERT BUSH.

VII.

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

COMES NOW the Plaintiffs, ROBERT BUSH and spouse TALITHA BUSH, and for their sixth claim for relief against Defendants, reallege and restate all the allegations contained in the previous paragraphs, and further state and allege as follows:

55. The actions of all Defendants aided, abetted, encouraged, induced or directed the negligent and/or intentional acts of each and every other Defendant.

56. Each of these Defendants knew or should have known that their individual actions would combine to cause the asbestos-related malignant mesothelioma of Plaintiff ROBERT
BUSH.

57. The actions of each of the Defendants is a proximate cause of Plaintiff ROBERT BUSH’s asbestos-related mesothelioma. As a result, all Defendants are jointly liable for the damage caused by their combined actions.

VIII.

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

COMES NOW the Plaintiffs, ROBERT BUSH and spouse TALITHA BUSH, and for their seventh claim for relief against all Defendants, reallege and reassert all the allegations contained in the previous paragraphs, and further state and allege as follows:

58, At all relevant times, Plaintiff TALITHA BUSH, has been the lawfully wedded spouse of ROBERT BUSH.

59. As the spouse of ROBERT BUSH, Plaintiff TALITHA BUSH, is accustomed to, and did, receive the love and affection and care from ROBERT BUSH and is dependent on him for the necessities of life that he provides. In addition, she is entitled to and did receive the consortium and society of ROBERT BUSH and other concomitants of married life.
60. Notwithstanding their duties to Plaintiff TALITHA BUSH, the Defendants did, as a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions specified above, cause serious and permanent injuries to Plaintiff ROBERT BUSH and thereby interfered with the relationship of Plaintiffs ROBERT BUSH and spouse TALITHA BUSH, as to deprive Plaintiff TALITHA BUSH, of those elements of married life she was and is accustomed to receive. Defendants thus grievously injured and damaged this Plaintiff in those particulars of support, devotion, care, society and consortium which she formerly, prior to the injury of ROBERT BUSH, received and which now, because of the injury, she has lost some and/or all, to the damage of Plaintiff
TALITHA BUSH.

Ix.

DAMAGES

61. The conduct of Defendants, as alleged hereinabove, was a direct, proximate and producing cause of the damages resulting from the asbestos-related lung disease of Plaintiff ROBERT BUSH, and of the following general and special damages, including, but not limited to:

(a) Plaintiff ROBERT BUSH suffers great physical pain and mental anguish;

(b) Plaintiff ROBERT BUSH is incurring hospital and/or medical and/or pharmaceutical and/or other expenses due to the progressively disabling character of his asbestos- related malignant mesothelioma;

(c) Plaintiff ROBERT BUSH suffers physical impairment due to the disabling character of asbestos-related malignant mesothelioma;
(d) Plaintiff ROBERT BUSH suffers permanent partial disability, and has become permanently disabled due to the progressive character of his asbestos related malignant mesothelioma;
(e) Plaintiff ROBERT BUSH requires medical monitoring to survey progression of his asbestos-related malignant mesothelioma;
(f) Prior to the onset of his symptoms, Plaintiff ROBERT BUSH was extremely active and participated in numerous hobbies and activities, and as a result of his asbestos- related malignant mesothelioma, Plaintiff is prevented from engaging in some of said activities which are normal to him prior to developing symptoms from asbestos- related malignant mesothelioma. Plaintiff had been enjoying the benefits of a full and complete life prior to his diagnosis;
(g) Spouse TALITHA BUSH will suffer for the rest of her and ROBERT BUSH’s life and will continue to suffer loss of consortium, including but not limited to, loss of services, marital relations, society, comfort, companionship, love and affection of Plaintiff ROBERT BUSH, and is suffering severe mental and emotional distress and general nervousness as a result thereof and
(h) Plaintiffs, ROBERT BUSH and spouse TALITHA BUSH, seek punitive and exemplary damages.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs, ROBERT BUSH and spouse TALITHA BUSH, demand judgment against the Defendants, and each of them, jointly and severally, for general and special damages in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), for punitive and exemplary damages in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), for their costs expended herein, for prejudgment interest, and post-judgment interest on the judgment at the rate allowed by law, and for such other and further relief, both at law and in equity, to which Plaintiffs may show themselves to be justly entitled.


ANSWER AND DEFENSES OF METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY TO PLAINTIFF’S PETITION AND JURY DEMAND AND TO CROSS-CLAIMS OF ANY AND ALL OTHER DEFENDANTS AND THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS

COMES NOW Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“Metropolitan Life”), one of the Defendants in the above-styled and numbered cause, by and through counsel, and answers the Plaintiff’s Petition and Jury Demand (“Petition”) as follows:

1. The allegations in paragraph 1 of the Petition are conclusions of law for which no response is required; to the extent they may be deemed allegations of fact, Metropolitan Life denies them.

2. The allegations in paragraph 2 of the Petition are conclusions of law for which no response is required; to the extent they may be deemed allegations of fact, Metropolitan Life denies them.

3. Metropolitan Life is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 3 of the Petition.

4. Metropolitan Life is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the Petition.

5.
belief as to the truth
belief as to the truth belief as to the truth belief as to the truth belief as to the belief as to the
belief as to the belief as to the belief as to
Metropolitan Life is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a of the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of the Petition.

6. Metropolitan Life is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a of the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the Petition.

7. Metropolitan Life is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a of the allegations contained in paragraph

7 of the Petition.

8. Metropolitan Life is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a of the allegations contained in paragraph
8 of the Petition.

9. Metropolitan Life is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of the Petition.
10. Metropolitan Life is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 10 of the Petition.
11. Metropolitan Life denies the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of the
Petition insofar as the allegations are directed against Metropolitan Life, excepts admits that it is
a life insurance company of the State of New York licensed to do business in the State of
Oklahoma.
12. Metropolitan Life is without
truth of the allegations contained in
13. Metropolitan Life is without
truth of the allegations contained in
14. Metropolitan Life is without the truth of the allegations contained in
knowledge or information sufficient to form a paragraph 12 of the Petition. knowledge or information sufficient to form a paragraph 13 of the Petition. knowledge or information sufficient to form a paragraph 14 of the Petition.
15. Metropolitan Life is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 15 of the Petition.
16, Metropolitan Life is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 16 of the Petition.
17. Metropolitan Life is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 17 of the Petition.
1 8. Metropolitan Life denies the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of the Petition insofar as the allegations are directed against Metropolitan Life. Metropolitan Life is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of the Petition to the extent said allegations relate to others.
19. Metropolitan Life denies the allegations contained in paragraph 19 of the Petition insofar as the allegations are directed against Metropolitan Life, excepts admits that it is a life insurance company of the State of New York licensed to do business in the State of Oklahoma.
20. Metropolitan Life denies the allegations contained in paragraph 20 of the Petition insofar as the allegations are directed against Metropolitan Life. Metropolitan Life is without luwwledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 20 of the Petition to the extent said allegations relate to others,
21. Metropolitan Life denies the allegations contained in paragraph 21 of the Petition insofar as the allegations are directed against Metropolitan Life. Metropolitan Life is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 21 of the Petition to the extent said allegations relate to others.
22. Metropolitan Life denies the allegations contained in paragraph 22 of the Petition insofar as the allegations are directed against Metropolitan Life. Metropolitan Life is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 22 of the Petition to the extent said allegations relate to others.
23. The allegations in the unnumbered paragraph following paragraph 22 of the Petition are conclusions of law for which no response is required; to the extent they may be deemed allegations of fact, Metropolitan Life denies them.
AS TO FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
24. Metropolitan Life denies the allegations contained in paragraph 23 of the Petition, including all its subparts, insofar as the allegations are directed against Metropolitan Life. Metropolitan Life is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 23 of the Petition, including all it subparts, to the extent said allegations relate to others.
AS TO THE SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
25. Metropolitan Life is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 24 of the Petition.
26. Metropolitan Life denies the allegations contained in paragraph 25 of the Petition insofar as the allegations are directed against Metropolitan Life. Metropolitan Life is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 25 of the Petition to the extent said allegations relate to others.
27. Metropolitan Life denies the allegations contained in paragraph 26 of the Petition insofar as the allegations are directed against Metropolitan Life. Metropolitan Life is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 26 of the Petition to the extent said allegations relate to others.
28. Tn response to the allegations contained in paragraph 27 of the Petition, Metropolitan Life states that the publicly-available body of information regarding asbestos and health at all times relevant speaks for itself, and otherwise denies the allegations contained in paragraph 27 of the Petition.
29. Metropolitan Life denies the allegations contained in paragraph 28 of the Petition insofar as the allegations are directed against Metropolitan Life. Metropolitan Life is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 28 of the Petition to the extent said allegations relate to others, AS TO THE THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
30. Metropolitan Life denies the allegations contained in paragraph 29 of the Petition insofar as the allegations are directed against Metropolitan Life, and it denies that it is liable to the Plaintiff or anyone else for the amount sued or for any amount. Metropolitan Life is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 29 of the Petition to the extent said allegations relate to others, AS TO THE FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
31. Metropolitan Life notes that there are no paragraphs designated as paragraphs 30 through 47 in the Complaint.
32. Metropolitan Life denies the allegations contained in paragraph 48 of the Petition insofar as the allegations are directed against Metropolitan Life, and it denies that it is liable to the Plaintiff or anyone else for the amount sued or for any amount. Metropolitan Life is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 48 of the Petition to the extent said allegations relate to others.
AS TO FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
33. Metropolitan Life denies the allegations contained in paragraph 49 of the Complaint.
34. Metropolitan Life denies the allegations contained in paragraph 50 of the Complaint, including all of its subparts.
35. Metropolitan Life denies the allegations contained in paragraph 51 of the Complaint.
36. Metropolitan Life denies the allegations contained in paragraph 52 of the Complaint.
37. Metropolitan Life denies the allegations contained in paragraph 53 of the Complaint.
38. Metropolitan Life denies the allegations contained in paragraph 54 of the Complaint.
AS TO SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
39. Metropolitan Life denies the allegations contained in paragraph 55 of the Petition insofar as the allegations are directed against Metropolitan Life. Metropolitan Life is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 55 of the Petition to the extent said allegations relate to others.
40. Metropolitan Life denies the allegations contained in paragraph 56 of the Petition insofar as the allegations are directed against Metropolitan Life. Metropolitan Life is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 56 of the Petition to the extent said allegations relate to others.
41. Metropolitan Life denies the allegations contained in paragraph 57 Of the Petition insofar as the allegations are directed against Metropolitan Life. Metropolitan Life is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 57 of the Petition to the extent said allegations relate to others, and MetLife denies that it is liable to the Plaintiff or anyone else for the amount sued or for any amount.
AS TO THE SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
42. Metropolitan Life is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 58 of the Petition.
43. Metropolitan Life is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 59 of the Petition.
44. Metropolitan Life denies the allegations contained in paragraph 60 of the Petition insofar as the allegations are directed against Metropolitan Life. Metropolitan Life is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 60 of the Petition to the extent said allegations relate to others.
AS TO DAMAGES
45. The allegations contained in paragraph 61 of the Petition, including all its subparts, are conclusions of law and a prayer for relief, for which no response is required; to the extent that they are deemed allegations of fact, Metropolitan Life denies them, and it denies that it is liable to the Plaintiffs or anyone for any amount.

46. The allegations contained in the unnumbered paragraph following paragraph 61 of the Complaint are conclusions of law and a prayer for relief, for which no response is required; to the extent that they are deemed allegations of fact, Metropolitan Life denies them, and it denies that it is liable to the Plaintiffs or anyone for any amount.
AS TO “JURY DEMAND”
47. The allegations contained in the uimumbered paragraph following the heading “JURY DEMAND” of the Petition is Plaintiff’s characterization of the case and demand for a trial by jury, to which no response is required; to the extent they may be deemed allegations of fact, Metropolitan Life denies them.
48. Metropolitan Life denies all allegations not specifically admitted.
FIRST DEFENSE
49. The allegations in the Petition and each Count thereof fail to state a claim against Metropolitan Life upon which relief can be granted.
SECOND DEFENSE
50. The claims in
appropriate statute of limitations.
THIRD DEFENSE
51.
FOURTH DEFENSE
the Petition and each Count thereof are barred by the
Plaintiffs were contributorily and/or comparatively negligent.
52. The Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the operation of the doctrine of laches
FIFTH DEFENSE
53. The Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the operation of the doctrine of estoppel.
SIXTH DEFENSE
54. The Plaintiffs claims are barred by the operation of the doctrine of waiver.
SEVENTH DEFENSE
55. Plaintiffs assumed the risk of any injuries allegedly sustained as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products used by near Plaintiff
EIGHTH DEFENSE
56. Whatever damages were incurred by Plaintiffs were incurred as the result of intervening andlor superseding acts or omissions by parties over whom Metropolitan Life had no control and for whose acts or omissions Metropolitan Life was not legally responsible.
NINTH DEFENSE
57. At all times relevant hereto, the knowledge of Plaintiffs’ employers was superior to that of Metropolitan Life with respect to possible health hazards associated with Plaintiffs’ employment, and, therefore, if there was any duty to warn Plaintiffs or provide protection to them, it was the duty of said employers, not of Metropolitan Life, and breach of that duty was an intervening andlor superseding cause of the injuries alleged by Plaintiffs.
TENTH DEFENSE
58. In the event that it be shown that Plaintiffs used any product or material, as alleged in the Petition, which gave rise to the injuries as set forth therein, the same was misused, abused, modified, altered, or subjected to abnormal use.
ELEVENTH DEFENSE
59. Metropolitan Life states that the Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ employers were sophisticated users of products containing asbestos and had full knowledge of the dangers and risks associated with using or working around asbestos.
TWELFTH DEFENSE
60. Plaintiffs Petition and each Count thereof that seek an award of punitive or exemplary damages, fails to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Metropolitan Life for such damages.
THIRTEENTH DEFENSE
61. Plaintiffs’ Petition and each Count thereof that seek exemplary or punitive damages, violates Metropolitan Life’s right to substantive and procedural due process under the Fifth arid Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article II, section 7, and all other applicable provisions, of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma.
FOURTEENTH DEFENSE
62. Plaintiffs’ Petition and each Count thereof that seek exemplary or punitive
damages, violates Metropolitan Life’s right to protection from “excessive fines” as provided in
Article II, Sections 2 and 7, and all other applicable provisions, of the Constitution of the State of
Oklahoma.
FIFTEENTH DEFENSE
63. Plaintiffs’ Petition and each Count thereof that seek exemplary or punitive damages, violates Metropolitan Life’s right to equal protection under the law and are otherwise unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article II, Sections 2 and 7, and all other applicable provision, of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma.
SIXTEENTH DEFENSE
64. Metropolitan Life’s actions were within its rights under the First
Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article TI, Section 22 of the Constitution of the
State of Oklahoma, and are fully protected thereby.
SEVENTEENTH DEFENSE
65. Plaintiffs’ should have taken action to minimize or eliminate damages, and therefore Plaintiff is precluded from recovering damages, or their damages are reduced, by operation of the doctrine avoidable consequences.
EIGHTEENTH DEFENSE
66. Metropolitan Life did not authorize, approve, or ratify the acts or omissions attributed to it in the Petition.
NINETEENTH DEFENSE
67, Metropolitan Life states that it cannot be held liable as a matter of law for injuries or damage allegedly sustained as a result of exposure to products containing asbestos allegedly used by the Plaintiffs to the extent such exposure was to products containing asbestos manufactured and distributed by other Defendants pursuant to and in strict conformity with specific regulations and specifications set forth by the United States Government. Metropolitan Life avers further that at all times relevant to the allegations contained in the petition, the products allegedly containing asbestos substantially conformed to those specifications set forth and approved by the United States Government, and the United States Government had actual knowledge of the hazards, if any, associated with the prolonged exposure to asbestos.
TWENTIETH DEFENSE
68. Metropolitan Life states that it is entitled to a setoff or credit for any amounts received by Plaintiffs or to be received by Plaintiffs from any other source whatsoever with respect to any recovery of Plaintiffs arising out of any claims and/or allegations asserted herein against any other person or party. Such would include but not be limited to any settlement and/or compromise and/or any damages paid as a result of bankruptcy and/or other litigation.
TWENTY-FIRST DEFENSE
69. The Petition should be dismissed pursuant to 12 0.5. § 2009(B) of the Oklahoma Rules of Civil Procedure.
TWENTY-SECOND DEFENSE
70. Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries and damages, if any, were proximately caused by or contributed to by exposure or inhalation of noxious and deleterious fumes and residues from industrial products or by-products prevalent on their job sites, by the cumulative effects of exposure to all types of environmental and industrial pollutants of air and water, or by substances, products, or other causes not attributable to or connected with Metropolitan Life.
TWENTY-THIRD DEFENSE
71. Metropolitan Life would show unto the Court that multiple awards of punitive damages against it would violate Article II, Section 21 of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma; the prohibition against being twice placed in jeopardy for the same offense embodied in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the common law of the State of Oklahoma.
TWENTY-FOURTH DEFENSE
72. The Petition fails to name both necessary and indispensable parties in whose absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties. Therefore, this action must be dismissed, or, alternatively, the action should be stayed pending other appropriate relief by the Court.
TWENTY-FIFTH DEFENSE
73. The Plaintiffs’ claims should be denied to the extent they are barred by the operation of the doctrine of accord and satisfaction.
TWENTY-SIXTH DEFENSE
74. The Plaintiffs’ claims should be denied to the extent they are barred by the operation of the doctrine of release and settlement.
TWENTY-SEVENTH DEFENSE
75. The Plaintiffs’ claims should be denied to the extent they are barred by the operation of the doctrine of payment.
ANSWER TO CROSS-CLAIMS
76. Metropolitan Life denies every allegation of each and every Cross-Claim insofar as said allegations apply to Metropolitan Life.
77. Metropolitan Life denies any liability with respect to each and every count of each and every Cross-Claim insofar as said counts apply to Metropolitan Life.
78. Metropolitan Life denies that it is liable to indemnify any other Defendant or Third-Party Defendant in this action.
79. Metropolitan Life denies that any Defendant or Third-Party Defendant is entitled to contribution from Metropolitan Life in this action,
80. In response to each and every Cross-Claim, Metropolitan Life adopts by reference all denials in paragraphs 1 through 47 of the above, as though fully set forth herein.
81. In response to each and every Cross-Claim, Metropolitan Life adopts by reference all Defenses set forth in paragraphs 48 through 74 of the above, as though fully set forth herein, as Defenses to each and every Cross-Claim.
WHEREFORE, Metropolitan Life demands that:
(a) the Petition be dismissed with prejudice as to Metropolitan Life;
(b) Plaintiffs’ demand for relief be denied in every respect;
(c) Metropolitan Life be awarded costs in connection with this litigation, including reasonable attorneys fees;
(d) the Court grant such other and further relief as may be just, proper, and equitable; and
(e) Metropolitan Life requests a trial by jury.


ANSWER OF DEFENDANT HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC TO PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION

COMES NOW Defendant Honeywell International Inc. formerly known as AlliedSignal, Inc., a successor in interest to The Bendix Corporation (hereinafter “Honeywell”), and for its Answer to Plaintiffs’ Original Petition, states as follows:
PARTIES. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Honeywell is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as stated in Paragraph 1 and therefore denies same.
2. Honeywell is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as stated in Paragraph 2 and therefore denies same.
3. Honeywell is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as stated in Paragraph 3 and therefore denies same.
4. Honeywell is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as stated in Paragraph 4 and therefore denies same.
5. Honeywell is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as stated in Paragraph 5 and therefore denies same.
6. Honeywell is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as stated in Paragraph 6 and therefore denies same.
7. Honeywell is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as stated in Paragraph 7 and therefore denies same.
8. Honeywell is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as stated in Paragraph 8 and therefore denies same.
9. The allegations contained in Paragraph 9 are denied as stated.
10. Honeywell is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as stated in Paragraph 10 and therefore denies same.
11. Honeywell is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as stated in Paragraph 11 and therefore denies same.
12. Honeywell is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as stated in Paragraph 12 and therefore denies same.
13. Honeywell is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as stated in Paragraph 13 and therefore denies same.
14. Honeywell is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as stated in Paragraph 14 and therefore denies same.
15. Honeywell is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as stated in Paragraph 15 and therefore denies same.
16. Honeywell is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as stated in Paragraph 16 and therefore denies same.
17. Honeywell is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as stated in Paragraph 17 and therefore denies same.
18. Honeywell is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as stated in Paragraph 18 and therefore denies same.
19. Honeywell is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as stated in Paragraph 19 and therefore denies same.
20. Honeywell is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as stated in Paragraph 20 and therefore denies same.
21. Honeywell is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of the allegations as stated in Paragraph 21 and therefore denies same.
22. Honeywell is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as stated in Paragraph 22 and therefore denies same.
Defendant Honeywell denies that venue is proper in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma.
II.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Defendant Honeywell realleges and incorporates its answers to the preceding Paragraphs I through 22 as though fully set forth herein.
23. Defendant Honeywell denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 23 including subparts (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (t) (g) and (h).
Ill.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Defendant Honeywell realleges and incorporates its answers to the preceding Paragraphs I through 23 as though fully set forth herein.
24. The allegations contained in Paragraph 24 are denied.
25. The allegations contained in Paragraph 25 are denied.
26. The allegations contained in Paragraph 26 are denied.
27. Honeywell is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as stated in Paragraph 27 and therefore denies same.
28. Honeywell is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as stated in Paragraph 28 and therefore denies same.
Iv.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Defendant Honeywell realleges and incorporates its answers to the preceding Paragraphs I through 28 as though fully set forth herein.
29. Honeywell denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 29.
V.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Defendant realleges and incorporates its answers to the preceding Paragraphs 1 through 29 as though fully set forth herein. Plaintiffs’ Original Petition does not contain Paragraphs 30 through 47, and therefore no answer is required for those paragraphs.
48. The allegations contained in Paragraph 48 are denied.
VI.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Defendant realleges and incorporates its answers to the preceding Paragraphs 1 through 48 as though fully set forth herein.
49. The allegations contained in Paragraph 49 are denied.
50. Honeywell is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as stated in Paragraph 50 and therefore denies same.
51. Honeywell is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as stated in Paragraph 51 and therefore denies same.
52. Honeywell is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of the allegations as stated in Paragraph 52 and therefore denies same.
53. Honeywell is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as stated in Paragraph 53 and therefore denies same.
54. Honeywell is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as stated in Paragraph 54 and therefore denies same.
VII.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Defendant realleges and incorporates its answers to the preceding Paragraphs 1 through 54 as though fully set forth herein.
55. The allegations contained in Paragraph 55 are denied.
56. The allegations contained in Paragraph 56 are denied.
57. The allegations contained in Paragraph 57 are denied.
VIII.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Defendant realleges and incorporates its answers to the preceding Paragraphs 1 through 57 as though fully set forth herein.
58. Honeywell is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as stated in Paragraph 58 and therefore denies same.
59. Honeywell is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as stated in Paragraph 59 and therefore denies same.
60. The allegations contained in Paragraph 60 are denied.
Ix.
DAMAGES
Defendant realleges and incorporates its answers to the preceding Paragraphs 1 through 60 as though fully set forth herein.
61. The allegations contained in Paragraph 61 are denied, including subparts (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h).
GENERAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. This Defendant states that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the statute of limitations.
2. The Court lacks in personam jurisdiction over this Defendant.
3. The Plaintiffs’ Petition should be dismissed for failure to state a claim against this Defendant.
4. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by laches.
5. This Defendant denies any privity of contract with Plaintiffs.
6. The damages, if any, for which Plaintiffs seek to recover resulted solely from products other than those sold and/or distributed by Honeywell.
7. This Defendant states that the Plaintiffs’ injury was not caused by exposure to products allegedly manufactured or sold by this Defendant.
8. Defendant states all products sold and/or distributed by this Defendant were state of the art.
9. This Defendant alleges that at all times products which were sold and/or distributed by this Defendant were fit and suitable for the purpose for which they were

intended, and denies the materials or merchandise sold and/or distributed by this Defendant were defective in any way.
10. This Defendant specifically denies that it placed products in the stream of commerce containing asbestos in a defective and unreasonably dangerous condition to users and consumers.
11. This Defendant denies that Plaintiff sustained any injury as a result of contact with or use of any product sold and/or distributed by Defendant, and further states that Plaintiff’s alleged injuries were due solely to disease and other causes not connected with any product sold by this Defendant.
12. The injuries, if any, for which Plaintiffs seek recovery were caused and/or contributed to, in whole or in part, by said products being materially changed or altered by Plaintiffs or third parties from their original condition as produced by this Defendant, and this Defendant had no control over such material changes or alterations. If any of the products of this Defendant are shown to be involved in this action, those products were abused, misused, or otherwise substantially changed by person(s) or parties other than this Defendant.
13. This Defendant states that Plaintiff and his employers were sophisticated users and, therefore, Defendant had no duty to warn Plaintiff of any alleged defects or dangers.
14. If it is shown that Plaintiff was exposed to any product of this Defendant, said exposure was so little as to be insufficient to establish a reasonable degree of probability that this Defendant’s product was a proximate cause of the alleged injuries.
15. This Defendant asserts that it gave adequate and full warning to those
who purchased its products, and Defendant has the right to rely upon such third-parties to warn Plaintiff and take such preventative and precautionary measures as were necessary under the circumstances.
16. This Defendant states the Plaintiffs knowledge includes that of any union of which he was a member, which said knowledge is imputed to the Plaintiff.
17. Any injuries, illness, disease, disabilities, losses, or other damages alleged by Plaintiff were proximately caused or contributed by superseding and intervening cause(s) other than an act or omission on the part of this Defendant and, accordingly, recovery against this Defendant is barred.
18. This Defendant asserts that Plaintiff failed to use safety equipment which was available to him or could have been made available if he had requested same which, therefore, proximately caused his damages and injuries, if any.
19. This Defendant asserts that Plaintiff continued to work after being advised and knowing that said occupation was injurious to his health, thereby, assuming all risks of known danger.
20. This Defendant alleges that the injuries of which the Plaintiff herein complained of are solely and proximately caused by the acts, wrongs, and omissions of third-parties over whom this Defendant had no direction or control.
21. This Defendant alleges Plaintiff was negligent and that his negligence was the sole cause of his alleged injuries and subsequent damages, if any, or if not the sole cause, then Plaintiff was negligent to a degree that would preclude recovery herein.
22. This Defendant states that Plaintiff used or exposed himself to a product with knowledge of a danger involved in such use with reasonable appreciation of the consequences and the voluntary and unreasonable exposure to said danger, unreasonably failed to appreciate the danger involved in use of said product or consequences thereof and the unreasonable exposure to said danger, failed to undertake the precautions a reasonable careful person in the use of the product would take to protect himself against dangers which he would reasonably appreciate under the same or similar circumstances, or Plaintiff knowingly assumed or consented to all risks which he may have been exposed, and therefore, Plaintiff is barred from recovery.
23. This Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff failed to follow warnings or instructions associated with the products that he was exposed to and his failure in that regard proximately caused the injury complained thereof.
24. Plaintiff’s Petition fails to state a cause of action upon which punitive damages can be based.
25. This Defendant alleges that punitive damages are improper under the circumstances of this case, and all awards of punitive damages here would amount to a violation of the double jeopardy clause, in violation of due process clauses of the Constitution of the United States and the State of Oklahoma.
26. Defendant denies any defect in any product it sold and/or distributed.
27. No duty to warn or notify Plaintiff of any danger from exposure to Defendant’s product has ever accrued upon this Defendant; nevertheless, any delay by this Defendant in notification or warning him of such dangers, which is claimed to have been required (and this Defendant denies that there was any such requirement or
delay) is of no consequence and gives rise to no claim on the part of Plaintiff against this Defendant. Significantly, before the time any duty to notify or warn could have arisen to this Defendant, Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos from other sources sufficient to cause his condition, and notification or warning thereafter is of no value. There is, therefore, no proximately causal relationship between any delay and notification or warning to Plaintiff and his subsequent condition.
28. Insufficiency of process and/or insufficiency of service of process.
29. This Defendant reserves the right to amend its Answer and General and Affirmative Defenses after investigation, discovery, and as further information is disclosed to this Defendant to enable it to properly answer Plaintiff’s Petition and defend the claims asserted herein against this Defendant. This Defendant further will rely upon any law that is available to it after the completion of discovery and investigation of this case.
30. This Defendant reserves the right to assert any and/or all applicable affirmative defenses which discovery may reveal appropriate.
31. Plaintiffs claims are barred or limited pursuant to Tit. 76 O.S. §60 et.seq., and more particularly §64.
32. This Defendant denies all allegations against it in cross claims which have been or may be asserted in this matter.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Honeywell International, Inc. prays that Plaintiff take nothing against it by way of the allegations contained in Plaintiff’s Petition, that judgment be granted in favor of Honeywell, that Honeywell be discharged with its costs and such other further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CYPRUS AMAX MINERALS COMPANY
COMES NOW the Defendant Cyprus Amax Minerals Company (“Cyprus” or “this Defendant”), and for its answer to the plaintiffs’ Original Petition alleges and states:
1. This Defendant specifically denies each and every allegation set forth in the Plaintiffs’ Original Petition unless expressly admitted to herein.
2. This Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2, and therefore those allegations are specifically denied.

3. With respect to paragraphs 3 through 4 and paragraphs 6 through 17, said do not pertain to this Defendant, and therefore a response is not necessary.

4. With respect to paragraph 5, this Defendant states that its correct name and is Cyprus AMAX Minerals Company. Further, this Defendant admits only is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of a state other than
the State of Oklahoma and that its principal place of business is located outside of Oklahoma. The remaining allegations of paragraph 5 are specifically denied.
5. This Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the allegations set forth in paragraphs 18 and 19 and therefore those allegations are specifically denied.
6. With respect to paragraph 20, this Defendant specifically denies that the plaintiff Robert Bush was exposed to any product manufactured or distributed by this Defendant, or that this Defendant distributed any asbestos-containing products. With respect to the remaining allegations of paragraph 20, this Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief and therefore those allegations are specifically denied.
7. This Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the allegations set forth in paragraph 21 and therefore those allegations are specifically denied.
8. This Defendant specifically denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 22 as they relate to this Defendant.
9. The allegations set forth in paragraph 23 are specifically denied as they relate to this Defendant.
10. This Defendant specifically denies the allegations set forth in paragraphs 24 through 28 as they relate to this Defendant.
11. This Defendant specifically denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 29 as they relate to this Defendant.

12. This Defendant specifically denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 48 [sici as they relate to this Defendant.
13. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 49 through 54 do not pertain to this Defendant and therefore a response is unnecessary. To the extent that the allegations in Paragraph 54 may be read to relate to Cyprus, that paragraph is specifically denied.
14. This Defendant specifically denies the allegations set forth in paragraphs 55 through 57 as they relate to this Defendant.
15. This Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the allegations set forth in paragraphs 58 and 59 and therefore those paragraphs are specifically denied.
16. This Defendant specifically denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 60 as they relate to this Defendant.
17. This Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the nature and extent of the plaintiffs’ injuries and damages and therefore the allegations set forth in paragraph 61 are specifically denied.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. The plaintiffs have failed to state legally sufficient claims upon which relief can be granted against this Defendant, to include, but not limited to, the following: A.) The plaintiffs’ claims are legally insufficient because there is an absence of any allegations regarding the time, place and circumstances of plaintiff Robert Bush’s alleged exposure to this Defendant’s product(s). B.) Plaintiffs are not legally entitled to recover against this Defendant based upon breach of warranty because such claim or theory is not recognized under Oklahoma law. C.) To the extent that the plaintiff Talitha Bush seeks to recover against this Defendant for a claim or a theory of recovery against this Defendant other than a claim based upon the common law doctrine of consortium, the plaintiff Talitha Bush is not legally entitled to recover against this Defendant because any other claim or theory not recognized under Oklahoma law. Based upon the foregoing, the plaintiffs’ Original Petition should be dismissed.
2. The Court does not have personal jurisdiction over this Defendant.
3. This Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over these claims because the exclusive remedy is based upon the Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation Act andlor the workers’ compensation laws of other states where plaintiff Robert Bush was allegedly exposed.
4. This Defendant did not manufacture, sell, distribute or install any asbestos- containing products to which plaintiff Robert Bush was allegedly exposed.
5. The products manufactured or distributed by this Defendant were subsequently modified, altered or changed by others over whom this Defendant had no control.
6. Plaintiffs’ claims may be preempted, in whole or in part, by federal and/or state statutes and/or regulations.
7. To the extent a government contract applied to the specifications of this Defendant’s product, the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover against this Defendant. Further, if plaintiff Robert Bush used products containing asbestos, and said products or portions of those products were supplied to, by, or on behalf of the United States
Government, or if those products or a portion of those products were supplied or sold by
the United States Government or on behalf of the United States Government, then this
Defendant asserts any immunity from suit or from liability as conferred on the United
States Government and/or this Defendant that may arise as a result of such circumstances.
8. At all times pertinent to this action, the state of the medical, industrial and scientific art was such that there was no generally accepted or recognized knowledge of any unsafe, inherently dangerous, hazardous or defective character or nature of asbestos or asbestos-containing products when used in the manner and for the purposes intended. As a result, there was no duty by this Defendant to know the character or nature of such products or to warn plaintiff Robert Bush or others similarly situated. To the extent such a duty arose, this Defendant gave adequate warnings under the circumstances.
9. This Defendant was unaware at the time of the development, distribution or sale of any products allegedly involved in this action that such products could be unreasonably dangerous for their intended use. The discovery of any unreasonable danger was beyond the state of the art at the time such products were developed, distributed or sold.
10. Plaintiff Robert Bush was aware of the hazardous nature and consequences that could have resulted from exposure to and the use of the products to which plaintiffs allege exposure, thus plaintiff Robert Bush voluntarily assumed the risk of working with, around, or about said products.
11. Plaintiff Robert Bush or others in the product’s chain of distribution knew or were aware of the character and nature of this Defendant’s products and therefore this Defendant had no duty to warn.
12. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitation and/or repose.
13. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel and laches.
14. This Defendant states that if plaintiffs have released, settled, entered into an accord and satisfaction, or otherwise compromised the claims asserted herein, then said claims are barred by the doctrines or defenses of payment, accord and satisfaction, arbitration and award, release, collateral estoppel and/or res judicata. Alternatively, this Defendant states that if plaintiffs have accepted compensation in partial settlement of their claims, this Defendant is entitled to a set-off in said amount.
15. Any claimed damages in this case were caused or contributed to by the misuse and/or abuse of the products at issue by plaintiff Robert Bush, or other parties, persons or entities over whom this Defendant had no control.
16. Any injury, damage or loss sustained by plaintiff Robert Bush was caused or contributed to by his sole negligence.
17. If this Defendant was guilty of any negligence, which is denied, the negligence of this Defendant, when compared to the negligence of plaintiff Robert Bush was less, and therefore plaintiffs’ recovery herein is barred. Alternatively, plaintiffs’ recovery is subject to reduction as a result of the negligence of plaintiff Robert Bush and/or the negligence of others.
18. Any claimed damages in this case were caused or contributed to by the acts or omissions of other parties, persons or entities over whom this Defendant had no control.
19. Any claimed damages in this case were not caused or contributed to by the acts or omissions of this Defendant, or this Defendant’s products.
20. Any claimed damages in this case were the result of intervening and/or superseding acts of the plaintiff Robert Bush, and/or other parties, persons or entities over whom this Defendant had no control.
21. Any injury, damage or loss sustained by plaintiffs were solely caused by the acts and omissions of others who employed or worked with or around plaintiff Robert Bush and over whom this Defendant had no control.
22. The sole or contributing cause of plaintiff Robert Bush’s injuries and damages were disease processes unrelated to his alleged exposure to this Defendant’s products.
23. Plaintiffs failed to mitigate their damages.
24. Any claimed liability based upon laws that were not in effect at the time of plaintiff Robert Bush’s alleged exposure is contrary to the Oklahoma and United States Constitutions.
25. The consortium plaintiff is only entitled to recover if the exposed plaintiff is entitled to recover.
26. The imposition of punitive or exemplary damages in this case would be contrary to the United States and/or Oklahoma Constitutions for the following reasons.
A.) Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages is barred by the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. B.) Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages is barred by the “double jeopardy” clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. C.) Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages violates the Defendant’s right to substantive due process as provided in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and the Oklahoma Constitution.
D.) Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages violates Defendant’s right to equal protection under the law provided in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and is otherwise unconstitutional under the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma. E.) Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages violates the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution. F.) Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages violates the Fourth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution. G.) The july is given unfettered discretion to award punitive damages on vague grounds and with no objective standards. H.) A presumption of innocence is not applied. 1.) Specific intent is not required. J.) A unanimous jury verdict is not required. K.) Although indistinguishable from a criminal penalty, a lesser standard of proof is required than in criminal cases. L.) Multiple awards of punitive damages can be made for the same acts or omissions. M.) An award of punitive damages may result in joint and several judgment against multiple defendants for different alleged acts of wrongdoing, or conversely, may result in the imposition of different penalties for the same or similar acts.
27. The laws of the State of Oklahoma may not be applicable to some or all of the plaintiffs’ legal claims and/or damages.
28. This Defendant incorporates all other applicable defenses that have been asserted by other defendants in their respective answers.
29. To the extent any other Defendant in this case files and asserts a cross claim against this Defendant, the allegations set forth in that cross claim are specifically denied and the affirmative defenses set forth herein are asserted in response thereto.
30. This Defendant reserves the right to allege or assert additional affirmative defenses.
WHEREFORE, having fully answered, the Defendant Cyprus AMAX Minerals Company respectfully requests that the plaintiffs’ Original Petition be dismissed with prejudice and that this Defendant be awarded its costs and attorney’s fees.

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC TO
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION, AND TO ANY AND ALL CROSS CLAIMS

Defendant, Georgia-Pacific LLC (f/Ida Georgia-Pacific Corporation) (“Georgia-Pacific”), by the undersigned counsel, hereby submits its Answer to the specific allegations of Plaintiffs’ Original Petition (“Petition”). Except as specifically admitted below, Georgia-Pacific denies each and every material allegation and demands strict proof thereof
the same.

I.

PARTIES.JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Georgia-Pacific is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as of the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, and therefore denies the same.

2. Georgia-Pacific is without knowledge or information sufficient to for a belief as to the truth of
of the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of Naintiffs’ Petition, and therefore denies the same.

8. Georgia-Pacific admits that it may be sewed with process though its registered agent, The Corporation Company, but denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.
9-17. Georgia-Pacific is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraphs 9-17 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, and therefore denies the same.
18. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of Plaintiffs’ Petition are directed at Georgia-Pacific, Georgia-Pacific denies them. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of Plaintiffs’ Petition are directed at other parties, Georgia-Pacific is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and therefore denies the same.
19. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 19 of Plaintiffs’ Petition are directed at Georgia-Pacific, Georgia-Pacific denies them. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 19 of Plaintiffs’ Petition are directed at other parties, Georgia-Pacific is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and therefore denies the same.
20. Georgia-Pacific is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 20 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, and therefore denies the same.
21. Georgia-Pacific is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 21 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, and therefore denies the same.
22. Georgia-Pacific is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 22 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, and therefore denies the same. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 22 of Plaintiffs’ Petition are directed at Georgia-Pacific, Georgia-Pacific denies them. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 22 of Plaintiffs’ Petition are directed at other parties, Georgia-Pacific is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and therefore denies the same.
The unnumbered paragraph following paragraph 22 of Plaintiffs’ Petition contains legal conclusions to which no responses are required. To the extent a response is required, Georgia- Pacific is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in the unnumbered paragraph following paragraph 22 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, and therefore denies the same.
II.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
23. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 23, including subparts (a)-(h), of Plaintiffs’ Petition are directed at Georgia-Pacific, Georgia-Pacific denies them. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 23, including subparts (a)-(h), of Plaintiffs’ Petition are directed at other parties, Georgia-Pacific is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and therefore denies the same.
III.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
In response to the unnumbered paragraph under the subtitle Second Claim for Relief of Plaintiffs’ Petition, Georgia-Pacific adopts its prior responses.
24. Georgia-Pacific is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, and therefore denies the same. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs’ Petitionare directed at Georgia-Pacific, Georgia-Pacific denies them. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs’ Petition are directed at other parties, Georgia-Pacific is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and therefore denies the same.
25. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 25 of Plaintiffs’ Petition are directed at Georgia-Pacific, Georgia-Pacific denies them. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 25 of Plaintiffs’ Petition are directed at other parties, Georgia-Pacific is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and therefore denies the same.
26. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 26 of Plaintiffs’ Petition are directed at Georgia-Pacific, Georgia-Pacific denies them. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 26 of Plaintiffs’ Petition are directed at other parties, Georgia-Pacific is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and therefore denies the same.
27. Georgia-Pacific is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 27 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, and therefore denies the same. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 27 of Plaintiffs’ Petition are directed at Georgia-Pacific, Georgia-Pacific denies them. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 27 of Plaintiffs’ Petition are directed at other parties, Georgia-Pacific is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and therefore denies the same.
28. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 28 of Plaintiffs’ Petition are directed at Georgia-Pacific, Georgia-Pacific denies them. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 28 of Plaintiffs’ Petition are directed at other parties, Georgia-Pacific is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and therefore denies the same.
Iv.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
In response to the unnumbered paragraph under the subtitle Third Claim for Relief of Plaintiffs’ Petition, Georgia-Pacific adopts its prior responses.
29. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 29 of Plaintiffs’ Petition are directed at Georgia-Pacific, Georgia-Pacific denies them. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 29 of Plaintiffs’ Petition are directed at other parties, Georgia-Pacific is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and therefore denies the same.
V.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
In response to the unnumbered paragraph under the subtitle Fourth Claim for Relief of Plaintiffs’ Petition, Georgia-Pacific adopts its prior responses.
[There are no paragraphs numbered 3 0-47]
48. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 48 of Plaintiffs’ Petition are directed at Georgia-Pacific, Georgia-Pacific denies them. To the extent the allegations contained
in paragraph 48 of Plaintiffs’ Petition are directed at other parties, Georgia-Pacific is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and therefore denies the same.
VI.
FJFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
In response to the unnumbered paragraph under the subtitle Fifth Claim for Relief of Plaintiffs’ Petition, Georgia-Pacific adopts its prior responses.
49. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 49 of Plaintiffs’ Petition are directed at Georgia-Pacific, Georgia-Pacific denies them. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 49 of Plaintiffs’ Petition are directed at other parties, Georgia-Pacific is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and therefore denies the same.
50. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 50, including subparts (1) and (2), of Plaintiffs’ Petition are directed at Georgia-Pacific, Georgia-Pacific denies them. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 50, including subparts (1) and (2) of Plaintiffs’ Petition are directed at other parties, Georgia-Pacific is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and therefore denies the same.
51. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 51 of Plaintiffs’ Petition are directed at Georgia-Pacific, Georgia-Pacific denies them. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 51 of Plaintiffs’ Petition are directed at other parties, Georgia-Pacific is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and therefore denies the same.
52. Georgia-Pacific is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 52 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, and therefore denies the same.
53. Georgia-Pacific is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 53 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, and therefore denies the same.
54. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 54 of Plaintiffs’ Petition are directed at Georgia-Pacific, Georgia-Pacific denies them. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 54 of Plaintiffs’ Petition are directed at other parties, Georgia-Pacific is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and therefore denies the same.
VII.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
In response to the unnumbered paragraph under the subtitle Sixth Claim for Relief of Plaintiffs’ Petition, Georgia-Pacific adopts its prior responses.
55. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 55 of Plaintiffs’ Petition are directed at Georgia-Pacific, Georgia-Pacific denies them. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 55 of Plaintiffs’ Petition are directed at other parties, Georgia-Pacific is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and therefore denies the same.
56. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 56 of Plaintiffs’ Petition are directed at Georgia-Pacific, Georgia-Pacific denies them. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 56 of Plaintiffs’ Petition are directed at other parties, Georgia-Pacific is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and therefore denies the same.
57. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 57 of Plaintiffs’ Petition are directed at Georgia-Pacific, Georgia-Pacific denies them. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 57 of Plaintiffs’ Petition are directed at other parties, Georgia-Pacific is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and therefore denies the same.
VIII.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
In response to the unnumbered paragraph under the subtitle Seventh Claim for Relief of Plaintiffs’ Petition, Georgia-Pacific adopts its prior responses.
58. Georgia-Pacific is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 58 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, and therefore denies the same.
59. Georgia-Pacific is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 59 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, and therefore denies the same.
60, To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 60 of Plaintiffs’ Petition are directed at Georgia-Pacific, Georgia-Pacific denies them. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 60 of Plaintiffs’ Petition are directed at other parties, Georgia-Pacific is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and therefore denies the same.

Ix.
DAMAGES
61. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 61, including subparts (a)-(h), of Plaintiffs’ Petition are directed at Georgia-Pacific, Georgia-Pacific denies them. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 61, including subparts (a)-(h), of Plaintiffs’ Petition are directed at other parties, Georgia-Pacific is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and therefore denies the same.
Georgia-Pacific denies the allegations contained in the WHEREFORE paragraph of Plaintiffs’ Petition.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
First Defense
The Petition fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against Georgia- Pacific.
Second Defense
The Petition, in whole or in part, is barred by the applicable statute of limitations andlor repose.
Third Defense
The Petition is barred by laches.
Fourth Defense
Georgia-Pacific denies that Plaintiffs incurred any injuries or damages. However, as to any injuries or damages Plaintiffs allege that they incurred, Plaintiff, Robert Bush, voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risk of incurring any of the injuries or damages alleged in the Petition and, therefore, Plaintiffs are not entitled to recover from Georgia-Pacific.

Fifth Defense
Georgia-Pacific denies that Plaintiffs incurred any injuries or damages. However, as to any injuries or damages Plaintiffs allege were incurred, Plaintift Robert Bush, failed to exercise ordinary care for his own safety, and such failure on his part proximately caused any injuries or damages alleged in the Petition.
Sixth Defense
Plaintiff, Robert Bush was not exposed to any asbestos materials through any act or omission of Georgia-Pacific, or if such exposure occurred, which is denied, such exposure was of such insufficient quantities, at such infrequent intervals, for such short periods of time, or under such conditions as to amount to no proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ damages, if any, as a matter of law. Therefore, Georgia-Pacific denies that any alleged action or inaction on its part has damaged or injured the Plaintiffs in any manner or at any time.
Seventh Defense
The claims raised in the Petition are barred by the applicable workers’ compensation laws.
Eighth Defense
Plaintiff, Robert Bush, misused or improperly used the products referred to in the Petition, and such misuse or improper use proximately caused or contributed to, in whole or in part, the alleged conditions described in the Petition and the alleged damages Plaintiffs claim were sustained, and, therefore, Georgia-Pacific is not liable for any injuries or damages claimed by Plaintiffs.
Ninth Defense
If Plaintiffs suffered damages as alleged in the Petition, which damages Georgia-Pacific
specifically denies, such claimed damages did not result, directly or indirectly, from any act or omission of Georgia-Pacific, but such damages, if any, resulted from the acts or omissions of persons other than Georgia-Pacific, for which acts or omissions Georgia-Pacific is in no way liable, and Plaintiffs, therefore, are not entitled to recover from Georgia-Pacific.
Tenth Defense
Any injury, damage or loss sustained by Plaintiffs was caused or contributed by Plaintiff, Robert Bush’s own negligence.
Eleventh Defense
If Georgia-Pacific was guilty of negligence, which is denied, such negligence of Georgia- Pacific when compared to the negligence of Plaintiff, Robert Bush, was less, and therefore Plaintiffs’ recovery herein is barred. Alternatively, Plaintiffs’ recovery is subject to reduction as a result of the negligence of Plaintiff, Robert Bush, and/or the negligence of others.
Twelfth Defense
Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages, if any, were caused and contributed to by Plaintiff, Robert Bush’s own negligence, as set out above. Such negligence was greater in degree than any alleged negligence of Georgia-Pacific and, occurring prior to the adoption of the doctrine of comparative negligence in Oklahoma, bars Plaintiffs’ claims for recovery for injury allegedly suffered during that time. The degree of Plaintiff, Robert Bush’s negligence in Oklahoma likewise bars any recovery.
Thirteenth Defense
Georgia-Pacific is not liable to Plaintiffs with respect to the injuries alleged in the Petition, because such injuries, if any, were caused by pure accident in terms of law.
Fourteenth Defense
There is a lack of joinder of one or more parties who should or must be joined as defendants and, without the joinder of these proper parties, complete relief cannot be accorded among those already attempted to be made parties to this civil action.
Fifteenth Defense
To the extent that Plaintiffs received payment from any alleged joint tortfeasor in full satisfaction of any of the alleged injuries and/or claims against Georgia-Pacific and/or other alleged joint tortfeasors, the Petition in each and every count and cause of action alleged therein is barred by the defenses of payment and accord and satisfaction.
Sixteenth Defense
Plaintiffs failed to mitigate their damages, if any.
Seventeenth Defense
If Plaintiffs have heretofore or should hereafter settle for any of the alleged injuries and damages with any parties, then Georgia-Pacific is entitled to a setoff/credit in the amount of said settlements.
Eighteenth Defense
The Petition fails to set forth a claim for punitive damages upon which relief may be granted.
Nineteenth Defense
To the extent the Petition asserts a demand for punitive damages, Georgia-Pacific specifically incorporates by reference any and all standards of limitations regarding the determination and/or enforceability of punitive damage awards pursuant to 23 Okla. Stat. §9.1 and that arose in the following decisions: BMW of North America, Inc. v Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996); Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 532 U.S. 424 (2001); and State Farm MutualAutomobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 123 S. Ct. 1513 (2003).
Twentieth Defense
To the extent that the Petition seeks punitive damages against Georgia-Pacific, Georgia- Pacific affirmatively pleads the following in regard to punitive damages:
(a) An award of punitive damages in this civil action would amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the corresponding provisions of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma;
(b) An award of punitive damages in this civil action would violate the due process provisions of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the corresponding provisions of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma;
(c) The criteria used for determining whether and in what amount punitive damages may be awarded are impermissible, vague, imprecise, and inconsistent and, therefore, violate the due process provisions of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the corresponding provisions of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma;
(d) An award of punitive damages in this civil action would amount to an excessive fine in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the corresponding provisions of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma; and Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages is barred by the “double jeopardy” clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as appiled to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Twenty-First Defense
Venue is improper in this action. Georgia-Pacific reserves its rights to move for dismissal and/or transfer of the action based on improper andJor inconvenient venue and further reserves its rights to seek application of the law of the appropriate venue on all issues, including but not limited to statute of limitations, statute of repose, and punitive damages.
Twenty-Second Defense
Georgia-Pacific asserts that the state of medical and scientific knowledge and all materials relating thereto at all times material here were such that Georgia-Pacific neither knew nor could have reasonably known that asbestos-containing products of the type it manufactured presented a significant risk of harm to Plaintiff, Robert Bush, if properly used.
Twenty-Third Defense
Plaintiffs’ Petition fails to identify with sufficient specificity the products allegedly exposed to, the dates of exposure, and the locations of exposure.
Twenty-Fourth Defense
Any asbestos-containing component in any product manufactured by Georgia-Pacific did not release fibers in excess of any established threshold limit or regulatory limit. Every product manufactured by Georgia-Pacific was reasonably safe based upon the established state of medical knowledge that existed at the time of sale.
Twenty-Fifth Defense
Any product manufactured by Georgia-Pacific met all established and applicable Federal, State, and local safety guidelines and regulations and all industry standards.

Twenty-Sixth Defense
No product manufactured by Georgia-Pacific was unreasonably dangerous or defective in design manufacture or information accompanying the product.
Twenty-Seventh Defense
Georgia-Pacific denies that any product or products which it manufactured or sold caused any injury or illness, if any, to Plaintiftç Robert Bush, and further states that the physical conditions of which Plaintiffs complain were in no way caused or brought about by Georgia- Pacific.
Twenty-Eighth Defense
Georgia-Pacific denies it owed any legal duty’ to Plaintiffs and, alternatively, if the Court determines that Georgia-Pacific owed any duty to Plaintiffs, then Georgia-Pacific denies it breached any such duty.
Twenty-Ninth Defense
Plaintiff, Robert Bush’s employers were Learned Intermediaries as that term is known in law.
Thirtieth Defense
Georgia-Pacific did not have control of the means and methods of Plaintiff, Robert Bush’s employment. Thus, Georgia-Pacific is not responsible for providing or failing to provide safety equipment, safety training, proper supervision and a safe work environment, and lack of the above was the sole cause for any of Plaintiff, Robert Bush’s alleged injuries.
Thirty-First Defense
There is an insufficiency of service of process upon the person of Georgia-Pacific.
Thirty-Second Defense
There is a lack of service of process upon the person of Georgia-Pacific. Thirty-Third Defense
This Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of Plaintiffs’ Petition. Thirty-Fourth Defense
In the manufacture, distribution and sale of its products, Georgia-Pacific at all times used reasonable care, skill and diligence and complied with generally established and accepted standards in the industry, and Georgia-Pacific’s products, when used properly, are, were, and have been safe and fit for their intended use and purpose at all relevant times.
Thirty-Fifth Defense
Georgia-Pacific had no duty to warn Plaintiff, Robert Bush, of the risks and dangers, if any, associated with asbestos or asbestos-related products.
Thirty-Sixth Defense
There has been no concert of action between Georgia-Pacific and any of the other named defendants. The defendants are not joint tortfeasors and, therefore, Georgia-Pacific may not be held jointly and severally liable with the other named defendants.
Thirty-Seventh Defense
If Plaintiffs sustained the injuries and/or damages alleged, which is specifically denied, then such injuries and/or damages were proximately caused by the acts andlor omissions of Plaintiff, Robert Bush’s employers with respect to the maintenance of a healthy and safe work site and environment, which were under the employers’ exclusive control and possession.
Thirty-Eighth Defense
Plaintiff, Robert Bush, neither used nor was exposed to any product manufactured, sold
and/or supplied by Georgia-Pacific.
Thirty-Ninth Defense
Plaintiffs’ Petition fails to make a prima facie showing as required by 76 Okla. Stat. § 64.
Fortieth Defense
Plaintiff, Robert Bush’s medical conditions complained of in Plaintiffs’ Petition were not caused by exposure to asbestos products.
Forty-First Defense
Any claim for strict product liability based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products prior to April 23, 1974, is barred because such a cause of action did not exist in Oklahoma prior to that date. A retroactive application of strict liability would violate the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma and of the United States of America.
Forty-Second Defense
Plaintiffs’ Petition does not indicate whether Plaintiff, Robert Bush, was a consumer of tobacco products, but if so then the sole or contributing cause of damages alleged is the consumption by Plaintiff, Robert Bush, of cigarettes or other tobacco products which are hazardous to one’s health.
Forty-Third Defense
The Asbestos and Silica Claims Priority Act, part of the Comprehensive Lawsuit Reform Act of 2009, signed into law by Govemor Henry on May 21, 2009, shall apply retroactively to this case.
Forty-Fourth Defense
Georgia-Pacific adopts the affirmative defenses of other defendants to the extent applicable to Georgia-Pacific.
Forty-Fifth Defense
Georgia-Pacific reserves the right to assert other affirmative defenses as they become available and known during discovery.
ANSWER TO ALL CROSS-CLAIMS
Georgia-Pacific denies every allegation of each and every Cross-Claim insofar as said allegations apply to Georgia-Pacific. Georgia-Pacific further denies any liability with respect to any Cross-Claim directed to Georgia-Pacific. Georgia-Pacific denies that it is required to indemnify any other defendant, or that any other defendant is entitled to contribution from Georgia-Pacific in this action. Georgia-Pacific adopts by reference all denials and all defenses set forth in the Paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein, as defenses to any and all Cross- Claims.
WHEREFORE, having fully responded to Plaintiffs’ Petition, Georgia-Pacific respectfully demands that judgment be rendered in its favor with costs assessed against the Plaintiff and for such other and further relief to which it is entitled.

ANSWER OF PAP PRODUCTS, INC.
COMES NOW the defendant DAP Products, Inc. (“DAP”), and for its answer to the plaintiffs’ Original Petition alleges and states:
1. DAP specifically denies each and every allegation set forth in the plaintiff& Original Petition unless expressly admitted to herein.
1 DAP is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the allegations set forth in paragraphs I and 2 and therefore those allegations are specifically denied.
3. With respect to paragraphs 3 through 5 and paragraphs 7 through 17, said paragraphs do not pertain to DAP and therefore a response is not necessary.
4. With respect to paragraph 6, this defendant states that its correct name and designation is DAP Products, Inc. Further, this defendant admits only that DAP is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of a state other than the State of Oklahoma and that its principal place of business is located outside of Oklahoma. The remaining allegations of paragraph 6 are specifically denied.
5. DAP is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the allegations set forth in paragraphs 18 and 19 and therefore those allegations are specifically denied.
6. With respect to paragraph 20, DAP specifically denies that the plaintiff Robert Bush was exposed to any product manufactured or distributed by this defendant, or that this defendant distributed any asbestos-containing products. With respect to the remaining allegations of paragraph 20, DAP is without sufficient information to form a belief and therefore those allegations are specifically denied.
7. DAP is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the allegations set forth in paragraph 21 and therefore those allegations are specifically denied.
8. DAP specifically denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 22 as they relate to DAP.
9. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 23 through 29 are denied by DAP.
10. The allegations set forth in paragraph 48 are specifically denied as they relate to DAP (there are no numbered allegations 30-47).
11. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 49 through 54 do not apply to DAP and no answer is required. To the extent DAP is required to answer, said allegations are denied.
12. DAP specifically denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 55-61 as they relate to DAP.
13. DAP is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the nature and extent of the plaintiffs’ injuries and damages and therefore the allegations set forth in paragraph 88 are specifically denied.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. The plaintiffs have failed to state legally sufficient claims upon which relief can be granted against DAP, to include, but not limited to, the following A.) The plaintiffs’ claims are legally insufficient because there is an absence of any allegations regarding the time, place and circumstances of plaintiff Robert Bush’s alleged exposure to this defendant’s product(s). B.) Plaintiffs are not legally entitled to recover against DAP based upon breach of warranty because such claim or theory is not recognized under Oklahoma law. C.) To the extent that the plaintiff Ta]itha Bush seeks to recover against DAP for a claim or a theory of recovery against this defendant other than a claim based upon the common law doctrine of consortium, the plaintiff Talitha Bush is not legally entitled to recover against DAP because any other claim or theory not recognized under Oklahoma law. Based upon the foregoing, the plaintiffs’ Original Petition should be dismissed.
2. The Court does not have personal jurisdiction over DAP.
3. This Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over these claims because the exclusive remedy is based upon the Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation Act and/or the workers’ compensation laws of other states where plaintiff Robert Bush was allegedly
exposed.
4. DAP did not manufacture, sell, distribute or install any asbestos-containing products to which plaintiff Robert Bush was allegedly exposed.
5. The products manufactured or distributed by DAP were subsequently modified, altered or changed by others over whom DAP had no control.
6. Plaintiffs’ claims may be preempted, in whole or in part, by federal and/or state statutes and/or regulations.
7. To the extent a government contract applied to the specifications of this defendant’s product, the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover against DAP. Further, if plaintiff Robert Bush used products containing asbestos, and said products or portions of those products were supplied to, by, or on behalf of the United States Government, or if those products or a portion of those products were supplied or sold by the United States Government or on behalf of the United States Government, then DAP asserts any immunity from suit or from liability as conferred on the United States Government and/or this defendant that may arise as a result of such circumstances.
8. At all times pertinent to this action, the state of the medical, industrial and scientific art was such that there was no generally accepted or recognized knowledge of any unsafe, inherently dangerous, hazardous or defective character or nature of asbestos or asbestos-containing products when used in the manner and for the purposes intended. As a result, there was no duty by DAP to know the character or nature of such products or to warn plaintiff Robert Bush or others similarly situated. To the extent such a duty arose, DAP gave
adequate warnings under the circumstances.
9. DAP was unaware at the time of the development, distribution or sale of any products allegedly invo]ved in this action that such products could be unreasonably dangerous for their intended use. The discovery of any unreasonable danger was beyond the state of the art at the time such products were developed, distributed or sold.
10. Plaintiff Robert Bush was aware of the hazardous nature and consequences that could have resulted from exposure to and the use of the products to which plaintiffs allege exposure, thus plaintiff Robert Bush voluntarily assumed the risk of working th, around, or about said products.
10. Plaintiff Robert Bush or others in the product’s chain of distribution knew or were aware of the character and nature of this defendant’s products and therefore DAP had no duty to warn.
11. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitation and/or repose.
12. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel and laches.
14. DAP states that if plaintiffs have released, settled, entered into an accord and satisfaction, or othenvise compromised the claims asserted herein, then said claims are barred by the doctrines or defenses of payment, accord and satisfaction, arbitration and award, release, collateral estoppel and/or res judicata. Alternatively, DAP states that if plaintiffs have accepted compensation in partial settlement of their claims, DAP is entitled to a set-off in said amount.
15. Any claimed damages in this case were caused or contributed to by the misuse and/or abuse of the products at issue by plaintiff Robert Bush, or other parties, persons or entities over whom DAP had no control.
16, Any injury, damage or loss sustained by plaintiff Robert Bush was caused or contributed to by his sole negligence.
17. If DAP was guilty of any negligence, which is denied, the negligence of DAP, when compared to the negligence of plaintiff Robert Bush was less, and therefore plaintiffs’ recovery herein is barred. Alternatively, plaintiffs’ recovery is subject to reduction as a result of the negligence of plaintiff Robert Bush and/or the negligence of others.
18. Any claimed damages in this case were caused or contributed to by the acts or omissions of other parties, persons or entities over whom DAP had no control.
19. Any claimed damages in this case were not caused or contributed to by the acts or omissions of DAP, or DAP’s products.
20. Any claimed damages in this case were the result of intervening and/or superceding acts of the plaintiff Robert Bush, and/or other parties, persons or entities over whom DAP had no control.
21. Any injury, damage or loss sustained by plaintiffs were solely caused by the acts and omissions of others who employed or worked with or around plaintiff Robert Bush and over whom DAP had no control.
22. The sole or contributing cause of plaintiff Robert Bush’s injuries and damages were disease processes unrelated to his alleged exposure to DAP’s products.

23. Plaintiffs failed to mitigate theft damages.
24. Any chimed liability based upon laws that were not in effect at the time of plaintiff Robert Bush’s alleged exposure is contrary to the Oklahoma and United States Constitutions.
25. The consortium plaintiff is only entitled to recover if the exposed plaintiff is entitled to recover.
26. The imposition of punitive or exemplary damages in this case would be contrary to the United States and/or Oklahoma Constitutions for the following reasons. A.) Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages is barred by the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. B.) Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages is barred by the “double jeopardy” clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. C.) Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages violates DAP’s tight to substantive due process as provided in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and the Oklahoma Constitution. D.) Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages violates DAP’s tight to equal protection under the law provided in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and is otherwise unconstitutional under the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma. E.) Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages violates the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution. F.) Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages violates
the Fourth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution. G.) The jury is given unfettered discretion to award punitive damages on vague grounds and with no objective standards. H.) A presumption of innocence is not applied. L) Specific intent is
not required. J.) A unanimous jury verdict is not requited. K) Although indistinguishable from a criminal penalty, a lesser standard of proof is required than in criminal cases. L.) Multiple awards of punitive damages can be made for the same acts or omissions. M.) An award of punitive damages may result in joint and several judgment against multiple defendants for different alleged acts of wrongdoing, or conversely, may result in the imposition of different penalties for the same or similar acts.
27. The laws of the State of Oklahoma may not be applicable to some or all of the plaintiffs legal claims and/or damages.
28. DAP incorporates all other applicable defenses that have been asserted by other defendants in their respective answers.
29. To the extent any other defendant in this case files and asserts a cross claim against DAP, the allegations set forth in that cross claim are specifically denied and the affirmative defenses set forth herein are asserted in response thereto.
30. DAP reserves the right to allege or assert additional affirmative defenses.
WHEREFORE, having fully answered, the defendant DAP Products, Inc. respectfully requests that the plaintiffs’ Original Petition be dismissed with prejudice and that this defendant be awarded its costs and attorney’s fees.


DEFENDANT UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION’S RESPONSE
AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW, UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, a Defendant in the above-styled and numbered cause (“Defendant”), and makes and files this its Response and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs’ Original Petition (Plaintiffs’ Petition) and respectfully shows the Court and jury, which it hereby demands, the following:
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ OIUGINAL PETITION
I.
Section Entitled “Parties. Jurisdiction and Venue”
1. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in Paragraph 1 in the Section Entitled “Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue” in Plaintiffs’ Petition.
2. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in Paragraph 2 in the Section Entitled “Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue” in Plaintiffs’ Petition, except that Defendant denies that any of its actions or inactions caused Plaintiffs’ injuries.
3. Paragraphs 3 through 15 in the Section Entitled “Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue” in Plaintiffs’ Petition do not apply to Defendant; therefore, no response is required.
4. Defendant denies the averments in Paragraph 16 in the Section Entitled “Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue” in Plaintiffs’ Petition.
5. Paragraph 17 in the Section Entitled “Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue” in Plaintiffs’ Petition does not apply to Defendant; therefore, no response is required.
6. Defendant denies the averments in Paragraphs 18 through 22 and the last unnumbered paragraph in the Section Entitled “Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue” in Plaintiffs’ Petition as they relate to Defendant; however, as they relate to all other defendants, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments. Section Entitled “First Claim for Relief’
7. Defendant denies the averments in Paragraph 23, and its subparts, in the Section Entitled “First Claim for Relief’ in Plaintiffs’ Petition as they relate to Defendant; however, as they relate to all other defendants, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments.
Section Entitled “Second Claim for Relief’
8. As a response to the first unnumbered paragraph in the Section entitled “Second Claim for Relief’ in Plaintiffs’ Petition, Defendant incorporates and reasserts its previous answers and denials to all previous paragraphs of Plaintiffs’ Petition as if fully set forth herein.
9. Defendant denies the averments in Paragraphs 24 through 28 in the Section Entitled “Second Claim for Relief’ in Plaintiffs’ Petition as they relate to Defendant; however, as they relate to all other defendants, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments.
Section Entitled “Third Claim for Relief’
10. As a response to the first unnumbered paragraph in the Section entitled “Third Claim for Relief’ in Plaintiffs’ Petition, Defendant incorporates and reasserts its previous answers and denials to all previous paragraphs of Plaintiffs’ Petition as if fully set forth herein.
11. Defendant denies the averments in Paragraphs 29 in the Section Entitled “Third Claim for Relief’ in Plaintiffs’ Petition as they relate to Defendant; however, as they relate to all other defendants, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments.
Section Entitled “Fourth Claim for Relief’
12. As a response to the first unnumbered paragraph in the Section entitled “Fourth Claim for Relief’ in Plaintiffs’ Petition, Defendant incorporates and reasserts its previous answers and denials to all previous paragraphs of Plaintiffs’ Petition as if fully set forth herein.
13. Defendant denies the averments in Paragraph 48 in the Section Entitled “Fourth Claim for Relief’ in Plaintiffs’ Petition as they relate to Defendant; however, as they relate to all other defendants, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments.
Section Entitled “Fifth Claim for Relief’
14. As a response to the first unnumbered paragraph in the Section entitled “Fifth Claim for Relief’ in Plaintiffs’ Petition, Defendant incorporates and reasserts its previous answers and denials to all previous paragraphs of Plaintiffs’ Petition as if fully set forth herein.
15. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in Paragraphs 49 through 54 in the Section Entitled “Fifth Claim for Relief’ in Plaintiffs’ Petition, except that Defendant denies that any of its actions or inactions caused Plaintiffs’ injuries.
Section Entitled “Sixth Claim for Relief’
16. As a response to the first unnumbered paragraph in the Section entitled “Sixth Claim for Relief’ in Plaintiffs’ Petition, Defendant incorporates and reasserts its previous answers and denials to all previous paragraphs of Plaintiffs’ Petition as if fully set forth herein.
17. Defendant denies the averments in Paragraphs 55 through 57 in the Section Entitled “Sixth Claim for Relief’ in Plaintiffs’ Petition as they relate to Defendant; however, as they relate to all other defendants, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments.
Section Entitled “Seventh Claim for Relief’
18. As a response to the first unnumbered paragraph in the Section entitled “Seventh Claim for Relief’ in Plaintiffs’ Petition, Defendant incorporates and reasserts its previous answers and denials to all previous paragraphs of Plaintiffs’ Petition as if fully set forth herein.
19. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in Paragraphs 58 and 59 in the Section Entitled “Seventh Claim for Relief’ in Plaintiffs’ Petition, except that Defendant denies that any of its actions or inactions caused Plaintiffs’ injuries.
20. Defendant denies the averments in Paragraph 60 in the Section Entitled “Seventh Claim for Relief’ in Plaintiffs’ Petition as they relate to Defendant; however, as they relate to all other defendants, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments.
Section Entitled “Damages”
21. Defendant denies the averments in Paragraph 61, and its subparts, in the Section Entitled “Damages” in Plaintiffs’ Petition as they relate to Defendant; however, as they relate to
all other defendants, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments.
22. Defendant denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief as asserted in the prayer of Plaintiffs’ Petition.
23. Except as expressly admitted above, Defendant denies each and every averment of fact and conclusion of law contained in Plaintiffs’ Petition.
DEFENDANT’S DEFENSES
II.
1. Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
2. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by all applicable statutes of limitations.
3. Defendant avers that Plaintiffs were contributorily negligent and invokes the doctrine of Comparative Negligence and Comparative Causation.
4. Defendant avers that Plaintiffs assumed the risk.
5. Defendant alleges that any alleged defects in a product manufactured, sold and/or distributed by it, if any, were beyond the scientific and medical knowledge available at the time of manufacturing, and the state-of-the-art prevented the Defendant from knowing of any defect.
6. Defendant alleges that the products which were manufactured, sold and/or distributed by it were at all times reasonably fit and suitable for the purposes for which they were sold and complied with all governmental regulations and the Defendant denies that such products were in anyway defective for the use for which they were sold.
7. Defendant pleads that exemplary damages are improper and that an award of punitive damages would amount to excessive punishment in violation of due process of law and in violation of the Constitutions of the United States, the State of Oklahoma, and any other state which has the most significant relationship to this action, and of the common law.

8. Defendant alleges that the situation about which Plaintiffs complain arose out of transitory conditions arising out of the very work of Robert Bush and, therefore, Defendant breached no duty and has no liability.
9. Plaintiffs are barred from recovery by the doctrine of misuse or of improper use, which proximately caused or proximately contributed to cause the injuries about which Plaintiffs complain herein.
10. Defendant alleges that any injuries and damages alleged by Plaintiffs were solely caused by the acts and omissions of others over whom the Defendant had no supervision or control and there was no damage from the conduct of the Defendant.
11. Defendant alleges that Robert Bush’s employers had knowledge of the products used and the risks incident to their use. Since Mr. Bush and his employers were using theft own manner, means and method of doing their work, the Defendant breached no duty owing to them.
PRAYER
III.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED Defendant UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION respectfully requests judgment of the Court as follows:
1. That judgment be rendered for Defendant on the pleadings, or that this action be dismissed, or if this action is not dismissed, that Plaintiffs take nothing by this suit.
2. That Defendant recovers all costs together with such other and further relief to which Defendant may be justly entitled.

For more information about this case go to: http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/GetCaseInformation.asp?number=CJ-2012-2699&db=Oklahoma&submitted=true

Outcome: 11-28-2012 DISPDWOP 1 Kentile Floors Inc 73062201 Nov 29 2012 8:41:36:040AM - $ 0.00
VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE


03-01-2013 DISPDWOP 1 CNH America LLC 73959981 Mar 5 2014 9:20:29:793AM - $ 0.00
VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Document Available (#1020742050)

04-04-2013 DISPCVDMWP 1 Dap Products Inc 74302899 Apr 5 2013 8:24:31:610AM - $ 0.00
DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF DEFENDANT DAP PRODUCTS, INC.
Document Available (#1021071387)
MICROFILM: REEL 3872 FRAMENUMBER 1080

10-24-2013 DISPCVDMWP 1 Metropolitan Life Insurance Company 76417875 Oct 28 2013 9:02:57:373AM - $ 0.00
DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE BY PLAINTIFFS FOR DEFENDANT
Document Available (#1023229806)

12-11-2013 DISPDWOP 1 Welco Manufacturing Co 76836739 Dec 12 2013 10:31:35:247AM - $ 0.00
PLAINTIFF'S DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF WELCO MANUFACTURING COMPANY
Document Available (#1023658577)

12-12-2013 DISPDWOP 1 Pneumo Abex Llc 76858930 Dec 13 2013 4:52:06:110PM - $ 0.00
DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Document Available (#1023656618)

12-12-2013 DISPDWOP 1 NAVISTAR INC 76858935 Dec 13 2013 4:52:12:790PM - $ 0.00
DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Document Available (#1023656638)

12-20-2013 DISPDWOP 1 Fficemax Incorporated 76937745 Dec 20 2013 4:39:06:050PM - $ 0.00
DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Document Available (#1023656641)

01-16-2014 DISPDWOP 1 Genuine Parts Company 77151035 Jan 16 2014 12:27:40:690PM - $ 0.00
DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS TO GENUINE PARTS COMPANY D/B/A NATIONAL AUTO PARTS ASSOCIATION
Document Available (#1023905816)

02-11-2014 DISPVDM 1 Cushing Lumber Co 77421692 Feb 13 2014 9:27:31:850AM - $ 0.00
VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Document Available (#1023905806)

02-20-2014 DISPDWOP 1 Ford Motor Company 77518743 Mar 5 2014 9:06:33:223AM - $ 0.00
DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICEOF DEFENDANT, FORD MOTOR COMPANY
Document Available (#1024055462)

02-25-2014 DISPDWOP 1 Red Devil Incorporated 77563371 Feb 26 2014 8:43:07:967AM - $ 0.00
DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF DEFENDANT, RED DEVIL, INC.
Document Available (#1024356837)

04-02-2014 DISPCVDMWP 1 Cyprus Amax Minerals Company 78038347 Apr 4 2014 9:08:39:650AM - $ 0.00
DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF DEFENDANT, CYPRUS AMAX MINERALS COMPANY
Document Available (#1024657737)

04-10-2014 DISPCVDMWP 1 Ford Motor Company 78126011 Apr 15 2014 10:45:10:753AM - $ 0.00
DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
Document Available (#1024658437)

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: