EXHIBIT D 
`
`EXHIBIT D
`
`

`

`Darron E. Berquist
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`
`Ok I will file a motion.
`
`Darron E. Berquist
`Friday, April 05, 2019 1:51 PM
`Eric Eddy
`Shannon K. Tully; Desiree Hernandez
`Re: Breakell
`
`Darron E. Berquist, Esq.
`The Lanier Law Firm PLLC
`Tower 56 | 126 E. 56th St.
`New York, NY 10022
`Office: (212) 421-2800| Mobile: (917) 618-2823 | Direct Fax: (917) 546-0565
`darron.berquist@lanierlawfirm.com | lanierlawfirm.com
`
` 
`
`
`On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 11:48 AM ‐0600, "Eric Eddy" <eeddy@wolfhorowitz.com> wrote: 
`
`Darron – 1986 is the furthest date back we are willing to extend the time period with respect to your follow‐up discovery 
`requests inquiring as to the supply of gaskets to the manufacturers of the tractor end products that have been identified 
`in this matter. ‐ Eric 
`
`  
`From: Darron E. Berquist [mailto:Darron.Berquist@LanierLawFirm.com]
`Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 9:21 AM
`To: Eric Eddy
`Cc: Shannon K. Tully; Desiree Hernandez; Mercedes Perez
`Subject: RE: Breakell 
`
`  
`Prior to 1993. 
`
`  
`Darron E. Berquist, Esq. 
`The Lanier Law Firm PLLC 
`Tower 56 | 126 E. 56th St. 
`New York, NY 10022 
`Office: (212) 421‐2800 | Mobile: (917) 618-2823 | Direct Fax: (917) 546‐0565 
`darron.berquist@lanierlawfirm.com | lanierlawfirm.com 
`  
`
`From: Eric Eddy [mailto:eeddy@wolfhorowitz.com]
`Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 9:18 AM
`To: Darron E. Berquist
`Cc: Shannon K. Tully; Desiree Hernandez; Mercedes Perez
`Subject: RE: Breakell 
`
`  
`Darron – how are you defining the relevant time period(s) in this case? ‐ Eric 
`
`  
`From: Darron E. Berquist [mailto:Darron.Berquist@LanierLawFirm.com]
`Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 1:04 PM
`To: Eric Eddy
`
`1
`
`

`

`Cc: Shannon K. Tully; Desiree Hernandez; Mercedes Perez
`Subject: RE: Breakell 
`
`  
`Hi, Eric. I have reviewed these supplemental responses and have some follow‐up questions for you: 
`  
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`In Goodyear’s supplemental answers to interrogatories 10, 12, 59, it qualifies its answers being limited 
`to “the relevant time periods.” We may have very different ideas on what the relevant time period is. 
`What years is Goodyear answering for? 
`In Goodyear’s supplemental responses to requests for production 8, 62, 64, 98, 99 and 100, it qualifies 
`its response as being limited to “the relevant time periods.” We may have very different ideas on what 
`the relevant time period is. What years is Goodyear answering for? 
`  
`Thanks, 
`
`  
`Darron E. Berquist, Esq. 
`The Lanier Law Firm PLLC 
`Tower 56 | 126 E. 56th St. 
`New York, NY 10022 
`Office: (212) 421‐2800 | Mobile: (917) 618-2823 | Direct Fax: (917) 546‐0565 
`darron.berquist@lanierlawfirm.com | lanierlawfirm.com 
`  
`
`From: Eric Eddy [mailto:eeddy@wolfhorowitz.com]
`Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2019 11:29 AM
`To: Darron E. Berquist
`Cc: Shannon K. Tully; Desiree Hernandez; Mercedes Perez
`Subject: RE: Breakell
`Importance: High 
`
`  
`Hi Darron – See attached copy of Goodyear Tire’s verified supplemental responses to the interrogatories 
`and request for production you identified below.  Supplemental responses will be served 
`today.  Goodyear Tire accordingly renews it’s request for an agreement from the plaintiff to not oppose 
`its motion for summary judgment. – Eric 
`
`  
`WE HAVE MOVED!  PLEASE NOTE OUR NEW ADDRESS BELOW. 
`
` 
`Eric D. Eddy, Esq.
`Wolf, Horowitz,& Etlinger, L.L.C.
`750 Main Street
`Suite 606
`Hartford, CT 06103
`Tel: (860) 724-6667
`Fax: (860) 293-1979 
`  
`
`  
`THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED, AND IS INTENDED
`ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE NAMED RECEIVER. IF YOU ARE NOT THE NAMED RECEIVER, OR THE PERSON
`RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE TO THE NAMED RECEIVER, YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT ANY
`USE OF THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE OR ITS CONTENTS, INCLUDING ANY DISSEMINATION OR COPYING, IS STRICTLY
`PROHIBITED 
`  
`  
`  
`
`  
`From: Darron E. Berquist [mailto:Darron.Berquist@LanierLawFirm.com]
`Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 10:42 PM
`2
`
`

`

`To: Eric Eddy
`Cc: Shannon K. Tully; Desiree Hernandez
`Subject: RE: Breakell 
`
`  
`Eric—I am requesting adequate responses to the following interrogatories and requests for production 
`that plaintiff served before I consider your request further: 
`  
`Interrogatories: 10, 12, 59 and 60 
`Requests for Production: 8, 62, 64, 98, 99, 100 and 101 
`
`  
`Many other of Goodyear’s answers and responses are evasive or inadequate, but I am willing to focus on 
`the foregoing first, as those go to the question of whether Goodyear supplied asbestos‐containing 
`materials/components (e.g., sheet gasket, preformed gaskets, etc.) to the manufacturers the tractor end 
`products that have been identified in the case (i.e., Kohler, Briggs & Stratton, Cummins, Ford, 
`Tecumseh). Can you get answers and responses to these and then we can revisit the MSJ question? 
`Obviously, we’d need to agree that the deadline for plaintiff to oppose Goodyear’s MSJ is extended 
`pending our discussions. (I will also review the co‐defendants’ responses in the interim.) 
`
`  
`Let me know your thoughts. 
`
`  
`Thanks, 
`
`  
`Darron E. Berquist, Esq. 
`The Lanier Law Firm PLLC 
`Tower 56 | 126 E. 56th St. 
`New York, NY 10022 
`Office: (212) 421‐2800 | Mobile: (917) 618-2823 | Direct Fax: (917) 546‐0565 
`darron.berquist@lanierlawfirm.com | lanierlawfirm.com 
`  
`
`From: Darron E. Berquist
`Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 12:09 PM
`To: Eric Eddy
`Subject: Re: Breakell 
`  
`I need to review your discovery responses and some of your co‐defendants (those that 
`potentially used Goodyear). Will do so asap and get back to you. 
`
`  
`Darron E. Berquist, Esq. 
`The Lanier Law Firm PLLC 
`Tower 56 | 126 E. 56th St. 
`New York, NY 10022 
`Office: (212) 421‐2800 | Mobile: (917) 618-2823 | Direct Fax: (917) 546‐0565 
`darron.berquist@lanierlawfirm.com | lanierlawfirm.com 
`  
`
`  
`From: Eric Eddy <eeddy@wolfhorowitz.com> 
`Date: Monday, February 25, 2019 at 12:07 PM 
`To: Darron Berquist <Darron.Berquist@LanierLawFirm.com> 
`Subject: Breakell 
`
`  
`Hi Darron – There has been no ID of Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. in this matter.  Does the 
`plaintiff agree to not oppose Goodyear’s motion for summary judgment? ‐ Eric 
`  
`
`3
`
`

`

`WE HAVE MOVED!  PLEASE NOTE OUR NEW ADDRESS BELOW. 
`
` 
`Eric D. Eddy, Esq.
`Wolf, Horowitz,& Etlinger, L.L.C.
`750 Main Street
`Suite 606
`Hartford, CT 06103
`Tel: (860) 724-6667
`Fax: (860) 293-1979 
`  
`
`  
`THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED, AND IS
`INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE NAMED RECEIVER. IF YOU ARE NOT THE NAMED RECEIVER, OR
`THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE TO THE NAMED RECEIVER, YOU ARE
`NOTIFIED THAT ANY USE OF THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE OR ITS CONTENTS, INCLUDING ANY DISSEMINATION
`OR COPYING, IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED 
`  
`
`  
`
`This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the intended
`recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you should not read, distribute, copy or
`alter this email. Any views or opinions expressed in this email are those of the author and
`do not represent those of the company. Warning: Although precautions have been taken
`to make sure no viruses are present in this email, the company cannot accept
`responsibility for any loss or damage that arise from the use of this email or attachments.
`
`This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the intended
`recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you should not read, distribute, copy or alter this
`email. Any views or opinions expressed in this email are those of the author and do not represent
`those of the company. Warning: Although precautions have been taken to make sure no viruses
`are present in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage that
`arise from the use of this email or attachments.
`
`This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the intended recipient(s). If
`you are not the named recipient you should not read, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or
`opinions expressed in this email are those of the author and do not represent those of the company.
`Warning: Although precautions have been taken to make sure no viruses are present in this email, the
`company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage that arise from the use of this email or
`attachments.
`
`This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the intended recipient(s). If you are
`not the named recipient you should not read, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or opinions
`expressed in this email are those of the author and do not represent those of the company. Warning: Although
`precautions have been taken to make sure no viruses are present in this email, the company cannot accept
`responsibility for any loss or damage that arise from the use of this email or attachments.
`
`4
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT E 
`
`EXHIBIT E
`
`

`

`SUMMONS - CIVIL
`JD-CV—‘l Rev. 4-16
`cos.
`§ 51-346. 51-347. 51-349. 51-350. 5245a.
`52-48. 2259. RB. §§ 3-1 through s21. e1. 10-13
`See other side for instructions
`
`STATE OF CONNECTICUT
`SUPERIOR COURT
`www.jud.ct.govV
`
`E] "X" if amount. legal interest or property in demand, not including interest and
`costs is less than $2,500.
`.
`.
`_
`E] "X" if amount. legal interest or property in demand, not including interest and
`costs is $2,500 or more.
`
`[3 "X" if claiming other relief in addition to or in lieu of money or damages.
`
`TO: Any proper officer; BY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT, you are hereby commanded to make clue and legal service of
`this Summons and attached Complaint.
`Address of court clerk where writ and other papers shall be filed (Number, street. town and zip code) Telephone number of clerk
`
`
`(C. 6.8. §§ 51-346, 51-350)
`(with area code)
`
`
`
`( 203 )579-6527
`At (Town in which writ is reiumable) (0.6.8. §§ 51-346. 51-349)
`
`Fairfield
`
`Major; T
`
`
`Return Date (Must be a Tuesday)
`June
`28 , 2 018
`—m1i— 153— W
`Case type code (See list on page 2)
`
`Minor: 20
`
`1061 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06604
`x Judicial District
`
`I Housing Session
`
`For the Plaintiff(s) please enter the appearance of:
`Name and address of attorney law firm or plaintiff if self-represented (Number, street. town and zip code)
`
`Shannon K. Tully, The Lanier Law Firm. PLLC, 126 E. SGth Street, 6th FL, New York, NY 10022
`Telephone number (with area code)
`Signature of Plaintiff (II self4epresented)
`
`439535
`
`( 21 2 ) 421-2800
`The attorney or law firm appearing for the plaintiff, or the plaintiff it
`self-represented. agrees to accept papers (service) electronically in
`this case under Section 10-13 of the Connecticut Practice Book.
`
`[2] Yes D No
`
`shannon.tu|ly@lanierlawfirm.com
`
`Email address ’°( delivery Of papers "W39" 53950" 10‘” (”39'99‘1 to)
`
`Juris number (to be entered byallomey only)
`
`Number of Plaintiffs:
`D Form JD-CV-Z attached for additional parties
`3
`Number of Defendants:
`1
`Name (Last, Flrst, Middle Initial) and Address of Each party (Number; Street; P.O. Box: Town; State; Zip; Country, if not USA)
`
`
`Name: Adam M. Breakell
`9'01
`Address: 86735 N. State Highway 289. Pottsboro, Texas
`Name:
`N[A
`Address: NIA
`
`P-OZ
`
`First
`Plaintiff
`Additional
`Plaintiff
`F I rst
`Defendant
`
`Additional
`Defendant
`
`Additlonal
`Defendant
`Additional
`Defendant
`
`
`
`C prus Mines Corp.
`Name:
`Addressz c o Corporation Service Co., 251 Little Falls Drive, Wilmington, DE 19808
`Name:
`lme
`s Talc Vermont Inc.
`Address: c/o T Corporation System, 17 G.W. Tatro Dr., Jeffersonville, VT 05464
`Name:
`Ime
`s USA Inc.
`Address clo he Corporation Trust Co., Corporation Trust Center. 1209 Orange St. Wilmington, DE 19801
`Name:
`Address;
`
`0-0.:
`
`Notice to Each Defendant
`
`1. YOU ARE BEING SUED. This paper is a Summons in a lawsuit. The complaint attached to these papers states the claims that each plaintiff is making
`against you in this lawsuit.
`2. To be notified of further proceedings. you or your attorney must file a form called an "Appearance" with the clerk of the above-named Court at the above
`Court address on or before the second day after the above Return Date. The Return Date is not a hearing date. You do not have to come to court on the
`Return Date unless you receive a separate notice telling you to come to court.
`3. If you or your attorney do not file a written "Appearance" form on time. a judgment may be entered against you by default. The "Appearance" form may be
`obtained at the Court address above or at www.jud.ct.gov under “Court Forms.“
`4. If you believe that you have insurance that may cover the claim that is being made against you in this lawsuit. you should immediately contact your
`insurance representative. Other action you may have to take is described in the Connecticut Practice Book which may be found in a superior court law
`library or on—Iine at www.jud.ct.gov under "Court Rules.”
`5. If you have questions about the Summons and Complaint. you should talk to an attorney quickly. The Clerk of Own is not allowed to give advice on
`legal questions.
`V Signed (Sign and 'X" proper box)
`GIUWSSIOHB" 0
`Superior Court
`
`
`Shannon K- Tully
`I Assistant Clerk
`06/06/2018
`
`
`
`For Court Use Only
`
`File Data
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Name of Person Signing at Left
`
`_ ‘ Date signed
`
`a. The signing has been done so hat the Plaintifi(s) will not be denied access to the courts.
`b. It is the responsibility of the Plaintift(s) to see that service is made in the manner provided by law.
`0. The Clerk is not permitted to give any legal advice in connection with any lawsuit.
`d. The Clerk signing this Summons at the request of the Plaintiff(s) is not responsible in any way for any errors or omissions
`in the Summons. any allegations contained in the Complaint. or the service of the Summons or Complaint.
`
`
`I certify l have read and
`
`
`understand the above:
`
`Signed (Self-Represented Plaintiff)
`
`Date
`
`Docket Number
`
`(Page 1 of 2)
`
`
`
`

`

`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`J.D. OF FAIRFIELD
`
`AT BRIDGEPORT
`
`June 6, 2018
`
`RETURN DATE: June 28, 2018
`ADAM M. BREAKELL
`
`
`v.
`
`
`3M CO. (f/k/a Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing
`Co.);
`A.O. SMITH CORP.;
`AGCO CORP. (individually and as successor to
`Massey-Ferguson Ltd. and Massey-Ferguson
`Inc.);
`AGWAY INC.;
`ALTICOR INC. (individually and d/b/a Amway);
`AMWAY CORP.;
`BASF CATALYSTS LLC (individually and as successor
`to Engelhard Corp., Engelhard Minerals &
`Chemicals Corp., and Minerals & Chemicals
`Corp.);
`BCS AMERICA LLC;
`BORGWARNER MORSE TEC INC.;
`(individually, as
`BRENNTAG SPECIALTIES
`INC.
`successor to, and f/k/a Mineral & Pigment
`Solutions Inc. and Whittaker, Clark & Daniels
`Inc.);
`BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS INC.;
`(individually and as
`BRIGGS & STRATON CORP.
`successor to Simplicity Manufacturing Inc.);
`BURNHAM LLC;
`CARGILL INC.;
`CARLISLE COMPANIES INC.;
`CAROLINA EASTERN-VAIL INC. (d/b/a CaroVail);
`CATERPILLAR INC.;
`CBS CORP. (f/k/a Viacom Inc., successor by merger
`to CBS Corp., f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corp.);
`CNH INDUSTRIAL AMERICA LLC (f/k/a CNH Americas
`LLC);
`CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS INC. (f/k/a
`Continental Teves Inc.);
`CRANE CO.;
`CUMMINS INC. (f/k/a Cummins Engine Co. Inc.);
`CYPRUS AMAX MINERALS CO. (individually, as
`successor to and d/b/a to Metropolitan Talc Co.
`Inc. and Charles Mathieu Inc.);
`DANA COMPANIES LLC;
`DAP PRODUCTS INC.;
`DEERE & CO.;
`
`1366424_3
`
`

`

`E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.;
`EATON CORP.;
`ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS INC. (individually and
`as successor to American Yard Products and
`George D. Roper Co.);
`ELECTROLUX USA INC. (individually and as successor to
`American Yard Products and George D. Roper Co.);
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO.
`(individually and as
`successor to Lipe-Rollway Co.);
`FORD MOTOR CO.;
`GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. (individually and as successor
`to George D. Roper Co.);
`GENUINE PARTS CO.;
`GOODRICH CORP.;
`HART BUILDING & ROOFING SUPPLIES INC.;
`HENNESSY INDUSTRIES LLC;
`HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. (f/k/a AlliedSignal
`Inc., as successor to the Bendix Corp.);
`HUBBELL INC. (individually and as successor to FCI
`Americas Inc., d/b/a Burndy);
`HUSQVARNA CONSUMER OUTDOOR PRODUCTS N.A.
`INC. (individually and as successor to American
`Yard Products, George D. Roper Co., and Tecumseh
`Products Co.);
`INC.
`PRODUCTS
`HUSQVARNA
`PROFESSIONAL
`(individually and as successor to American Yard
`Products, George D. Roper Co., and Tecumseh
`Products Co.);
`IFFLAND LUMBER CO. INC.;
`IMERYS TALC AMERICA INC. (f/k/a Luzenac America
`Inc.);
`INDIAN HEAD
`Gasket);
`JOHNSON & JOHNSON;
`INC. (f/k/a
`JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER
`Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies Inc.);
`KENT NUTRITION GROUP
`INC.
`(individually, as
`successor to and d/b/a Blue Seal Inc.);
`KOHLER CO.;
`KOMATSU AMERICA CORP.;
`LEAR SIEGLER DIVERSIFIED HOLDINGS CORP.;
`LIPE-ROLLWAY CORP.;
`MACK TRUCKS INC. (individually and as successor to
`Brockway Motor Co.);
`MAREMONT CORP.;
`MARJAM SUPPLY CO. INC.;
`
`INC. (d/b/a Detroit
`
`INDUSTRIES
`
`1366424_3
`
`

`

`INC.
`
`(d/b/a
`
`MCCORD CORP.;
`MERITOR INC. (individually and as successor to
`Rockwell International Corp.);
`MTD PRODUCTS CO. (f/k/a Modern Tool & Die Co.);
`NATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE PARTS ASSOCIATION INC.;
`NAVISTAR INC. (f/k/a International Truck and Engine
`Co.);
`INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS
`NUTMEG
`Nutmeg Truck Centers);
`PLATINUM EQUITY LLC (d/b/a Tecumseh Power,
`individually and as successor to Tecumseh
`Products Co.);
`PNEUMO-ABEX LLC (individually and as successor to
`Abex Corp.);
`ROGERS MANUFACTURING CO. INC.;
`SCHILLER GROUNDS CARE INC. (individually and as
`successor to Steiner Co.);
`SEARS HOLDINGS MANAGEMENT CORP.
`Craftsman);
`SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO. (d/b/a Craftsman);
`SOUTHERN STATES COOPERATEIVE INC. (individually,
`as successor to and d/b/a Agway Inc.);
`STANLEY BLACK & DECKER INC.;
`TECUMSEH PRODUCTS COMPANY LLC (f/k/a Tecumseh
`Products Co.);
`THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO.;
`THE ROWEN-LEAHY CO.;
`THE TORO CO.;
`TRANE U.S. INC. (f/k/a American Standard Inc.);
`UNITED STEEL INC.;
`VANDERBILT MINERALS LLC (individually and as
`successor to Gouverneur Talc Co., International
`Talc Co. and R.T. Vanderbilt Co.);
`VENTURE PRODUCTS INC. (f/k/a Steiner AG Products
`Inc., individually and as successor to Steiner Corp.);
`WEIL-MCLAIN (a division of The Marley-Wylain Co.);
`WHITTAKER, CLARK & DANIELS INC;
`BCS S.P.A.;
`CNH INDUSTRIAL N.V.;
`HUSQVARNA AB (individually and as successor to
`American Yard Products and George D. Roper
`Co.);
`KOMATSU LTD.;
`(individually and as
`INC.
`BURNDY AMERICAS
`successor to FCI Americas Inc., d/b/a Burndy);
`BUSH HOG INC. (individually and as successor to
`
`(d/b/a
`
`1366424_3
`
`

`

`Bush Hog LLC);
`DUROC LLC (f/k/a Bush Hog LLC);
`KELSEY-HAYES CO. (individually and as successor to
`Frehauf Trailer Corp.);
`UNION CARBIDE CORP.;
`WOODS EQUIPMENT CO;
`INC. (f/k/a Windsor
`IMERYS TALC VERMONT
`Minerals Inc., f/k/a Cyprus Minerals Windsor
`Corp., f/k/a Windsor Minerals Inc., successor to
`and f/k/a Eastern Magnesia Talc Co. Inc.);
`Cyprus Mines Corp. (individually, doing business as,
`and successor to, Sierra Talc Company, Amoco
`Minerals Co., Cyprus Industrial Minerals Co.,
`and Cyprus Georesearch Co., a wholly-owned
`subsidiary of Cyprus Mines Corp. and successor
`to Charles Mathieu Inc. (d/b/a Charles Mathieu
`& Co. and Chas. Mathieu Inc.), American Talc
`Company Inc., Metropolitan Talc Company Inc.,
`Imperial Products Co.
`Inc., and Resource
`Processors Inc.);
`Imerys USA Inc. (individually and as successor to
`Imerys Refractory Minerals USA Inc., Imerys
`Carbonates USA Inc., Imerys Clays Inc., Imerys
`Minerals California Inc., S&B Industrial Minerals
`North America Inc., Kentucky Tennessee Clay
`Co., and Imerys Talc America Inc.),
`
`1366424_3
`
`

`

`THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff, ADAM M. BREAKELL, resides at 86735 N. State Highway 289, Pottsboro,
`
`1.
`
`Texas. Plaintiff resided in Connecticut from his birth on May 17, 1975, until approximately 1997;
`
`from approximately 2003 until approximately 2005; and from approximately 2016 until November
`
`2017.
`
`2.
`
`This Court has general jurisdiction over those defendants that (i) are Connecticut
`
`corporations, (ii) have a principal place of business in Connecticut, or (iii) are presently, or during
`
`the relevant time periods, registered to do business in Connecticut.1, 2
`
`3.
`
`This Court has specific jurisdiction over the non-resident defendants3, pursuant to
`
`General Statutes § 52-59b, because they (1) transact (and/or during the relevant time period
`
`transacted) business within Connecticut, including business directly related to plaintiff’s allegations
`
`herein; (2) caused plaintiff to be exposed to asbestos in Connecticut and/or otherwise committed a
`
`tortious act within the state; and/or (3) committed a tortious act outside Connecticut that caused or
`
`contributed to plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos in Connecticut or otherwise caused him to suffer
`
`injuries in Connecticut, and said acts were directed in whole or in part toward the state.
`
`Furthermore, each of the non-resident defendants: (A) (i) regularly does or solicits (and/or during
`
`
`1 See, e.g., Bush v. Price Reit Inc., 2015 WL 4173676 (Conn. Sup. Ct. 2015) (citing Talenti v. Morgan & Brother
`Manhattan Storage Co., 113 Conn.App. 845, 855, 968 A.2d 933 (2009), cert. denied, 292 Conn. 908, 973 A.2d 105
`(2009).
`2 3M Co.; A. O. Smith Corp.; AGCO Corp.; BASF Catalyst LLC; Bridgestone Americas Inc.; Briggs & Stratton Corp.;
`Cargill Inc.; Carolina Eastern-Vail Inc.; Caterpillar Inc.; CBS Corp.; Crane Co.; Cummins Inc.; DAP Products Inc.; E. I.
`Du Pont de Nemours & Co.; Eaton Corp.; Electrolux Home Products Inc.; Electrolux USA Inc.; Emerson Electric Co.;
`Ford Motor Co.; General Electric Co.; Genuine Parts Co.; Georgia-Pacific LLC; Goodrich Corp.; Hart Building &
`Roofing Supplies Inc.; Honeywell International Inc.; Iffland Lumber Co. Inc.; Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.;
`Kelsey-Hayes Co.; Kent Nutrition Group Inc.; Kohler Co.; Komatsu America Corp.; Mack Trucks Inc.; Marjam Supply
`Co. Inc.; Meritor Inc.; MTD Products Co.; Navistar Inc.; Nutmeg International Trucks Inc.; Platinum Equity LLC; Sears
`Holdings Management Corp.; Sears, Roebuck & Co.; Southern States Cooperative Inc.; Stanley Black & Decker Inc.;
`The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.; The Rowen-Leahy Co.; Trane U.S. Inc.; Union Carbide Corp.; United Steel Inc.;
`Vanderbilt Minerals LLC.
`
`1366424_3
`
`

`

`the relevant time period did or solicited) business; (ii) engages (and/or during the relevant time
`
`period engaged) in one or more other persistent courses of conduct, including conduct related to
`
`plaintiff’s allegations herein; and/or (iii) derives (and/or during the relevant time period derived)
`
`substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered in the state, including from
`
`products and/or services at issue herein; or (B) expected or should reasonably have expected
`
`(and/or during the relevant time period expected or should have reasonably expected) its acts to
`
`have consequence in Connecticut, and derives (and/or during the relevant time period derived)
`
`substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce.
`
`4.
`
`This Court also has specific jurisdiction over the non-resident defendants (i)
`
`pursuant to General Statutes § 52-59 because they owned, used, possessed or otherwise controlled
`
`real property situated within Connecticut; and/or (ii) pursuant to General Statutes §§ 53-451(a)(1)
`
`and 53-451(a)(3) because they utilized a computer or computer network
`
`located within
`
`Connecticut.
`
`FIRST COUNT – PRODUCT LIABILITY
`(General Statutes §§ 52-240a, 52-240b, 52-572m, et seq.)
`
`Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and incorporates herein the prior and subsequent
`
`5.
`
`allegations of this complaint with the same force and effect as if hereinafter set forth at length.
`
`6.
`
`Defendants’ actions and omissions, as more fully described below, were carried out
`
`by and through their authorized officers, agents, servants and employees who were acting in the
`
`course of their employment, with authority (actual or apparent), and in furtherance of defendants’
`
`business and profit.
`
`
`3 All defendants except Crane Co.; Hart Building & Roofing Supplies Inc.; Hubbell Inc.; Iffland Lumber Co. Inc.;
`Marjam Supply Co. Inc.; Nutmeg International Trucks Inc.; The Rowen-Leahy Co.; United Steel Inc.; and Vanderbilt
`Minerals LLC.
`
`1366424_3
`
`

`

`7.
`
`Defendants mined, milled, processed, produced, manufactured,
`
`fabricated,
`
`assembled, designed, packaged, marketed, advertised, supplied, distributed, supplied, delivered,
`
`sold or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce (hereinafter “manufactured”): (i) asbestos4
`
`fibers; (ii) asbestos-containing products (including products that caused or otherwise contributed to
`
`the production of asbestos fibers); (iii) equipment or other products that specified, required or
`
`otherwise necessitated the use of asbestos-containing components or for which asbestos or
`
`asbestos-containing replacement components were otherwise reasonably foreseeable; (iv)
`
`equipment or other products that were designed to be used or commonly used in connection or
`
`conjunction with products and materials that defendants knew or should have known contained
`
`asbestos and that, when used as designed, intended or commonly utilized, generated asbestos
`
`dust; and (v) respiratory protection equipment that failed to protect users from exposure to
`
`asbestos.
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff was regularly and frequently exposed to asbestos from the use or other
`
`exposure to defendants’ products from approximately the date of his birth until approximately
`
`2016. Such exposure caused plaintiff’s malignant mesothelioma and consequential injuries.
`
`Negligence
`
`9.
`
`Defendants had a duty to manufacture products that were not unreasonably
`
`dangerous or defective when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner.
`
`10.
`
`Defendants had a duty to warn plaintiff of the hazards and defects that defendants
`
`created, knew of and, within the exercise of reasonable care, should have known about.
`
`
`4 “Asbestos” shall be interpreted in the broadest sense and include non-regulated and non-commercial forms of
`asbestos, cleavage fragments and transition/transitional fibers, without specific limitation as to regulatory
`definitions, fiber size, dimension or ratio. “Asbestos” also includes “fibrous talc.”
`
`1366424_3
`
`

`

`11.
`
`During the time that defendants manufactured the products at issue, they knew,
`
`and in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that said products were defective,
`
`ultrahazardous, dangerous and otherwise highly harmful to the public, including plaintiff.
`
`12.
`
`Defendants knew, and in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that
`
`their products would be used, manipulated, consumed or otherwise handled, resulting in the
`
`release of asbestos fibers and thereby creating a dangerous and unreasonable risk of injury to users
`
`and others coming into contact with said products, including plaintiff, either directly or indirectly.
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff did not know the nature and extent of the injuries that would result from
`
`contact with and exposure to asbestos from use of or exposure to defendants’ products.
`
`14.
`
`Defendants knew, and in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that
`
`plaintiff would come into contact with and be exposed to asbestos from use of or exposure to their
`
`products and would inhale and/or otherwise ingest asbestos as a result of the ordinary and
`
`foreseeable use of said products.
`
`15.
`
`Despite the facts as set forth above, defendants negligently, recklessly, intentionally
`
`and with wanton disregard for plaintiff’s rights, safety or health:
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`manufactured products that defendants knew, and in the exercise of reasonable
`care should have known, were defective, dangerous, ultrahazardous and otherwise
`unreasonably harmful to plaintiff as a result of exposure to asbestos;
`
`failed to take reasonable precautions or exercise reasonable care to adequately
`warn individuals, including plaintiff, of the risks, dangers and harms to which they
`would be subjected by exposure to asbestos from the use of or other exposure to
`defendants’ products;
`
`failed to provide information or reasonably safe and sufficient safeguards necessary
`to protect plaintiff from being injured as a result of exposure to asbestos from the
`ordinary and foreseeable use of or other exposure to defendants’ products;
`
`failed to place, post or otherwise convey any warnings (or sufficient warnings)
`regarding the health hazards associated with exposure to asbestos from the use of or
`other exposure to their products;
`
`1366424_3
`
`

`

`(e)
`
`(f)
`
`(g)
`
`(h)
`
`(i)
`
`(j)
`
`(k)
`
`(l)
`
`(m)
`
`(n)
`
`(o)
`
`(p)
`
`failed to test or analyze (or adequately test or analyze) their products in order to
`ascertain the extent of potential asbestos hazards related therewith;
`
`failed to recommend methods, procedures, practices and protocols to prevent or
`minimize exposure to asbestos from the use of or other exposure to their products;
`
`misrepresented or failed to disclose that their products contained asbestos or
`otherwise caused, permitted or exacerbated exposure to asbestos, thus denying
`plaintiff and the public of the knowledge required to take necessary safety
`precautions while using or otherwise being exposed to defendants’ products;
`
`continued to manufacture products despite knowing of the asbestos-related health
`hazards associated therewith;
`
`failed to conduct research that should have been conducted in the exercise of
`reasonable care in order to ascertain the presence of asbestos in their products and
`the health hazards associated with asbestos exposure;
`
`failed to package their products in a manner that would ensure that individuals,
`including plaintiff, would not inhale and/or otherwise ingest asbestos from the
`ordinary and foreseeable use of their products;
`
`failed to advise individuals, including plaintiff, to adopt and enforce a safe, sufficient
`and proper methods and plans of working with, using, handling, coming into contact
`with or otherwise being exposed to asbestos from the use of or other exposure to
`defendants’ products so that plaintiff would not inhale and/or otherwise ingest
`asbestos through the ordinary and foreseeable the use of or other exposure to
`defendants’ products;
`
`ignored and suppressed medical and scientific information, studies, tests, data and
`literature concerning the health risks associated with exposure to asbestos,
`including from the use of or other exposure to their products;
`
`ignored and suppressed medical and scientific information, studies, tests, data and
`literature concerning the causal relationship between the inhalation and ingestion
`of asbestos and disease, including, but not limited to, mesothelioma;
`
`subjected plaintiff and other persons similarly situated to the risk of developing
`disease, which risk defendant knew, and in the exercise of reasonable care should
`have known, were consequences of exposure to asbestos;
`
`failed to seek substitute materials in lieu of the use of talc, asbestos and/or
`asbestos-containing materials;
`
`failed to advise plaintiff, who defendants knew, and in the exercise of reasonable
`care should have known, had been exposed to asbestos from the ordinary and
`foreseeable the use of or other exposure to their products: (i) to cease further
`
`1366424_3
`
`

`

`uncontrolled or unprotected exposure to said products and the inhalation and/or
`ingestion of asbestos therefrom; (ii) to be examined by medical professionals to
`determine the nature and extent of any diseases caused by inhalation and/or
`ingestion of asbestos; and (iii) to receive medical care and treatment for such
`diseases;
`
`(q)
`
`(r)
`
`(s)
`
`failed, upon discovery of the dangers, hazards and potentialities of exposure to
`asbestos, to adequately warn plaintiff of same;
`
`generally engaged in unreasonable, careless, negligent and reckless conduct in
`manufacturing products that substantially contributed to plaintiff’s asbestos
`exposure and resulting injuries; and
`
`otherwise disregarded the health, safety and welfare of plaintiff in manufacturing
`products that caused him to be exposed to asbestos.
`
`16.
`
`Reasonable alternative designs for defendants’ products were available that would
`
`have avoided or reduced the risk of harm, and the failure to adopt any of the alternative designs
`
`rendered defendants’ product unreasonably dangerous.
`
`17.
`
`