Filing# 138990778 E-Filed 11/22/2021 01:38:11 PM
`
`ALAN REECE,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`VS.
`
`PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC., et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`i
`
`IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 177th
`JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
`BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
`
`ASBESTOS DIVISION
`
`CASE NO.: 20-003820 CA-27
`
`DEFENDANT HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.'S ANSWER AND
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF'S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`Defendant, Honeywell International Inc., f/k/a Allied Signal,as successor in interest to
`
`Allied Corporation,as successor in interest to The Bendix Corporation,("HONEYWELL")
`
`answers Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint ("Complaint"),and states as follows:
`
`1.
`
`As to paragraph 1, HONEYWELL admits that Plaintiff's Complaint purports to
`
`seek damages in excess of Thirty Thousand Dollars. HONEYWELL denies that it owes any
`
`liabilityto Plaintiffs for any allegeddamages.
`
`2.
`
`HONEYWELL is without knowledge to admit or deny the allegationscontained
`
`in paragraph 2, includingsubparts;and therefore denies same.
`
`3.
`
`As to paragraph 3 and its subparts,HONEYWELL admits only that it is a
`
`Delaware corporationwith its principalplace of business in North Carolina. HONEYWELL is
`
`without knowledge to admit or deny the remaining allegationsas they are directed at other
`
`defendants.
`
`4.
`
`Paragraphs 4 through 6, including subparts,are denied as worded as to
`
`HONEYWELL.
`
`*** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 11/22/2021 01:38:10 PM.****
`
`
`
`CASE NO.: 20-003820 CA-27
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Paragraph 7 is denied as worded as to HONEYWELL.
`
`The allegationscontained in Paragraphs 8 through 22 are not directed at
`
`HONEYWELL, and therefore no response is required of this defendant. To the extent that the
`
`allegationscontained in these paragraphs are imputed to HONEYWELL, this defendant denies
`
`same.
`
`7.
`
`In response to the allegationscontained in Paragraphs 23 and 24 of Plaintiff' s
`
`Complaint,HONEYWELL denies that the Plaintiff suffered any injuryor damage as a result of
`
`any allegedexposure to any HONEYWELL products. HONEYWELL is without knowledge as
`
`to whether or how the plaintiffwas exposed to asbestos;how plaintiffpurchased,worked with or
`
`used its productsor any other defendants' products;or contracted any asbestos-related disease as
`
`alleged. HONEYWELL specificallydenies that the Plaintiff suffered any injuryas a result of
`
`allegedexposure to HONEYWELL products.
`
`8
`
`The allegationscontained in Paragraphs 25 through 31 are not directed at
`
`HONEYWELL, and therefore no response is requiredof this defendant. To the extent that the
`
`allegationscontained in these paragraphsare imputed to HONEYWELL, this defendant denies
`
`same.
`
`9-
`
`In response to the allegationscontained in Paragraphs32 through 37 of Plaintiff's
`
`Complaint,HONEYWELL denies that the Plaintiff suffered any injuryor damage as a result of
`
`any allegedexposure to any HONEYWELL products. HONEYWELL is without knowledge as
`
`to whether or how the plaintiffswere exposed to asbestos;how plaintiffspurchased,worked with
`
`or used its productsor any other defendants' products;or contracted any asbestos-related disease
`
`as alleged.HONEYWELL specificallydenies that the Plaintiff suffered any injuryas a result of
`
`allegedexposure to HONEYWELL products.
`
`2
`
`
`
`CASE NO.: 20-003820 CA-27
`
`COUNT I - FOR NEGLIGENCE AND UNSEAWORTHINESS
`OF THE VESSELS AT ISSUE UNDER THE JONES ACT
`(AllegationsPertainingto Defendants Carnival and Cunard)
`
`10.
`
`The allegationscontained in Paragraphs 38 through 48 are not directed at
`
`HONEYWELL, and therefore no response is requiredof this defendant. To the extent that the
`
`allegationscontained in these paragraphs are imputed to HONEYWELL, this defendant denies
`
`same.
`
`COUNT II - NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY WARN
`(AllegationsPertainingto Defendants Carnival and Cunard)
`
`11.
`
`The allegationscontained in Paragraphs 49 through 55 are not directed at
`
`HONEYWELL, and therefore no response is requiredof this defendant. To the extent that the
`
`allegationscontained in these paragraphs are imputed to HONEYWELL, this defendant denies
`
`same.
`
`COUNT III- NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY WARN
`(Taleand Automotive)
`
`12.
`
`Honeywell incorporatesby reference its responses to all other allegations
`
`referenced in paragraph 56 of Plaintiff's Complaint.
`
`13.
`
`Paragraphs 57 through 61
`
`of Plaintiff's
`
`Complaint are
`
`denied
`
`as
`
`to
`
`HONEYWELL. HONEYWELL further denies that the Plaintiff suffered any injuryor damage
`
`as a result of any allegedexposure to any HONEYWELL products.HONEYWELL is without
`
`knowledge as to whether or how the Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos;how Plaintiff purchased,
`
`worked with or used its products or any other defendants' products;or contracted any asbestos-
`
`related disease as alleged. HONEYWELL specificallydenies that the Plaintiff suffered any
`
`injuryas a result of allegedexposure to HONEYWELL products.
`
`COUNT IV -STRICT LIABILITY
`(Taleand Automotive)
`
`3
`
`
`
`CASE NO.: 20-003820 CA-27
`
`14.
`
`Honeywell incorporatesby reference its responses all other allegationsreferenced
`
`in paragraph 62 of Plaintiff' s Complaint.
`
`15.
`
`Paragraphs 63
`
`through 69
`
`of Plaintiff's
`
`Complaint are
`
`denied
`
`as
`
`to
`
`HONEYWELL. HONEYWELL further denies that the Plaintiff suffered any injuryor damage
`
`as a result of any allegedexposure to any HONEYWELL products. HONEYWELL is without
`
`knowledge as to whether or how the Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos;how Plaintiff purchased,
`
`worked with or used its productsor any other defendants' products;or contracted any asbestos-
`
`related disease as alleged. HONEYWELL specificallydenies that the Plaintiff suffered any
`
`injuryas a result of allegedexposure to HONEYWELL products.
`
`COUNT V - STRICT LIABILITY
`(AllegationsPertainingto Defendants Carnival and Cunard)
`
`16.
`
`The allegationscontained in Paragraphs 70 through 79 are not directed at
`
`HONEYWELL, and therefore no response is requiredof this defendant. To the extent that the
`
`allegationscontained in these paragraphs are imputed to HONEYWELL, this defendant denies
`
`same.
`
`COUNT VI- FAILURE TO USE REASONABLE CARE
`(Taleand Automotive)
`
`17.
`
`Honeywell incorporatesby reference its responses to all other allegations
`
`referenced in paragraph80 of Plaintiff's Complaint.
`
`18.
`
`Paragraphs 81
`
`through 86
`
`of Plaintiff's
`
`Complaint are
`
`denied
`
`as
`
`to
`
`HONEYWELL. HONEYWELL further denies that the Plaintiff suffered any injuryor damage
`
`as a result of any allegedexposure to any HONEYWELL products.HONEYWELL is without
`
`knowledge as to whether or how the Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos;how Plaintiff purchased,
`
`worked with or used its products or any other defendants' products;or contracted any asbestos-
`
`4
`
`
`
`CASE NO.: 20-003820 CA-27
`
`related disease as alleged. HONEYWELL specificallydenies that the Plaintiff suffered any
`
`injuryas a result of allegedexposure to HONEYWELL products.
`
`COUNT VII- NEGLIGENCE/FAILURE TO REASONABLE CARE
`(AllegationsPertainingto Defendants Carnival and Cunard)
`
`19.
`
`The allegationscontained in Paragraphs 87 through 93 are not directed at
`
`HONEYWELL, and therefore no response is required of this defendant. To the extent that the
`
`allegationscontained in these paragraphs are imputed to HONEYWELL, this defendant denies
`
`same.
`
`DAMAGES
`
`17.
`
`The allegationscontained in this section are denied as to HONEYWELL and
`
`HONEYWELL demands strict proof thereof. HONEYWELL denies that the Plaintiffs suffered
`
`any injury or damage as a result of any alleged exposure to HONEYWELL products.
`
`HONEYWELL further denies that it is liable for any allegeddamages or injuries.
`
`18.
`
`Any allegationnot specificallyadmitted is hereby denied.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`1.
`
`The Complaint fails to state a claim againstHONEYWELL upon which relief can
`
`be granted.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff's Complaint improperly comingles allegationsagainst all defendants
`
`such that it is impossible for any individual defendant to answer Plaintiff's overly broad and
`
`vague allegationsdirected againstall defendants as a group.
`
`3
`
`This Court is not the proper venue for this action.
`
`It should be transferred to a
`
`proper venue.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff's action is barred in this jurisdictionunder the doctrine offbrum non
`
`conveniens.
`
`5
`
`
`
`CASE NO.: 20-003820 CA-27
`
`5.
`
`The Complaint does not comply with the Florida Asbestos and Silica
`
`Compensation Fairness Act (the"Act") and the claims are therefore barred.
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicablestatutes of
`
`limitation,statutes of repose or the doctrine of laches.
`
`7.
`
`8
`
`Plaintiff has failed to joinall necessary or indispensableparties.
`
`Plaintiff was not exposed to any products of HONEYWELL, and there is no
`
`connection between this Defendant's business activities in Florida, if any, and the alleged
`
`injuries.
`
`9-
`
`HONEYWELL specificallydenies that any productsmanufactured and/or sold by
`
`it caused or contributed to the allegeddamages or injuriesof Plaintiff and further denies that it is
`
`liable to Plaintiff for the causes allegedor for any other cause whatsoever.
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff's injurieswere caused by their own negligentconduct or by the negligent
`
`conduct of another and, therefore,Plaintiff is barred from recovery or, alternatively,are barred
`
`from full recovery.
`
`11.
`
`If Plaintiff were injuredor damaged, which injuriesand damages are denied, the
`
`injuriesand any damages were the result of interveningor superseding acts, events, factors,
`
`occurrences or conditions which were in no way caused by HONEYWELL and for which
`
`HONEYWELL is not liable.
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff's injuries,if any, were caused, in whole or in part, by the acts or
`
`omissions of persons other than HONEYWELL, whether individual, corporate, associate,or
`
`otherwise, whether named or unnamed in the Complaint, and for whose conduct HONEYWELL
`
`is not liable. HONEYWELL is not liable for damages proximately caused by non-parties,
`
`pursuant to Fabre v. Marin, 623 So.2d 1182 (Fla.1993), includingany and all employers of
`
`6
`
`
`
`CASE NO.: 20-003820 CA-27
`
`Plaintiff;A.P. Green Refractories;A.W. Chesterton Company;
`
`A.O. Smith Corporation,
`
`Advanced Stores Company, Inc.;Air & Liquid Systems Corporation,Alfa Laval, Inc.,Alstom
`
`Power, Inc.; Albany International Corp.; Ameron International Corp.; American Honda Motor
`
`Company, Inc.; American Optical Corporation;American Standard, Inc.; American Suzuki
`
`Motor Corporation;Armstrong International,Inc., Armstrong Pumps, Inc., Armstrong World
`
`Industries,Inc.; Arvinmeritor, Inc.; Asbestos Claims Management Corporation;AstenJohnson,
`
`Inc.; BW/IP International,Inc., Babco*ck & Wilcox; Bennett Auto Supply; Bird, Inc.; Bird
`
`Corporation; Bondex International,Inc.; Borg Warner Corporation; Borg-Warner, Inc.; Borg
`
`Warner Morse Tee, Inc.; Bridgestone/FirestoneNorth American Tire, LLC as successor by
`
`merger to Bridgestone/Firestone,Inc., as successor in interest to Worldbestos; Briggs Stratton
`
`Corp.; Carnival Corporation;Carquest Auto Parts; Chevron U.S.A., Inc.; C. E. Thurston & Son,
`
`Inc.; Capco Pipe Company; Carlisle Companies, Inc., through its subsidiaries Motion Control
`
`Industries,Inc.; Caterpillar,Inc.; CBS Corporation;Certainteed Corporation f/k/a Certainteed
`
`Products Corporation,individuallyand as successor-in-interest to Bestwell Gypsum Company;
`
`Chicago Bridge & Iron Co.; Cleaver Brooks Company; Congoleum Corporation;Consumer
`
`Automotive Parts, Inc.; Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc.; Conopco, Inc.; Conwed
`
`Corporation,Cooper Industries,Inc.; Copes-Vulcan, Inc., Crane Company; Crown, Cork & Seal
`
`Company; Cummins, Inc.; Cunard Line Limited; Daimler Chrysler Corporation; Dana
`
`Companies LLC, f/k/a Dana Corporation;Dana Corporation d/b/a Dana Racine Corporation f/k/a
`
`Spice Manufacturing Corp.; Danaher Corporation,individually,and through its subsidiaries DH
`
`Holding and Hennessy Industries;Deere & Co., Inc.;DAP, Inc.,Discount Auto Parts;Dowman
`
`Products, Inc.; Dresser, Inc., through its division/business unit Waukesha Engine; Durabla
`
`Manufacturing Company; Eagle-PitcherIndustries;Eastern Automotive Warehouse, Inc.;Eaton
`
`7
`
`
`
`CASE NO.: 20-003820 CA-27
`
`Corporation,Elliott Company; Exxon Mobil Corp.; Entergy Corp.; Federal-Mogul Corporation
`
`d/b/a Wagner brake Products; Ferro Corporation;Flexitallic,Inc.;Flintkote Company; Flintkote
`
`Corporation;Flowerserve Corp.; Ford Motor Company; Foseco, Inc.; Foster Wheeler Energy
`
`Corporation;GAF Corporation;Garlock Sealing Technologies,LLC f/k/a Garlock, Inc. f/k/a
`
`Garlock Parking;General Electric Company; General Motors Corporation;General Refractories
`
`Company; Genuine Parts Company; Georgia-Pacific Corporation f/k/a Georgia Hardwood
`
`Lumber Co. f/k/a Georgia-PacificPlywood and Lumber Co. f/k/a Georgia-PacificPlywood Co.,
`
`individuallyand as successor-in-interest and/or parent of Bestwall Gypsum Company; Goodrich
`
`Corporation f/k/a B.F. Goodrich; Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company; Gould Pumps, Inc.;
`
`Grinnell,LLC.; Guard-Line, Inc.; H. B. Fuller Company; Hanson Permanente Cemente f/k/a
`
`Kaiser Cement Company; Harbison-Walker Refractories Company; Harley-Davidson, Inc.;
`
`Henkel Corporation;Hennessry Industries,Inc.; Highland Stucco and Lime Products, Inc.;
`
`Hollingsworth& Vose Company, Inc.;ImperialIndustries,Inc.;IMO Industries,Inc.;Industrial
`
`Holdings Corporation f//a The Carborundum Company; International Truck and Engine
`
`Corporation;Ingersoll-RandCompany; ITT Corp.; John Crane, Inc.; Johnson & Johnson;
`
`Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc.; Johns Manville; Johns-Manville Corporation; Joy
`
`Technologies Inc.; Kaiser Aluminum; Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc.; KCG, Inc.; Keene
`
`Corporation;Kelly-Moore Paint Co.; Kelsey-Hayes; Kennon Bearings;Kohler, Inc.;Lazy Days'
`RV Center, Inc.; Lipe Rollway; M&H Automotive, Inc.; Mack Trucks, Inc.; Maremont
`
`Corporation;Mazda Motor of America, Inc.; McCord Corporation,individuallyand as successor
`
`in interest to A.E. Clevite,Inc. and J. P. Industries,Inc.;MetropolitanLife Insurance Company;
`
`Miami Clutch Services,Inc.; Miller Machine; Milto Roy LLC; Monsanto Co.; Mitsubishi Motors
`
`North America, Inc.; Moffet Bearings;Morton International,Inc.;Motion Control Industries,
`
`8
`
`
`
`CASE NO.: 20-003820 CA-27
`
`Inc., as predecessorin interest to Carlisle Companies, Inc.; Mount Vernon Mills, Inc.; NAPA
`
`Auto Parts,LLC; National Automotive Parts Association LLC; National Auto Parts Warehouse,
`
`Inc.; National Gypsum Company; National Service Industries,Inc.; Navistar Int'l Transportation
`
`Corp. f/k/a International Harvester; Nissan North America, Inc.; O'Reilly Automotive Stores,
`
`Inc.;Oshkosh Truck Corp.;Owens Coming Corporation;Owens-Illinois,Inc. f/k/a Owens Bottle
`
`Machine Corp. f/k/a Owens Bottle Co. f/k/a Owens-Illinois Glass Co.; Paccar, Inc., individually
`
`and through its divisions Kenworth Trucks and Peterbilt Motors; Pfizer,Inc.; Pensecola Mill
`
`Supply Co.; Pensacola Rubber & Gasket Co., Inc.; PittsburghComing Corporation; Pneumo
`
`Abex Corporation,individuallyand as successor to Abex Corporation;Premix-Marbletite Mfg.
`
`Co.; Proctor & Gamble Productions, Inc.; Proko Industries,Inc.; Publix Super Markets, Inc.;
`
`Quigley Co., Inc.; R&M Manufacturing Company; Rapid-American Corporation f/k/a Glen
`
`Alden Corporation;Rechtien International Trucks, Inc.; Republic Powdered Metals, Inc.; Riley
`
`Power, Inc.; Riley-Stoker; Sears, Roebuck & Co.; Rubber & Specialties,Inc.; SEPCO
`
`Corporation;Spirax Sarco, Inc.; R.T. Vanderbilt Company, Inc.; Shook and Fletcher;Shell Oil
`
`Company; Southern Wall Products, Inc.; Standard Motor Products d/b/a EIS Brake Parts; Steel
`
`Grip, Inc., f/k/a Industrial Gloves Co., f/k/a Steel Gr* Safety Apparel Co.; SterlingFluid
`
`Systems (USA) LLC; Stradley Auto Parts; Subaru of America, Inc.; Textured Coatings of
`
`America, Inc.; TH Agriculture& Nutrition, LLC; Supro Corporation;The Anchor Packing
`
`Company; The Parts Source d/b/a Ace Auto Parts, a Florida Corporation;Toyota Motor North
`
`America, Inc.; Trane US, Inc.; Southeast Toyota Distributors,LLC; Toyota Motor Sales,U.S.A..
`
`Inc.; TRW Automotive; U.S. Gypsum Company; U.S. Mineral; Unarco, Inc.; Union Carbide
`
`Corporation;Uniroyal,Inc.; Universal Refractories,Inc.; Vimasco Corp.; Voith Paper Fabrics
`
`Waycross Inc.; Volkswagen of America, Inc.; W. R. Grace & Company; Weil-Mclain
`
`9
`
`
`
`CASE NO.: 20-003820 CA-27
`
`Company, Inc.; W.A.S.I. (individuallyand as successor in interest to Whitney's Auto Supply
`
`Inc.;Wheeling Brake Block Manufacturing Co., Inc.;Worthington Corporation;Zurn Industries,
`
`Inc.; Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation;Riley Power, Inc.; Rockwell Automation, Inc;
`Isuzu Motors America, LLC; The Pep Boys- Manny, Moe & Jack, Inc.; H&V SpecialtiesCo.,
`
`Inc.; Lorillard Tobacco Company; Albany International Corp.; SPX Corp.; ALCOA Inc.;
`
`Armstrong International,Inc.; Asten Johnson; DAP, Inc.; Fairbanks Morse Pump Company;
`
`Flowserve US, Inc.;FMC Corporation;International Paper Company; ITT Corporation;Bell &
`
`Gossett Pumps; Kimberly-Clark; Saint-Gobain Abrasives, Inc.; Viking Pumps, Inc; Conwed
`
`Corporation; Cameron International Corporation; Emerson Electric Co.; Sandy Sansing
`
`Chevrolet; The Sherwin Williams Company; Warren Pumps Inc.;Western Auto Supply; Elliott
`
`Company; Finger Construction; Povia-Vallentine; Michigan Homes; Gilvesy Construction; Pace
`
`Builders;Anheuser Bush; St. Regis Paper Company; Gibbs Shipyard; Foley Paper Company;
`
`Houdal Duval & Wright; Reichhold Inc.; Rogers Corporation;Scneider Electrical USA Inc.;
`
`Kubota Manufacturing of Am;erica Corp.; Seimens Industry,Inc.; Carnival PLC; Carnival
`
`Corporation;Cunard Line Limited; Cunard Line Limited Co,; Cunard Line Limited, Inc.; and
`
`any and all manufacturers of asbestos-containingproducts to which Plaintiff claim Plaintiff was
`
`exposed. HONEYWELL reserves the rightto supplement this Affirmative Defense to identify
`
`additional parties.
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, because the products
`
`manufactured and sold by HONEYWELL conformed with available technological,medical,
`
`scientific and industrial state-of-the-art at all material times (seeFla. Stat. § 768.1257).
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of res judicata
`
`and collateral estoppel.
`
`10
`
`
`
`CASE NO.: 20-003820 CA-27
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff willingly,knowingly and voluntarilyassumed the risk of injury,if any,
`
`and therefore Plaintiff are barred from recovery or, alternatively,are barred from full recovery.
`
`16.
`
`This action is barred, in whole or in part, by the exclusivityprinc*les of the
`
`Florida Workers Compensation Act,
`
`or by the exclusivityprovisions of the workers
`
`compensation act of another jurisdiction.
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiff's action is barred, in whole or in part, in that the products manufactured
`
`by HONEYWELL were manufactured in accordance with local, state and federal statutes,
`
`regulations,and governmental specificationsand standards, and said government entities had
`
`actual or constructive knowledge with regard to the allegedhazards of the products. Said
`
`productsare accordinglynot defective or unreasonablydangerous(seeFla. Stat. § 768.1256).
`
`18.
`
`Plaintiff failed to make reasonable efforts to mitigate their own injuriesand
`
`daniages.
`
`19.
`
`At all times material hereto, HONEYWELL's products were reasonably fit for
`
`their intended purposes and were not defective or inherentlydangerous.
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`There was and is no unreasonable risk associated with HONEYWELL's products.
`
`The products manufactured by HONEYWELL emitted no asbestos
`
`or,
`
`alternatively,emitted asbestos in such minute amounts that any exposure of the Plaintiff to
`
`asbestos containingproductsmanufactured or sold by HONEYWELL, which exposure is denied,
`
`was not sufficient to establish to a reasonable degree of probabilitythat such exposure was a
`
`causative factor in Plaintiff's injuries.
`
`22.
`
`Plaintiff and/or other persons, without HONEYWELL's knowledge and approval,
`
`redesigned,modified, altered and misused HONEYWELL's products,if at all,contrary to
`
`instructions and contrary to custom and practiceof the industry. This redesign,modification,
`
`11
`
`
`
`CASE NO.: 20-003820 CA-27
`
`alteration and misuse so substantiallychanged the products'character that,if there were defects
`
`in the products,which is specificallydenied, such defects resulted solelyfrom the redesign,
`
`modification, alteration or other such treatment or change and not from any act or omission by
`
`HONEYWELL. Therefore, such defects, if any, were created by the Plaintiff and/or other
`
`persons and were the direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries.
`
`23.
`
`Plaintiff or other persons used HONEYWELL's products, if at all, in an
`
`unreasonable manner, not reasonablyforeseeable to HONEYWELL, and for a purpose for which
`
`the products were not intended, manufactured or designed. Plaintiff's alleged illnesses were
`
`directlyand proximately caused by such misuse and abuse and, therefore,Plaintiff's recovery
`
`herein is barred or must be diminished in proportionto the fault attributed to Plaintiff and/or
`
`other partiesor persons.
`
`24.
`
`HONEYWELL's products were sold to buyers who were sophisticatedand
`
`knowledgeable about their proper use.
`
`25.
`
`If
`
`Plaintiff used or were exposed to HONEYWELL's products, then
`
`HONEYWELL reasonablyrelied upon the sophisticatedemployers and supervisorsof Plaintiff
`
`in the sale of the products involved herein. Plaintiff's allegedillnesses were caused, in whole or
`
`in part, by the negligenceof Plaintiff themselves, or their employers or supervisors,in failingto
`
`provide safe and suitable conditions,in failingto properlytrain and supervisePlaintiff,in failing
`
`to warn Plaintiff of any dangers that the employers or supervisorsknew or should have known
`
`about, and in failingto provide adequate safetyequipment to Plaintiff. Such negligence bars
`
`recovery by Plaintiff againstHONEYWELL. HONEYWELL is not responsiblefor the failure of
`
`Plaintiff's employers or supervisorsto warn or take proper precautionswith regard to the use or
`
`misuse of such products.
`
`12
`
`
`
`CASE NO.: 20-003820 CA-27
`
`26.
`
`If Plaintiff used or was exposed to HONEYWELL's products,then Plaintiff were
`
`negligent in failingto demand and use proper safety equipment, in failingto use proper
`
`techniquesand methods in the use of the products,and in otherwise failingto exercise due care
`
`and caution.
`
`27.
`
`Any asbestos-containingproducts manufactured or suppliedby HONEYWELL
`
`and provided to Plaintiff's supervisors,if any, met with all requirements, standards and
`
`specificationsof said supervisors,as well as with pertinentindustrystandards, and pertinent
`
`standards,requirements,specificationsand/or regulationspromulgated by any federal,state and
`
`local governmental agencies.
`
`28.
`
`Plaintiff's alleged illnesses were caused directly,solely and proximately by
`
`allergies,sensitivities,medical conditions and idiosyncrasiespeculiarto Plaintiff,not found in
`
`the general public,and which were unknown, unknowable, or not reasonably foreseeable to
`
`HONEYWELL.
`
`29.
`
`Plaintiff's claims are barred,in whole or in part, because HONEYWELL did not
`
`owe any legal duty to Plaintiff;or if HONEYWELL owed any legal duty to them,
`
`HONEYWELL did not breach that duty.
`
`30.
`
`Although HONEYWELL denies that Plaintiff are entitled to recover any
`
`damages, any recovery for any injuriesor damages allegedby Plaintiff is limited by Fla. Stat. §
`
`768.21.
`
`31.
`
`HONEYWELL is not a jointtortfeasor with any other Defendant herein and,
`
`accordingly,HONEYWELL may not be jointlyand severallyliable with other Defendants.
`
`13
`
`
`
`CASE NO.: 20-003820 CA-27
`
`32.
`
`Any exposure of Plaintiff to HONEYWELL's product or products, which
`
`exposure is denied, was so minimal as to be insufficient to establish to a reasonable degree of
`
`probabilitythat the product or products caused his injuries.
`
`33.
`
`If any information regardingthe allegedhealth hazards of exposure to asbestos
`
`was in HONEYWELL's possession, such information was communicated to and in the
`
`possession of various unions, employers and governmental agencies which are charged with the
`
`responsibilityof disseminatingsuch information to Plaintiff.
`
`34.
`
`To the extent Plaintiff assert that HONEYWELL failed to give adequate warnings
`
`about its products, such claims are preempted by federal regulations,including those
`
`promulgatedby the OccupationalSafetyand Health Administration.
`
`35.
`
`Plaintiff's damages, if any, should be reduced by the amount of Plaintiff's and
`
`any survivor's reduced life expectancies,from sources and causes unrelated to Plaintiff's alleged
`
`exposures, if any, to HONEYWELL's products.
`
`36.
`
`If Plaintiff used products manufactured by HONEYWELL, those products were
`
`manufactured in accordance with the designsand specificationsof the United States of America
`
`or the State of Florida or other states, and Plaintiff' s claims againstHONEYWELL are there fore
`
`barred.
`
`37.
`
`Any asbestos containingproductsmanufactured, supplied,produced or otherwise
`
`placed in the stream of commerce by HONEYWELL were made so that the asbestos fibers were
`
`encapsulatedin other material which would prevent the release of alleged injury-producing
`
`levels of such fibers upon the use of said product.
`
`38.
`
`Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part because HONEYWELL's
`
`productsare not dangerousto an extent beyond that contemplatedby the ordinaryconsumer.
`
`14
`
`
`
`CASE NO.: 20-003820 CA-27
`
`39.
`
`While denying at all times that any products manufactured by HONEYWELL
`
`caused or contributed to the injuriesand damages allegedby Plaintiff,HONEYWELL avers that
`
`Plaintiff were warned or otherwise made aware of the allegeddangers o f the product and further,
`
`that any such dangers, if they existed, were not beyond those which would have been
`
`contemplatedby an ordinaryconsumer of the product.
`
`40.
`
`The number of different agents to which Plaintiff was exposed in and out of the
`
`workplace and the lack of definitive evidence as to the amount of actual exposure to each agent
`
`makes it impossible to determine, to a requisitedegree of legal certainty,the alleged causal
`
`connection,if any, between his injuriesand said agents.
`
`41.
`
`Plaintiff may not recover on the claims pled in the Complaint because the
`
`damages sought are too speculativeand remote.
`
`42.
`
`Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by §402A of the Restatement
`
`(Second) of Torts, comment i.
`
`43.
`
`To the extent that Plaintiff are relyingupon a theory of market share liabilityto
`
`support Plaintiff's strict liabilityclaim, this count should be dismissed because the theory of
`
`market share liabilitydoes not apply.
`
`44.
`
`To the extent Plaintiff's claims are based on an allegedduty to disclose the risks
`
`associated with asbestos products,such claims are barred because such risks,to the extent they
`
`exist,are and always have been commonly known.
`
`45.
`
`If Plaintiff have filed lawsuits in other jurisdictionsagainstsome or all of the
`
`same Defendants, Plaintiff are precludedfrom seekingdouble recovery.
`
`46.
`
`Plaintiff have released, settled,entered into an accord and satisfaction or
`
`otherwise compromised Plaintiff's claims herein and, accordingly,those claims are barred by
`
`15
`
`
`
`CASE NO.: 20-003820 CA-27
`
`operation of law.
`
`Alternatively,if Plaintiff accepts in the future compensation in partial
`
`settlement of those claims,HONEYWELL is entitled to a set-off.
`
`47.
`
`HONEYWELL is entitled to set-off,should any damages be awarded againstit,in
`
`the amount of damages or settlement amounts recovered by Plaintiff from other partiesor
`
`entities. HONEYWELL is also entitled to have any damages that may be awarded to Plaintiff
`
`reduced by the value of any collateral source.
`
`48.
`
`HONEYWELL hereby adopts by reference any and all Affirmative Defenses
`
`raised by any other Defendant in this cause.
`
`49.
`
`This Court lacks jurisdictionover the person and property of HONEYWELL, and
`
`therefore this case should be dismissed as to HONEYWELL.
`
`50.
`
`HONEYWELL reserves the rightto assert any additional affirmative defenses as
`
`may be disclosed duringthe course of additional investigationand discovery.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`HONEYWELL demands a jury by trial of all issues so triable.
`
`WHEREFORE, HONEYWELL respectfullyrequests that this case be dismissed and that
`
`judgment be entered in its favor and againstPlaintiff,togetherwith such further relief as the
`
`Court deems justand proper.
`
`Respectfullysubmitted,
`
`McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`
`/s/ Caroline M. Iovino
`ANTHONY N. UPSHAW
`aupshaw@imwe.com
`Florida Bar No. 861091
`CAROLINE M. IOVINO
`ciovino@mwe.com
`Florida Bar No. 181110
`
`16
`
`
`
`CASE NO.: 20-003820 CA-27
`
`MELISSA R. ALVAREZ
`malvarez@l)mwe.com
`Florida Bar No. 0820091
`333 SE 2,nd
`Avenue, Suite 4500
`Miami, FL 33131
`Tel: (305) 329-4431
`Fax: (305) 675-8031
`Counselfor Honeywell International Inc.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoingwas served on all
`
`counsel of record via File & ServeXpress and Florida Courts eFilingPortal this 22ind
`
`day of
`
`November, 2021.
`
`/s/ Caroline M. Iovino
`
`17
`
`
