NICOLE LORENZ v. ABB, INC. et al, 034986/2014, 322 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Rockland County Oct. 15, 2015) (2024)

`

`
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
`
`COUNTY OF ROCKLAND
`------------------------------------------------------------------------------X Index No:
`
`NICOLE LORENZ,
`
`Plaintiffls),
`
`-against-
`
`Date Filed:
`
`VERIFIED
`COMPLAINT
`
`ABB, INC.
`as successor in interest to ITE CIRCUIT
`
`BREAKERS, INC,
`BRYANT HEATING & COOLING SYSTEMS,
`
`CARRIER CORPORATION,
`CBS CORPORATION, f/k/a VIACOM INC,
`
`successor by merger to
`CBS CORPORATION, f/k/a
`WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION,
`
`COLUMBIA BOILER COMPANY OF POTTSTOWN,
`
`COOPER INDUSTRIES, LLC,
`CRANE CO,
`
`EATON CORPORATION, as successor -in-interest to
`CUTLER-HAMMER, INC,
`ECR INTERNATIONAL, CORP,
`ffk/a DUNKIRK RADIATOR CORP.,
`GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
`GEORGIA PACIFIC LLC,
`
`GOULD ELECTRONICS INC,
`GOULDS PUMPS, INC,
`LEVITON MANUFACTURING CO., INC,
`ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC,
`
`as successor by merger to
`ALLEN- BRADLEY COMPANY, LLC,
`
`SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC.
`formerly known as SQUARE D COMPANY,
`SIEMENS INDUSTRY, INC, successor in interest to
`SIEMENS ENERGY & AUTOMATION, INC.,,
`
`TACO, INC,
`UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION,
`
`UTICA BOILERS, INC,
`Individually and as successor to
`UTICA RADIATOR CORPORATION,
`
`WARREN PUMPS, LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`______________________________________________________________________________x
`
`

`

`
`
`Plaintiff(s), by his/her attorneys, upon information and belief, at all times hereinafter
`
`mentioned, allege as follows:
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff(s), NICOLE LORENZ, is a resident and citizen of the
`
`State of New Jersey;
`
`.
`
`2.
`
`The term "Defendants" shall apply to all named business and/or
`
`corporate entities and/or such company's predecessors and/or successors in interest more fully
`
`described below.
`
`3.
`
`The Defendants named herein have done business in this State
`
`and/or have conducted and/or transacted business in this state, have committed one or more
`
`tortious acts within this State and/or have otherwise performed acts within andfor without this
`
`State giving rise to injuries and losses within this State, which acts subject each Defendant to the
`
`jurisdiction of the Courts of this State.
`
`4.
`
`Defendant ABB, INC. as successor in interest to ITE CIRCUIT
`
`BREAKERS, INC, was and still is a duly organized domestic corporation doing business in the
`
`State of New York.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant BRYANT HEATING & COOLING SYSTEMS, was
`
`and still is a duly organized domestic corporation doing business in the State of New York.
`
`6.
`
`Defendant CARRIER CORPORATION, was and still is a duly
`
`organized domestic corporation doing business in the State of New York.
`
`7.
`
`Defendant CBS CORPORATION, flk/a VIACOM INC, successor
`
`by merger to CBS CORPORATION, f/k/a WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION,
`
`was and still is a duly organized domestic corporation doing business in the State of New York.
`
`8.
`
`Defendant COLUMBIA BOILER COMPANY OF POTTSTOWN,
`
`was and still is a duly organized domestic corporation doing business in the State of New York.
`
`

`

`
`
`9.
`
`Defendant COOPER INDUSTRIES, LLC, was and still is a duly
`
`organized domestic corporation doing business in the State of New York.
`
`10.
`
`' Defendant CRANE CO., was and still is a duly organized domestic
`
`corporation doing business in the State of New York.
`
`ll.
`
`Defendant EATON CORPORATION, as successor -in-interest to
`
`CUTLER-HAMMER, INC, was and still is a duly organized domestic corporation doing
`
`business in the State of New York.
`
`12.
`
`_
`
`Defendant ECR INTERNATIONAL, CORP, We DUNKIRK
`
`RADIATOR CORP, was and still is a duly organized domestic corporation doing business in the
`
`State of New York.
`
`13.
`
`Defendant GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, was and still is a
`
`duly organized domestic corporation doing business in the State of New York.
`
`14.
`
`Defendant GEORGIA PACIFIC LLC., was and still is a duly
`
`organized domestic corporation doing business in the State of New York.
`
`15.
`
`Defendant GOULD ELECTRONICS INC, was and still is a duly
`
`organized domestic corporation doing business in the State of New York.
`
`16.
`
`Defendant GOULDS PUMPS, INC, was and still is a duly
`
`organized domestic corporation doing business in the State of New York.
`
`1?.
`
`Defendant LEVITON MANUFACTURING CO., INC, was and
`
`still is a duly organized domestic corporation doing business in the State of New York.
`
`18.
`
`Defendant ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC, as successor by
`
`merger to ALLEN- BRADLEY COMPANY, LLC, was and still is a duly organized domestic
`
`corporation doing business in the State of New York.
`
`

`

`l9.
`
`Defendant SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC. formerly known
`
`as SQUARE D COMPANY, was and still is a duly organized domestic corporation doing
`
`business in the State of New York.
`
`20.
`
`Defendant SIEMENS INDUSTRY, INC, successor in interest to
`
`SIEMENS ENERGY & AUTOMATION, INC.,, was and still is a duly organized domestic
`
`corporation doing business in the State of New York.
`
`21.
`
`Defendant TACO, INC, was and still is a duly organized domestic
`
`corporation doing business in the State of New York.
`
`22.
`
`Defendant UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, was and still is a
`
`duly organized domestic corporation doing business in the State of New York.
`
`23.
`
`Defendant UTICA BOILERS, INC., Individually and as successor
`
`to UTICA RADIATOR CORPORATION, was and still is a duly organized domestic corporation
`
`doing business in the State of New York.
`
`24.
`
`Defendant WARREN PUMPS, LLC, was and still is a duly
`
`organized domestic corporation doing business in the State of New York.
`
`AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
`
`25.
`
`Plaintiff(s) repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every
`
`allegation contained hereinabove in paragraphs "1" through "24" inclusive with the same force
`
`and effect as if hereinafter set forth at length.
`
`26.
`
`Plaintiff continuously worked with and was exposed to the
`
`asbestos and asbestos-containing products and materials mined, manufactured, processed,
`
`

`

`imported, converted, compounded, installed, or sold by the defendants. During the course of his
`
`employment, plaintiff was exposed to the defendants' asbestos and asbestos containing materials
`
`to which exposure directly and proximately caused him to develop an asbestos related disease.
`
`27.
`
`Upon information and belief, the defendants mined, processed,
`
`manufactured, designed, fabricated, fashioned, packaged, distributed, sold andfor delivered
`
`various asbestos-containing products and materials and/or asbestos containing equipment to
`
`which plaintiff was exposed during the period of time he was employed.
`
`28.
`
`At all times pertinent hereto the defendants acted through their
`
`duly authorized agents, servants, and employees, who were then and there acting in the course of
`
`and scope of their employment and in furtherance of the business of said defendants.
`
`29.
`
`During the scope and course of plaintiff’s employment he was
`
`necessarily and unavoidably exposed to and did inhale and ingest dust and/or asbestos fibers
`
`emanating from the asbestos and asbestos-containing products and/or equipment of the
`
`defendants.
`
`30.
`
`As a proximate result of the exposure to the asbestos and asbestos
`
`containing products and/or equipment of these defendants, and the unavoidable and necessary
`
`inhalation of said asbestos, plaintiff developed an asbestos related disease.
`
`31.
`
`At all relevant times, the defendants knew or should have known
`
`that the asbestos and asbestos—containing products and materials which they were providing were
`
`inherently dangerous beyond the expectations of the ordinary user or handler who would come
`
`into contact with these products.
`
`32.
`
`The defendants negligently failed to pmvide any or adequate and
`
`proper warnings as to the dangers of the use of said products and materials to those persons
`
`using, handling, or coming into contact therewith.
`
`

`

`33.
`
`The defendants negligently failed to warn and failed to provide
`
`adequate instructions of any potentially safer handling methods which should have been utilized
`
`by users, handlers, or other persons who were reasonably and foreseeably known to come into
`
`coutact with the asbestos-containing products andfor equipment and materials.
`
`34.
`
`The defendants negligently failed to investigate and/or test for the
`
`hazards of asbestos products and materials.
`
`35.
`
`To the extent that some defendants may have inquired as to the
`
`hazards of said materials, the defendants negligently failed to convey whatever knowledge of
`
`dangers, health hazards, or safety precautions they may have had to the users and consumers of
`
`their asbestos-containing products.
`
`36.
`
`The defendants negligently failed to develop, make available
`
`and/or provide nonhazardous substitutes which could have been used for the same purpose as
`
`their asbestos-containing products and/or equipment.
`
`37.
`
`The defendants negligently failed to design asbestos-containing
`
`products and/or equipment in such a fashion as to prohibit or minimize the release of airborne,
`
`inhalable and ingestible asbestos dust and/or fibers.
`
`38.
`
`As a direct result of working with or near the asbestos materials
`
`supplied by the defendants with the consequent unavoidable and necessary inhalation and
`
`ingestion of said asbestos fibers, plaintiff developed an asbestos related disease and as a result
`
`has been disabled. Plaintiff has suffered and endured great pain and mental anguish and suffered
`
`a loss of enjoyment of his life.
`
`39.
`
`The asbestos related disease of the plaintiff was proximately
`
`caused by the defendants' negligent actions in that, inter iia, they negligently designed,
`
`processed, manufactured, packaged, distributed, delivered andfor installed the asbestos-
`
`containing products to which the plaintiff was exposed, all of which evidenced a callous,
`
`

`

`reckless, wanton, oppressive, malicious, willful, depraved indifference to the health, safety and
`
`welfare of the rights of others and more particularly the rights of the plaintiff, all of which
`
`defendants had due and timely notice.
`
`40.
`
`Defendants negligently failed to render warnings, advise, give
`
`instructions andfor information to plaintiff so that he may have made an adequate and informed
`
`judgment as to the use of said products and were otherwise negligent.
`
`41.
`
`The defendants individually and as a group since the early 1900's
`
`have possessed medical and scientific data which clearly indicates that their asbestos-containing
`
`products are hazardous to health; and prompted by pecuniary motives, the defendants
`
`individually and collectively ignored and failed to act upon said medical and scientific data and
`
`conspired to deprive the public and particularly the users including plaintiff of said medical and
`
`scientific data and therefore deprived the public at large and the plaintiff in particular, of the
`
`opportunity of free choice as to whether or not to expose himself to the asbestos and asbestos-
`
`containing products of said defendants; and further willfully, intentionally and wantonly failed to
`
`warn plaintiff of the serious bodily harm which would result from the inhalation of their asbestos
`
`fibers and the dust from their asbestos products.
`
`42.
`
`The defendants utter failure to use reasonable care under all the
`
`circ*mstances is the proximate cause of plaintiffs asbestos related disease.
`
`43.
`
`44.
`
`As a result ofthe foregoing plaintiff was seriously injured.
`
`By reason of the foregoing, said plaintiff(s) has been damaged as
`
`against each defendant in the sum of TEN MILLION DOLLARS ($10,000,000.00) in
`
`compensatory damages and TEN MILLION DOLLARS ($10,000,000.00) in punitive damages.
`
`AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
`
`

`

`
`
`45.
`
`Plaintiffls) repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every
`
`allegation contained in paragraphs "1 " through "44", with the same force and effect as if
`
`hereinafter set forth at length.
`
`46.
`
`The defendants expressly and impliedly warranted that said
`
`asbestos and asbestos-containing materials were of good and merchantable quality and fit for
`
`intended use.
`
`47.
`
`The implied/express warranties made by the defendants that their
`
`asbestos and asbestos-containing materials were of good and merchantable quality and fit for
`
`their particular use were breached in that certain harmful, poisonous and deleterious matter was
`
`given off into the atmosphere where plaintiff carried out his duties working with and around
`
`asbestos and asbestos-containing materials.
`
`48.
`
`As a direct and/or proximate cause of the breach of the
`
`impliedfexpress warranties of good and merchantable quality and fitness for the particular use,
`
`plaintiff deveIOped an asbestos related disease and was caused to endure great pain and suffering.
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`Plaintiff was Seriously injured.
`
`By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff(s) has been damaged as
`
`against each defendant in the sum of TEN MILLION DOLLARS ($10,000,000.00) in
`
`compensatory damages and TEN MILLION DOLLARS ($10,000,000.00) in punitive damages.
`
`AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
`
`51.
`
`Plaintiff(s) repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every
`
`allegation coritained in paragraphs "1" through "50", with the same force and effect as if
`
`hereinafter set forth at length.
`
`

`

`52.’
`
`At all relevant times, defendants, as part oftheir business,
`
`manufactured, designed, supplied, developed, fashioned, packaged, distributed, delivered,
`
`installed, sold, and/or otherwise placed asbestos and asbestos products and/or equipment and
`
`materials into the stream of commerce in a defective, unsafe and inherently dangerous condition
`
`and the products and materials were expected to and did reach users, handlers and persons
`
`coming into contact with the said products and materials without substantial change in the
`
`condition in which they were sold.
`
`53.
`
`The asbestos-containing products andfor equipment sold by the
`
`defendants did not contain a warning and/or information concerning the dangers to persons
`
`using, handling or coming into contact therewith.
`
`54.
`
`The asbestos-containing products and/or equipment sold by the
`
`defendants did not contain adequate andfor correct wamings and instructions of safety
`
`precautions to be observed by users, handlers, and persons who would reasonably and
`
`foreseeably come into contact with said products and/or equipment.
`
`55,
`
`That at all times herein, the products andlor equipment being used
`
`herein were being employed for the purposes and in the manner normally intended and the
`
`defects of the said products were not discoverable by the plaintiff bythe exercise of reasonable
`
`care, nor were the dangers of said products perceivable on the part of the plaintiff and the
`
`plaintiff would not have otherwise averted his injury by the exercise of reasonable care.
`
`56.
`
`Said asbestos and asbestos—containing materials were defective and
`
`dangerous at the time they were sold as the products and/or equipment contained a latent defect
`
`and were harmful, poisonous and deleterious when introduced into the atmosphere where the
`
`plaintiff carried on his work duties.
`
`

`

`57.
`
`The defendants selling their asbestos and asbestos-containing
`
`materials in a defective and dangerous condition to the users thereof, such as the plaintiff, are
`
`Strictly liable to the plaintiff for any illness resulting from said defective products.
`
`58.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of the sale by the defendants to
`
`plaintiff‘s employers, andfor other contractors, of said defective and unreasonably dangerous
`
`products and/or equipment the plaintiff sustained serious and permanent injuries and suffered a
`
`loss of enjoyment of his life.
`
`59.
`
`60.
`
`Plaintiff was seriously injured.
`
`That by reason of the foregoing, plaintiff(s) has been damaged as
`
`against each defendant in the sum of TEN MILLION DOLLARS ($10,000,000.00) in
`
`compensatory damages and TEN MILLION DOLLARS ($10,000,000.00) in punitive damages.
`
`AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`AGAINST ALL OTHER DEFENDANTS
`
`61.
`
`P1aintiff(s) repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every
`
`allegation contained in paragraphs ”1" through "60" and inclusive with the same force and effect
`
`as if hereinafter set forth at length.
`
`62.
`
`Defendants, collectively and individually manufactured, designed,
`
`Selected, assembled, in5pected, tested, maintained for sale, marketed, distributed, installed, sold,
`
`supplied, delivered and promoted asbestos and asbestos-containing products which were
`
`generically similar and fungible in nature; and placed such products into the stream of interstate
`
`commerce.
`
`63.
`
`Plaintiff, through no fault of his own, may not be able to identify
`
`all the asbestos-containing products or their manufacturers, marketers, sellers, distributors, or
`
`promoters due to the generic similarity and fungible nature of such products as produced by
`
`these defendants.
`
`

`

`64.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of the defendants‘ activities
`
`plaintiff was exposed to asbestos-containing products and sustained injuries and damage as
`
`described above.
`
`65.
`
`By reason of the abovementioned, defendants are jointly and
`
`severally liable to the plaintiff for the injuries and damages sustained by him as described above
`
`by virtue of industry-wide or enterprise liability.
`
`66.
`
`In the alternative, defendants herein represent a subSIantial share of
`
`the asbestos—containin g product market within the area in which plaintiff was employed.
`
`67.
`
`Defendants manufactured, designed, selected, assembled,
`
`marketed, distributed, sold, supplied, delivered and promoted asbestos-containing products of the
`
`kind and nature to which plaintiff was exposed during the period of his employment.
`
`68.
`
`Independent of the above, defendants are also jointly and severally
`
`liable to plaintiff, as the limitations of liability articulated in New York CPLR section 1601 do
`
`not apply to the plaintiffs cause of action by operation of the exceptions set forth in New York
`
`CPLR section 1602, which state that the limitations shall:
`
`(7)
`
`(8)
`
`(10)
`
`Not apply to any person held liable for causing claimant's
`injury by having acted with reckless disregard for the safety
`of others.
`
`Not apply to any person held liable by reason of the
`applicability of article ten of the labor law.
`
`Not apply to any person held liable in a product liability
`action where the manufacturer of the product is not a party
`to the action and the claimant establishes by a
`preponderance of the evidence that jurisdiction over the
`manufacturer could not with due diligence be obtained and
`that if the manufacturer were a party to the action, liability
`for claimant's injury would have been imposed upon said
`manufacturer by reason of the doctrine of strict liability, to
`the extent of the equitable share of such manufacturer.
`
`

`

`(11)
`
`Not apply to any parties found to have acted knowingly or
`intentionally, and in concert, to cause the acts or failures
`upon which liability is based; provided, however, that
`nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to create,
`impair, alter, limit, modify, enlarge, abrogate, or restrict
`any theory of liability upon which said parties may be held
`liable to the claimant.
`
`69.
`
`Therefore, defendants are jointly and severally liable to the
`
`plaintiff for the injuries and damages sustained by him which were directly and proximately
`
`caused by plaintiffs exposure to asbestos-centaining products and promoted by the defendants
`
`based 0n the several defendants pro rata market share within the market described herein.
`
`70.
`
`71.
`
`Plaintiff was seriously injured.
`
`By reason of the foregoing, plaintiffls) has been damaged as
`
`against each defendant in the sum of TEN MILLION DOLLARS ($10,000,000.00) in
`
`compensatory damages and TEN MILLION DOLLARS ($10,000,000h0) in punitive damages.
`
`AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`AS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
`
`72.
`
`P1aintiff(s) repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every
`
`allegation contained in paragraphs “1" through “ 71" with the same force and effect as if
`
`hereinafter set forth at length.
`
`73.
`
`Defendants, their subsidiaries, agents and/or servants were/are
`
`owners, possessors, lessors, lessees, operators, coutrollers, managers, supervisors, general
`
`contractors, subcontractors, architects, engineers or were otherwise responsible for the
`
`maintenance, control and/or safety at the premises on which plaintiff was lawfully frequenting
`
`and exposed to asbestos.
`
`74.
`
`Defendants, their subsidiaries, agents, andfor servants had a legal
`
`duty to maintain and keep those premises in a safe and proper condition.
`
`

`

`75.
`
`At all times relevant hereto, plaintiff was lawfully frequenting the
`
`premises on which plaintiff was exposed to asbestos.
`
`76.
`
`'
`
`At all times relevant hereto, plaintiffs presence on the premises on
`
`which plaintiff was exposed to asbestos was knOWn or knowable to the defendants.
`
`77.
`
`Defendants, their subsidiaries, agents, and/0r servants negligently
`
`created, caused and/or permitted to exist, an unsafe, hazardous andlor dangerous condition to
`
`exist by specifying, using and/or permitting the presence of asbestos and/or asbestos containing
`
`products, equipment andfor fixtures at the premises where the plaintiff was exposed to asbestos.
`
`78.
`
`Defendants, their subsidiaries, agents, and/or servants negligently
`
`permitted a defective, hazardous andlcr dangerous condition to remain uncorrected and/or
`
`unchanged at the premises at which the plaintiff was present and exposed to asbestos.
`
`79.
`
`Defendants, their subsidiaries, agents, and/or servants knew, or
`
`should have known, of the existence of the unsafe, hazardous andfor dangerous condition and
`
`failed to correct this dangerous condition.
`
`80.
`
`Defendants, their subsidiaries, agents, and/0r servants knew, or
`
`should have known, of the existence ofthe unsafe, hazardous and/0r dangerous condition and
`
`failed to warn the plaintiff of the existence of the dangerous condition and/or provide the
`
`plaintiff the means to protect himself from this dangerous condition.
`
`81.
`
`Defendants, their subsidiaries, agents, and/or servants violated the
`
`common law duty to maintain a safe work place for individuals, such as plaintiff, who were
`
`working in, lawfully frequenting and exposed to asbestos on premises OWned, maintained and/or
`
`controlled by them.
`
`82.
`
`Defendants,
`
`their subsidiaries, agents, andfor servants violated
`
`New York Labor Law sections 200 et seq., including, but not limited to, section 200 and 241 (6)
`
`and the New York Industrial Code 12 NYCRR section 12 and 23 by their failure to provide a
`
`

`

`safe workplace, including, but not limited to, failing to make reasonable inspections to detect
`
`dangerous conditions and hidden defects and to warn of dangers of which they knew or should
`
`have known, and by their failure to provide reasonable and adequate prorection for individuals,
`
`such as plaintiff, who was lawfully at a construction site owned, maintained and/or controlled by
`
`them. Inter alia:
`
`(a)
`
`their subsidiaries, agents and/or servants violated the New
`Defendants,
`York State Industrial Code section 12, subsection 1.4, which states that:
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`All operations or processes which produce air contaminants shall
`be so conducted that the generation, release or dissemination of
`such contaminants is kept at the lowest practicable level in
`compliance with this Part (rule) using proper control or protective
`procedures and equipment.
`
`Every employer shall effect compliance with the
`(1)
`provisions of this Part (rule) relating to the prevention and removal
`of air contaminants, the storage and use of flammable liquids and
`the provision, installation, operation and maintenance of control or
`protective equipment.
`
`(2)
`
`(3)
`
`(4)
`
`Every employer shall instruct his employees as to
`the hazards of their work, the use of the control or
`protective equipment and their responsibility for
`complying with the provisions of this Part (rule).
`
`No employer shall suffer or permit an employee to
`work in a room in which their exist dangerous air
`contaminants in a work atmosphere.
`
`No employer shall suffer or permit dangerous air
`contaminants to accumulate or remain in any place
`or area subject to the provisions of this Part (rule).
`
`(b)
`
`their subsidiaries, agents, and/or servants violated New York
`Defendants,
`State Industrial Code section 12, subsection 1.5, which states that:
`
`(a)
`
`(1)
`
`Personal respiratory protective equipment shall not
`be used in lieu of other control methods, except for
`protection of employees in emergencies and in the
`repair, maintenance or adjustment or equipment or
`processes, or upon specific approval by the board
`
`(C)
`
`Defendants, their subsidiaries, agents, and/or servants violated New York
`State Industrial Code section 12, subsection 1.6 (formerly section 12.9),
`which states that:
`
`

`

`(a)
`
`One or more of the following methods shall be used to prevent,
`remove or control dangerous air contaminants:
`
`(l)
`
`(2)
`
`(3)
`(4)
`(5)
`(6)
`
`Substitution ofa material or a method which does not
`produce dangerous air contaminants.
`Local exhaust ventilation conforming to the requirements
`of Industrial Code Part (Rule No.) 18.
`
`Dilution ventilation.
`Application of water or other wetting agent.
`Enclosure or isolation
`other methods approved by the board.
`
`(d)
`
`As evidence of defendants', their subsidiaries', agents' andfor servants'
`violation of the abovementioned sections of the New York State Industrial
`
`Code, defendants, their subsidiaries, agents andlor servants permitted
`asbestos dust concentrations above the Smppcf threshold limit value
`specified in section 12, subsection 3.1, without providing the required
`reasonable and adequate protective measures, thereby rendering the
`premises unsafe.
`
`(e)
`
`Defendants, their subsidiaries, agents and/or servants violated section 23-
`3.2(d) of the New York State Industrial Code which states that:
`
`(d)
`
`Provision shall be made at every demolition site to control the
`amount of airborne dust resulting from demolition operations by
`wetting the debris and other materials with appropriate spraying
`agents or by other means.
`
`83.
`
`Defendants, their subsidiaries, agents, andfor servants negligently
`
`designed the construction of the premises on which plaintiff was lawfully frequenting and
`
`exposed to asbestos by specifying the use of asbestos containing products, equipment and/or
`
`fixtures at the premises.
`
`84.
`
`Defendants, their subsidiaries, agents, and/or Servants negligently
`
`breached their contractual duty to the plaintiff, third-party beneficiary, to provide for the health,
`
`welfare and/or safety of those, such as plaintiff, lawfully frequenting the premises on which
`
`plaintiff was exposed to asbestos.
`
`
`
`

`

`85.
`
`Defendant's, their subsidiaries, agents and/or servants, breached
`
`their warranty to provide for the health, welfare, and/or safety of those, such as plaintiff lawfully
`
`frequenting the premises on which plaintiff was expOSed to asbestos.
`
`86.
`
`Defendants, their subsidiaries, agents and/or Servants breached the
`
`duty imposed on possessors of land, contractors and subcontractors and codified in the
`
`Restatement ofthe Law, Second, Torts, including, but not limited to, sections 343, 410, 411, 412,
`
`413, 414, 414A, 416, 422, 424 and 427.
`
`87.
`
`These acts and/or omissions of the defendants constitute willful
`
`misconduct and conscious disregard of the health of the public, including the plaintiff.
`
`88.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of the defendants‘ conduct,
`
`plaintiff was exposed to asbestos and asbestos containing products and sustained serious injuries
`
`and described above.
`
`89.
`
`90.
`
`Plaintiff was seriously injured.
`
`By reason of the aforegoing, plaintiff has been damaged as against
`
`each defendant in the sum of TEN MILLION DOLLARS ($0,000,000.00) in compensatory
`
`damages and TEN MILLION DOLLARS (51000000000) in punitive damages.
`
`AS AND FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE
`OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS
`
`91.
`
`Plaintiff(s) repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every
`
`allegation contained in paragraphs "1" through "90" with the same force and effect as if
`
`hereinafter set forth at length.
`
`92.
`
`Plaintiff husbandfwife is a resident of the state alleged in the
`
`individual complaint. Plaintiff husband/wife was and still is the lawful husband/wife of plaintiff.
`
`
`
`

`

`93.
`
`By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff husband/wife has been
`
`deprived of the services and consortium of her (his) husband/wife including but not limited to
`
`her (his) support, services, love, companionship, affection, society, physical relations and solace,
`
`and she suffered a loss of enjoyment of life, all to her (his) damage as against each defendant in
`
`the sum of FIVE MILLION DOLLARS ($5,000,000.00).
`
`WHEREFORE, plaintiff(s) demand judgment against the defendants jointly and
`
`severally on each cause of action with interest together with costs and disbursem*nts in this
`
`action.
`
`Dated: October 27, 2014
`
`New York, New York
`
`ReSpectfully submitted,
`
`WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC.
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff(s)
`700 Broadway
`New York, NY 10003
`
`(212) 558—5500
`
`

`

`STATE OF NEW YORK
`
`)
`
`COUNTY OF NEW YORK )
`
`The undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the Courts of New York State,
`
`shows:
`
`Deponent is an associate Of the firm WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C., Counsel for the
`
`p1aintiff(s) in the within action; deponent has read the foregoing Summons and Verified
`
`Complaint and knows the contents thereof; the same is true to deponent's own knowledge, except
`
`as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and that as to those
`
`matters deponent believes it to be true. This verification is made by deponent and not by
`
`plaintiff(s) because plaintiff(s) resides outside of the County of New York where the deponent
`
`maintains his office.
`
`Dated: October 27, 2014
`New York, New York
`
`WEITZ &_LUXENBERG, PC.
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff(s)
`
`By:
`
`IS/
`ERIK JACOBS
`
`
`
`

`

`Index No. (33H ng—H
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
`
`COUNTY OF ROCKLAND
`
`NICOLE LORENZ,
`
`-against-
`
`A1313, INC.
`as successor in interest to [TB CIRCUIT
`
`BREAKERS, INC, et. al.,
`
`Attorney(s) for
`
`Attorneys for PLAINTIFFS
`700 Broadway
`New York, NY 10003
`212-558-5500
`_.._..._.....____..__._.._._._._...__.__._______.n._________________-_—....___..__________________._.________________._____
`
`PIaintiff(s),
`
`Defendants.
`
`WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
`
`To
`
`Attorney(s) for
`
`Service of a copy of the within
`is hereby admitted.
`
`Dated,
`
`October 27, 2014
`
`

`

`SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
`
`COUNTY OF ROCKLAND
`---------_----_-------_--------_;.............................................)(
`
`NICOLE LORENZ,
`
`Plaintiff(s),
`
`FULL CAPTION
`RIDER
`
`-against-
`
`ABB, INC.
`as successor in interest to ITE CIRCUIT
`
`BREAKERS, INC,
`BRYANT HEATING & COOLING SYSTEMS,
`
`CARRIER CORPORATION,
`
`CBS CORPORATION, f/kfa VIACOM INC,
`
`successor by merger to
`CBS CORPORATION, fi’k/a
`WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION,
`
`COLUMBIA BOILER COMPANY OF POTTSTOWN,
`COOPER INDUSTRIES, LLC,
`
`CRANE CO.,
`EATON CORPORATION, as successor -in-interest to
`CUTLER-HAMMER, INC,
`
`ECR INTERNATIONAL, CORR,
`f/k/a DUNKIRK RADIATOR CORR,
`GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
`GEORGIA PACIFIC LLC.,
`
`GOULD ELECTRONICS INC,
`GOULDS PUMPS, INC,
`LEVITON MANUFACTURING CO., INC,
`ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC,
`
`as successor by merger to
`ALLEN- BRADLEY COMPANY, LLC,
`SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC.
`
`formerly knowu as SQUARE D COMPANY,
`SIEMENS INDUSTRY, INC, successor in interest to
`SIEMENS ENERGY & AUTOMATION, INC.,,
`
`TACO, INC,
`UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION,
`
`UTICA BOILERS, INC,
`
`Individually and as successor to
`UTICA RADIATOR CORPORATION,
`
`WARREN PUMPS, LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`..............................................................................x
`
`

`

`
`
`NYSCEF - Rockland County Supreme Court
`
`‘ Confirmation Notice
`
`
`
`This is an automated response for Supreme Court I Court of Claims cases. The NYSCEF site has
`received your electronically filed document(s) for:
`
`NICOLE LORENZ - v. - ABB, INC.
`
`as successor in interest to ITE CIRCUIT
`al
`
`BREAKERS. NC, at
`
`03498612014
`
`DocUments Received
`
`Doc #
`1
`
`Document Type
`SUMMONS + COMPLAINT
`
`Motion #
`
`Date Received
`1012812014 11:20 AM
`
`Filing User
`
`Name:
`
`ERIK JACOBS
`
`Phone #:
`Fax #:
`
`212-558-5500
`
`E-mail Address:
`Work Address:
`
`bclinton@weitzlux.com
`700 BROADWAY
`NEW YORK, NY 10003
`
`E-mail Notifications
`
`An e-mail notification regarding this filing has been sent to the following address(es) on
`10128120141120 AM:
`
`JACOBS, ERIK - bclinton@weitz|ux.com
`
`NOTE: If submitting a working copy of this filing to the court, you must include
`as a notification page firmly affixed thereto a copy of this Confirmation Notice.
`
`
`Paul Piperato, Rockiand County Clerk - Piperatp@co.rockland.ny.us
`Phone: 845-638-5094 Fax: 845-638-5073 Websi