Defendant, Union Oil Company of California, d/b/a/ UNOCAL (“Unocal”) responds to Plaintiffs’ allegations as follows. To the extent the allegations of the Amended Complaint are directed to Defendants other than Unocal, Unocal is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments and, therefore, denies them.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 1 are legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Unocal denies the allegations. By way of further response, for the reasons set forth in Unocal’s Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, Unocal specifically denies that it is subject to personal jurisdiction in this matter. 2. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 2 are legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Unocal denies the allegations. By way of further response, to the extent the allegations of this Paragraph are directed to Defendants other than Unocal, Unocal is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
3. Denied. Unocal is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in Paragraph 3. Therefore, Unocal denies the allegations. 4. Denied. Unocal is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in Paragraph 4. Therefore, Unocal denies the allegations. III. FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS 5. Denied. Unocal is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 5. Therefore, Unocal denies the allegations. By way of further response, Unocal specifically denies that Plaintiff Paul Simmons was exposed to any Unocal product or that he was exposed to benzene from any Unocal product.
6. Denied. Unocal is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 6. Therefore, Unocal denies the allegations. By way of further response, Unocal specifically denies that Plaintiff Paul Simmons was exposed to any Unocal product or that he was exposed to benzene from any Unocal product. 7. Denied. Unocal is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 7. Therefore, Unocal denies the allegations. By way of further response, Unocal specifically denies that Plaintiff Paul Simmons was exposed to any Unocal product or that he was exposed to benzene from any Unocal product and denies that it engaged in any wrongful conduct or caused Plaintiffs to suffer any damages. DEFENDANTS
8. Denied. Plaintiff’s allegations of Paragraph 8 constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Unocal denies the allegations. 9. Denied. Plaintiff’s allegations of Paragraph 9 constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Unocal denies the allegations. Further, Unocal specifically denies that Plaintiff Paul Simmons was exposed to any Unocal product or that he was exposed to benzene from any Unocal product, and it specifically denies that it is liable to Plaintiffs.
10. Subparts (a) through (r): Denied. The allegations of these subparagraphs are directed to Defendants other than Unocal, and Unocal is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments. Therefore, Unocal denies the allegations. Subpart (s): Admitted in part and denied in part. Unocal admits that it is a California corporation and that its principal place of business is located in California. Unocal admits that it is the successor in interest to American Mineral Spirits Company a/k/a AMSCO. The allegation that Unocal continuously, regularly and systematically conducts business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the County of Philadelphia is denied as a conclusion of law which requires no response. Unocal admits that it sold products that were used in some Safety Kleen products.
However, without providing a definition of “benzene containing” and/or “benzene-containing ingredients” Unocal is unable to admit or deny that any products it sold were “benzene-containing” or were “benzene-containing ingredients” and therefore Unocal denies those allegations. Further, Unocal denies that Plaintiff Paul Simmons was exposed to any Unocal product or that he was exposed to benzene from any Unocal product, and it denies that its products caused Plaintiffs to suffer any damages. Subparts (t) through (gg): Denied. The allegations of these subparagraphs are directed to Defendants other than Unocal, and Unocal is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments. Therefore, Unocal denies the allegations. COUNT I – NEGLIGENCE & GROSS NEGLIGENCE
11. Unocal incorporates its answers to all preceding allegations as though fully set forth. 12. Denied. Unocal denies that Plaintiff Paul Simmons was exposed to any Unocal product or that he was exposed to benzene from any Unocal product. Further, the allegations of Paragraph 12 constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Unocal denies the allegations.
13. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 13 constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Unocal denies the allegations. Unocal also specifically denies that Plaintiff Paul Simmons was exposed to any Unocal product or that he was exposed to benzene from any Unocal product. 14. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 14 constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, without specifying a relevant time period at issue, the levels of alleged exposure to benzene, or the specific disease at issue, Unocal is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph
14. Therefore, Unocal denies the allegations in Paragraph 14. 15. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 15 constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, without specificity to which products Plaintiffs refer, Unocal denies the allegations. Unocal also specifically denies that Plaintiff Paul Simmons was exposed to any Unocal product or that he was exposed to benzene from any Unocal product. 16. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 16 constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Unocal denies the allegations. Unocal also specifically denies that its products were carcinogenic, leukemogenic, inherently defective, ultra-hazardous, dangerous, deleterious, poisonous or otherwise highly harmful.
17. Denied. Unocal denies that that Plaintiff and his employers could not know, and did not know, of the health risks related to exposure to products used during his employment, to the extent there were any. By way of further response, Unocal specifically denies that Plaintiff Paul Simmons was exposed to any Unocal product or that he was exposed to benzene from any Unocal product 18. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 18 constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Unocal denies the allegations. Unocal also specifically denies that Plaintiff Paul Simmons was exposed to any Unocal product or that he was exposed to benzene from any Unocal product.
19. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 19 constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Unocal denies that that Plaintiff and his employers could not know, and did not know, of the health risks related to exposure to products used during his employment, to the extent there were any. By way of further response, Unocal specifically denies that Plaintiff Paul Simmons was exposed to any Unocal product or that he was exposed to benzene from any Unocal product. 20. The allegations of Paragraph 20 constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Unocal denies the allegations. Unocal also specifically denies that it had any duty to Plaintiffs.
21. Denied. The allegations of paragraph 21, including subparts (a) through (r) are legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Unocal denies the allegations. By way of further response, Unocal denies that it breached any duty, denies that was negligent, and denies that it was grossly negligent. 22. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 22 constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Unocal denies the allegations. By way of further response, Unocal is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 22, and Unocal thus denies the allegations. Unocal specifically denies that it caused Plaintiffs to suffer any damages.
23. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 23 constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Unocal denies the allegations. By way of further response, Unocal is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 23, and Unocal thus denies the allegations. Unocal specifically denies that it caused Plaintiffs to suffer any damages. 24. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 24 constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Unocal denies the allegations. By way of further response, Unocal is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 24, and Unocal thus denies the allegations. Unocal specifically denies that it caused Plaintiffs to suffer any damages.
25. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 25 constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Unocal denies the allegations. By way of further response, Unocal is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 25 and Unocal thus denies the allegations. Unocal specifically denies that it caused Plaintiffs to suffer any damages. WHEREFORE, Unocal demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs, and it requests that the Court enter an order dismissing Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint with prejudice, together with interests, costs and such other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate. Unocal also points the Court to its January 5, 2016 Order on Unocal’s Preliminary Objections, dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims for attorneys’ fees against Unocal.