Preview
SUMMONS
CIVIL (except family actions) SUPERIOR COURT X ONE OF THE FOLLOWING
JD-CV-1 Amount, legal interest or pro-
GEN. STAT. 51-346, 51-347, 51-349, 51-350, 52,-45a perty in demand, exclusive of
52-48, 52-259 interest and costs is
PR. BK. 49, 63, 66 INSTRUCTIONS less than $2,500
$2,500 through $14,999.99
1. Prepare on typewriter: sign original summons (top sheet) and conform copies of the summons (sheets, 2, 3 and 4). $15,000 or more
2. If there are more than two defendants, prepare or photocopy conformed summons for each additional defendant.
3. Attach the original summons to the original complaint, and attach a copy of the summons to each copy of the complaint. Also, (X if applicable)
if there are more than 2 plaintiffs or 4 defendants prepare form JD-CV-2 and attach it to the original and all copies of the com- Claiming other relief in addi-
plaint. tion to or in lieu of money
4. After service has been made by officer, file original papers and officers return with the clerk of the court. damages.
5. The party recognized to pay costs must appear personally before the authority taking the recognizance.
6. Do not use this form for actions in which an attachment, garnishment or replevy is being sought. See Practice Book Section 49
for other exceptions.
TO: Any proper officer; BY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT, you are hereby commanded to make due and legal service
of this Summons and attached Complaint.
JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT (Town in which writ is returnable)(Gen. Stat. 51-349) RETURN DATE (Mo., day, yr)
HOUSING SESSION
HOUSING SESSION G.A.G.A.
_______ Bridgeport
ADDRESS OF CLERK OF COURT WHERE WRIT AND OTHER PAPERS SHALL BE FILED (GEN. STAT. 51-347, 51-350)(No., st., town & zip code) CASE TYPE(From Judic. Dept. case type list-see back)
1061 Main Street, Bridgeport, CT, 06604 (203) 579-6527 Major T Minor 20
NOTE: Individual’s Names: NAME AND ADDRESS OF EACH PARTY PTY
PARTIES Last, First, Middle Initial (No., street, town & zip code) Form JD-CV-2 attached NO
t
FIRST NAMED Phyllis Serra, Executor of the Estate of Richard Serra and Phyllis Serra, Surviving Spouse, 33 Cedars
PLAINTIFF Road, North Stonington, CT 06359 01
Additional
Plaintiff 02
FIRST NAMED Himmel Media LLC, Corporate Creations Network Inc., 3411 Silverside Road, Suite 104, Wilmington, DE
DEFENDANT 19810 50
Additional Himmel Management Co. LLC, Jeffrey S. Himmel, C/O MWE, 1500 RXR Plaza-West Tower, Uniondale, FL
Defendant 11556 51
Additional Himmel Management Co. LLC, C/O MWE, 1500 RXR Plaza-West Tower, Uniondale, NY 11556
Defendant 52
Additional
Defendant 53
NOTICE TO EACH DEFENDANT
1. You are being sued. 6. The Appearance form may be obtained at the above Court
2. This paper is a Summons in a lawsuit. address.
3. The Complaint attached to these papers states the claims that
each Plaintiff is making against you in this lawsuit. 7. If you believe that you have insurance that may cover the
4. To respond to this summons, or to be informed of further claim that is being made against you in this lawsuit, you
proceedings, you or your attorney must file a form called an should immediately take the Summons and Complaint to
Appearance with the Clerk of the above named Court at the your insurance representative.
above Court address on or before the second day after
the above Return Date. 8. If you have questions about the Summons and Complaint,
5. If you or your attorney do not file a written Appearance form you should consult an attorney promptly. The Clerk of Court
on time, a judgment may be entered against you by default. is not permitted to give advice on legal questions.
DATE SIGNED Commissioner of Superior Court TYPE IN NAME OF PERSON SIGNING AT LEFT
04/05/2024 s/417342 Assistant Clerk Christopher Meisenkothen
FOR THE PLAINTIFF(S) ENTER THE APPEARANCE OF:
NAME AND ADDRESS OF ATTORNEY, LAW FIRM, OR PLAINTIFF IF PRO SE (No., street, town & zip code) TELEPHONE NO. JURIS NO. (If atty. or law firm)
Early, Lucarelli, Sweeney & Meisenkothen, LLC 203-777-7799 409080
265 Church Street, 11th Floor, New Haven, CT 06510
NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON RECOGNIZED TO PROSECUTE IN THE AMOUNT OF $250 (No., street, town & zip code) SIGNATURE OF PLAINTIFF IF PRO SE
Alphonse Ippolito, Esq., 388 Orange St., New Haven, CT, 06511
NO. PLFS. NO. DEFS. NO. CNTS. SIGNED (Official taking recognizance, x proper box Commissioner of Superior For Court Use Only
Court FILE DATE
1 2 3 s/417342 Assistant Clerk
IF THIS SUMMONS IS SIGNED by a CLERK:
a. The signing has been done so that the Plain- advice in connection with any lawsuit
tiff(s) will not be denied access to the courts.
b. It is the responsibility of the Plaintiff(s) to d. The Clerk signing this Summons at the re-
see that service is made in the manner pro- quest of the Plaintiff(s) is not responsible
vided by law. in any way for any errors or omissions in
c. The Clerk is not permitted to give any legal the Complaint, or the service thereof.
I hereby certify I have read SIGNED (Pro se plaintiff) DATE SIGNED DOCKET NO.
and understand the above.
SUMMONS, Civil
IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION
ASB-FBT-CV23-6124729-S : SUPERIOR COURT
:
PHYLLIS SERRA, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF : J.D. OF FAIRFIELD
RICHARD SERRA and PHYLLIS SERRA, SURVIVING :
SPOUSE :
:
:
VS. : AT BRIDGEPORT
:
BASF CATALYSTS LLC; :
H.B. FULLER COMPANY, individually and as successor- :
in-interest to Benjamin Foster and Technical Adhesives; :
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; :
SUD-CHEMIE, INC., f/k/a as United Catalysts, Inc., as the :
successor-in-interest to Southern Talc Company; :
UNION CARBIDE CORP., individually and as successor- :
in-interest to Amchem Corporation, Benjamin Foster :
Company and The Bakelite Company; :
VANDERBILT MINERALS, individually and as :
successor-in-interest to RT Vanderbilt Co., Gouverneur :
Talc Co., International Talc Co., and Carbola Chemical :
Co.; :
WINDSOR MATERIALS, LLC, individually and as :
successor-in-interest to Windsor Materials, Inc.; :
BLOCK DRUG COMPANY, INC., individually and as :
successor-in-interest to The Gold Bond Sterilizing Powder :
Co. a/k/a The Gold Bond Co.; :
CHATTEM, INC., individually and as successor to Martin :
Himmel, Inc., successor to Block Drug Company Inc., :
successor to the Gold Bond Sterilizing Powder Company :
a/k/a The Gold Bond Company, successor to Gold Bond :
Pharmaceutical Corporation; :
HIMMEL MANAGEMENT CO. LLC, a/k/a Himmel :
Group, formerly d/b/a Martin Himmel Inc., individually :
and as successor to Block Drug Company Inc., successor to :
The Gold Bond Sterilizing Powder Co. a/k/a The Gold :
Bond Co.; :
HIMMEL MEDIA LLC, individually and as successor to :
Block Drug Company Inc., successor to The Gold Bond :
Sterilizing Powder Co. a/k/a The Gold Bond Co.; :
CHARLES B. CHRYSTAL COMPANY, INC.; :
GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE :
HOLDINGS US LLC, as successor-in-interest to Block :
Drug Company, Inc.; :
PFIZER INC.; :
PTI UNION, LLC a/k/a Pharma Tech Industries, LLC; : APRIL 5, 2024
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
COUNT I
1. The plaintiff, PHYLLIS SERRA, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF RICHARD
SERRA, is a citizen of the State of Connecticut and resides at 33 Cedars Road, North
Stonington, CT 06359.
2. The plaintiff, PHYLLIS SERRA, SURVIVING SPOUSE, is a citizen of the State of
Connecticut and resides at 33 Cedars Road, North Stonington, CT 06359.
3. Each of the defendants, and/or their predecessors in interest (hereinafter referred to as the
“Defendants”), named in the caption above conducted business in the state of Connecticut,
has produced, manufactured or distributed asbestos and/or asbestos products with the
reasonable expectation that such products were so used or consumed, and/or has
committed the tortious acts set forth below.
4. The employer or employers of the plaintiff were engaged in various activities in which it
bought and/or installed asbestos and/or asbestos products and materials.
5. The plaintiff was exposed to various asbestos containing products while performing home
renovations and repair work in the 1970s and 1980s and his work as a regional planner in
the late 1970s and 1980s. Such exposure in Connecticut contributed in part or totally to
2
the plaintiff’s contraction of asbestos-related mesothelioma and other asbestos-related
pathologies.
6. During the period of time set forth above, the plaintiff was exposed to and did inhale
and/or ingest asbestos dust, fibers, and particles, which dust fibers, and particles came
from the asbestos products which were contracted for, mined, milled, processed,
manufactured, designed, tested, assembled, fashioned, fabricated, packaged, supplied,
distributed, delivered, marketed and/or sold by the defendants.
7. Upon information and belief, the defendants, through their agents and employees, mined,
processed, manufactured, designed, tested and/or packaged various asbestos-containing
products, and supplied, distributed, delivered, marketed and/or sold said asbestos-
containing products to the employer(s) of the plaintiff or to others working at the various
jobsites where the plaintiff was employed, or to third persons who, in turn, delivered and
sold such products and materials to such employers or to others working at such jobsites
for use by employees, including the plaintiff.
8. At all relevant times that the plaintiff was working, the plaintiff was exposed to asbestos
materials and products which, as part of the plaintiff‘s employment, the plaintiff was
forced to come into contact with an breathe, inhale, and ingest asbestos fibers and
particles coming from said asbestos products and materials.
9. At all times pertinent hereto, the defendants were engaged in the business of contracting
for, mining, milling, processing, manufacturing, designing, testing, assembling,
fashioning, fabricating, packaging, supplying, distributing, delivering, marketing, and/or
selling asbestos and asbestos products.
3
10. At all times pertinent hereto, the asbestos products contracted for, mined, milled,
processed, manufactured, designed, tested, assembled, fashioned, fabricated, packaged,
supplied, distributed, delivered, marketed, and/or sold by the defendants reached the
plaintiff without any substantial change in their condition from the time they were sold.
11. The defendants have been possessed of medical and scientific data, studies and reports
since approximately 1929, which information clearly indicated that asbestos and asbestos-
containing products were hazardous to the health and safety of the plaintiff and other
human beings.
12. The defendants, during the 1930's, 1940's, 1950's, and 1960's became possessed of
voluminous medical and scientific data, studies and reports, which information
conclusively established that asbestos and asbestos-containing products were hazardous to
the health and safety of the plaintiff and all humans exposed to the products.
13. The defendants have since the 1930's had numerous workers' compensation claims filed
against them by former asbestos workers/employees.
14. The defendants, since the 1920's, have consistently failed to acknowledge, publish, or in
any way advise of studies and reports known throughout the industry, including studies
conducted by or on behalf of various defendants in the asbestos industry.
15. Notwithstanding that the defendants possessed the foregoing information, the defendants
wrongfully contracted for, mined milled, processed, manufactured, designed, tested,
assembled, fashioned, fabricated, packaged, supplied, distributed, delivered, marketed,
sold, handled, shipped, received, used, and/or stored asbestos products and materials to the
plaintiff’s employer(s) and the defendants failed to render proper, adequate and correct
4
warnings, advice, instruction and information and so acted in a grossly negligent, reckless,
malicious, willful and wanton manner, failed to use reasonable care under all
circumstances, and wrongfully acted in other respects.
16. The actions of the defendants described and alleged above were wrongful under Section
52-572m, et seq., in one or more of the following ways:
(a) Strict liability – The defendants are strictly liable for the plaintiffs’ injuries in that
said asbestos-containing products were unreasonably defective in one or more of
the following ways:
i. in that said products were and are unreasonably dangerous and unavoidably
unsafe, and failed to carry proper, adequate and correct warnings about
their hazards about which the defendant knew or should have known;
ii. in that said products were and are unreasonably dangerous, in that they
were and are dangerous to an extent beyond that which the ordinary person
in the position of the plaintiff would contemplate;
(b) Negligence – The defendants knew or should have known that said asbestos-
containing products were inherently dangerous to those who were exposed to
them, yet the defendants failed to use reasonable and/or ordinary care in one or
more of the following ways:
i. the defendants failed to provide proper, adequate and correct warnings of
the dangers of said products;
ii. the defendants failed to test their products to determine the full extent of
the health hazards posed by asbestos;
5
iii. the defendants failed to remove their products from market upon learning
of the health hazards of asbestos;
iv. the defendants failed to find reasonably safer alternatives and/or substitutes
for asbestos;
v. the defendants failed to market, label or otherwise package their products
in a reasonably safe manner to prevent mishandling and to prevent the
release of asbestos during packaging, shipping, transportation, delivery,
handling and use.
(c) Failure to warn – The defendants’ products failed to carry proper, adequate and
correct warnings of the hazards about which the defendants knew or should have
known and that, to the extent such products did carry warnings, any such
warnings, information, packaging, cautions and/or safety instructions were
improper and inadequate.
i. Any warnings, information and/or instructions of safety precautions were
improper and inadequate in that, among other things, they failed adequately
and reasonably to apprise users, handlers and persons coming into contact
with said products and materials of the full scope and danger to their health
of contact with asbestos products and materials, including the risk of
cancer and mesothelioma.
ii. It was the continuing duty of the defendants to advise and warn purchasers,
consumers, users and/or other persons coming into contact with their
products, and all prior purchasers, consumers, users and/or other persons
6
who came into contact with their products, of all dangers, characteristics,
potentialities and/or defects discovered subsequent to their initial
marketing or sale of said asbestos and asbestos products.
iii. The defendants breached their duties to warn by:
a. failing to warn the plaintiff and the surrounding communities of the
dangers, characteristics, and/or potentialities of the product or
products when they knew or should have known that the exposure
to the product(s) would cause disease and injury;
b. failing to warn the plaintiff and the surrounding communities of the
dangers to which the plaintiff was exposed when they knew or
should have known of the dangers;
c. failing to exercise reasonable care to warn the plaintiff and the
surrounding communities of what would be safe, sufficient, and
properly protective clothing, equipment, and appliances when
working with, near or during exposure to asbestos and asbestos
products;
d. supplying asbestos or asbestos products that were packaged,
bagged, boxed and/or supplied in packaging, bagging, boxes or
other containers that were inadequate and/or improper;
e. supplying asbestos or asbestos products that were delivered to and
reached the plaintiff without adequate or proper handling
instructions, face masks and/or respirators;
f. failing to test the asbestos and asbestos products in order to
ascertain the extent of dangers involved upon exposure;
g. failing to conduct such research that should have been conducted in
the exercise of reasonable care in order to ascertain the dangers
involved upon exposure;
h. failing to remove the product or products from the market when the
defendants knew or should have known of the hazards of exposure
to asbestos and asbestos products;
i. failing upon discovery of the dangers, hazards, and potentialities of
exposure to asbestos adequately to warn and apprise the plaintiff
7
and the surrounding communities of the dangers, hazards, and
potentialities discovered;
j. generally using unreasonable, careless, negligent and reckless
conduct in the contracting for, mining, milling processing,
manufacturing, designing, testing, assembling, fashioning,
fabricating, packaging, supplying, distributing, delivering,
marketing, and/or selling of their asbestos and asbestos products.
(d) Breach of warranty – The defendants breached warranties, either implied or
expressed, in that these products were not fit and/or safe for their known and
intended purposes and uses.
17. As a result of the above, the plaintiff was caused to sustain severe, painful and permanent
injuries referred to above and/or other asbestos-related pathologies caused by the plaintiff
coming into contact with and breathing, inhaling and/or ingesting asbestos fibers. The
injuries and diseases from which the plaintiff suffered caused the plaintiff to suffer great
pain, suffering, mental anxiety, distress of mind, humiliation, emotional trauma, mental
anguish and death.
18. The disease, diseases or injuries, including death, from which the plaintiff suffered were
directly and proximately caused by the plaintiff ‘s exposure to asbestos and asbestos
products which were mined, milled, manufactured, designed, assembled, distributed,
supplied, constructed, processed, packaged, distributed, delivered, purchased and/or sold
by the defendants.
19. As a result thereof, the plaintiff's life span was shortened and the plaintiff’s capacity to
carry on life's activities was impaired along with the plaintiff’s capacity to enjoy life and
family, to engage in any gainful employment, and to participate in civic affairs.
8
20. As a result of said illness and death, the plaintiff was obligated to incur expenses for
medical, hospital and surgical treatment, drugs, medicines, x-rays and medical apparatus,
and funeral expenses.
21. As a further result of said illness, the plaintiff's earning capacity was impaired.
9
COUNT II
(Recklessness as to all Defendants)
1.- 21. Plaintiff(s) repeat and reallege all allegations contained in all paragraphs above as is fully
set forth herein.
22. The plaintiff brings this Count pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes Sections 52-240a,
52-240b, and 52-572m et seq.
23. The defendants have been possessed of medical and scientific data, studies and reports
since approximately 1929, which information indicated that asbestos and asbestos-
containing products were hazardous to their health and safety of the plaintiff and other
human beings.
24. The defendants, during the 1930’s, 1940’s, 1950’s and 1960’s became possessed of
medical and scientific data, studies and reports, which information established that
asbestos and asbestos-containing products were hazardous to the health and safety of the
plaintiff and all humans exposed to those products.
25. The defendants, since the 1920’s, have failed to acknowledge, publish, or in any way
advise of studies and reports known throughout the industry, including studies conducted
by or on behalf of various defendants in the asbestos industry.
26. Notwithstanding that the defendants possess the foregoing information the defendants
committed some or all of the wrongful acts and/or omissions described and alleged in
paragraph 10 of the First Count.
27. Said acts and omissions thus constitute misconduct that is grossly negligent, willful,
wanton, malicious and/or outrageous.
10
COUNT III
(As to Plaintiff PHYLLIS SERRA, SURVIVING SPOUSE, and all Defendants)
1.-27. Plaintiff(s) repeat and reallege all allegations contained in all paragraphs above as is fully
set forth herein.
28. As a result of the foregoing injuries and damages suffered by the plaintiff, the said
plaintiff’s spouse has and will sustain damages by virtue of his/her loss of consortium with
the plaintiff and the loss and impairment of the plaintiff’s services, protection, care and
assistance, society, companionship, affection, love, comfort, support, guidance, and kindly
offices and advice, and other benefits of the marital relationship.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff, PHYLLIS SERRA, SURVIVING SPOUSE, claims damages.
WHEREFORE, PHYLLIS SERRA, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF RICHARD
SERRA AND PHYLLIS SERRA, SURVIVING SPOUSE demand judgment and damages
against the Defendant(s), jointly and severally, plus interest, costs, and whatever other further
relief this Honorable Court deems right and just.
11
THE PLAINTIFF
BY: s/ 417342
Christopher Meisenkothen
Early, Lucarelli, Sweeney & Meisenkothen, LLC
One Century Tower, Suite 1101
265 Church Street
New Haven, CT 06510
(203) 777-7799
Juris No. 409080
Their Attorneys
12
IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION
ASB-FBT-CV23-6124729-S : SUPERIOR COURT
:
PHYLLIS SERRA, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF : J.D. OF FAIRFIELD
RICHARD SERRA and PHYLLIS SERRA, SURVIVING :
SPOUSE :
:
VS. : AT BRIDGEPORT
:
BASF CATALYSTS LLC, Et. Al. : APRIL 5, 2024
AD DAMNUM
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff, PHYLLIS SERRA, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF
RICHARD SERRA AND PHYLLIS SERRA, SURVIVING SPOUSE claims as to the defendants:
1. Full, fair and just money damages;
2. Punitive and exemplary damages, including attorney's fees;
3. Statutory punitive damages and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to General Statutes
Sections 52-240a and 52-240b (First Count);
4. Costs of this action.
THE PLAINTIFF
BY: s/ 417342
Christopher Meisenkothen
Early, Lucarelli, Sweeney & Meisenkothen, LLC
One Century Tower, Suite 1101
265 Church Street
New Haven, CT 06510
(203) 777-7799
Juris No. 409080
Their Attorneys
13
IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION
ASB-FBT-CV23-6124729-S : SUPERIOR COURT
:
PHYLLIS SERRA, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF : J.D. OF FAIRFIELD
RICHARD SERRA and PHYLLIS SERRA, SURVIVING :
SPOUSE :
:
VS. : AT BRIDGEPORT
:
BASF CATALYSTS LLC, Et. Al. : APRIL 5, 2024
STATEMENT OF AMOUNT IN DEMAND
The amount, legal interest and property in demand is not less than $15,000.00,
exclusive of interest and costs.
THE PLAINTIFF
BY: s/ 417342
Christopher Meisenkothen
Early, Lucarelli, Sweeney & Meisenkothen
One Century Tower, Suite 1101
265 Church Street
New Haven, CT 06510
(203) 777-7799
Juris No. 409080
Their Attorneys
14
Preview
SUMMONS CIVIL (except family actions) SUPERIOR COURT X ONE OF THE FOLLOWING JD-CV-1 Amount, legal interest or pro- GEN. STAT. 51-346, 51-347, 51-349, 51-350, 52,-45a perty in demand, exclusive of 52-48, 52-259 interest and costs is PR. BK. 49, 63, 66 INSTRUCTIONS less than $2,500 $2,500 through $14,999.99 1. Prepare on typewriter: sign original summons (top sheet) and conform copies of the summons (sheets, 2, 3 and 4). $15,000 or more 2. If there are more than two defendants, prepare or photocopy conformed summons for each additional defendant. 3. Attach the original summons to the original complaint, and attach a copy of the summons to each copy of the complaint. Also, (X if applicable) if there are more than 2 plaintiffs or 4 defendants prepare form JD-CV-2 and attach it to the original and all copies of the com- Claiming other relief in addi- plaint. tion to or in lieu of money 4. After service has been made by officer, file original papers and officers return with the clerk of the court. damages. 5. The party recognized to pay costs must appear personally before the authority taking the recognizance. 6. Do not use this form for actions in which an attachment, garnishment or replevy is being sought. See Practice Book Section 49 for other exceptions. TO: Any proper officer; BY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT, you are hereby commanded to make due and legal service of this Summons and attached Complaint. JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT (Town in which writ is returnable)(Gen. Stat. 51-349) RETURN DATE (Mo., day, yr) HOUSING SESSION HOUSING SESSION G.A.G.A. _______ Bridgeport ADDRESS OF CLERK OF COURT WHERE WRIT AND OTHER PAPERS SHALL BE FILED (GEN. STAT. 51-347, 51-350)(No., st., town & zip code) CASE TYPE(From Judic. Dept. case type list-see back) 1061 Main Street, Bridgeport, CT, 06604 (203) 579-6527 Major T Minor 20 NOTE: Individual’s Names: NAME AND ADDRESS OF EACH PARTY PTY PARTIES Last, First, Middle Initial (No., street, town & zip code) Form JD-CV-2 attached NO t FIRST NAMED Phyllis Serra, Executor of the Estate of Richard Serra and Phyllis Serra, Surviving Spouse, 33 Cedars PLAINTIFF Road, North Stonington, CT 06359 01 Additional Plaintiff 02 FIRST NAMED Himmel Media LLC, Corporate Creations Network Inc., 3411 Silverside Road, Suite 104, Wilmington, DE DEFENDANT 19810 50 Additional Himmel Management Co. LLC, Jeffrey S. Himmel, C/O MWE, 1500 RXR Plaza-West Tower, Uniondale, FL Defendant 11556 51 Additional Himmel Management Co. LLC, C/O MWE, 1500 RXR Plaza-West Tower, Uniondale, NY 11556 Defendant 52 Additional Defendant 53 NOTICE TO EACH DEFENDANT 1. You are being sued. 6. The Appearance form may be obtained at the above Court 2. This paper is a Summons in a lawsuit. address. 3. The Complaint attached to these papers states the claims that each Plaintiff is making against you in this lawsuit. 7. If you believe that you have insurance that may cover the 4. To respond to this summons, or to be informed of further claim that is being made against you in this lawsuit, you proceedings, you or your attorney must file a form called an should immediately take the Summons and Complaint to Appearance with the Clerk of the above named Court at the your insurance representative. above Court address on or before the second day after the above Return Date. 8. If you have questions about the Summons and Complaint, 5. If you or your attorney do not file a written Appearance form you should consult an attorney promptly. The Clerk of Court on time, a judgment may be entered against you by default. is not permitted to give advice on legal questions. DATE SIGNED Commissioner of Superior Court TYPE IN NAME OF PERSON SIGNING AT LEFT 04/05/2024 s/417342 Assistant Clerk Christopher Meisenkothen FOR THE PLAINTIFF(S) ENTER THE APPEARANCE OF: NAME AND ADDRESS OF ATTORNEY, LAW FIRM, OR PLAINTIFF IF PRO SE (No., street, town & zip code) TELEPHONE NO. JURIS NO. (If atty. or law firm) Early, Lucarelli, Sweeney & Meisenkothen, LLC 203-777-7799 409080 265 Church Street, 11th Floor, New Haven, CT 06510 NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON RECOGNIZED TO PROSECUTE IN THE AMOUNT OF $250 (No., street, town & zip code) SIGNATURE OF PLAINTIFF IF PRO SE Alphonse Ippolito, Esq., 388 Orange St., New Haven, CT, 06511 NO. PLFS. NO. DEFS. NO. CNTS. SIGNED (Official taking recognizance, x proper box Commissioner of Superior For Court Use Only Court FILE DATE 1 2 3 s/417342 Assistant Clerk IF THIS SUMMONS IS SIGNED by a CLERK: a. The signing has been done so that the Plain- advice in connection with any lawsuit tiff(s) will not be denied access to the courts. b. It is the responsibility of the Plaintiff(s) to d. The Clerk signing this Summons at the re- see that service is made in the manner pro- quest of the Plaintiff(s) is not responsible vided by law. in any way for any errors or omissions in c. The Clerk is not permitted to give any legal the Complaint, or the service thereof. I hereby certify I have read SIGNED (Pro se plaintiff) DATE SIGNED DOCKET NO. and understand the above. SUMMONS, Civil IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION ASB-FBT-CV23-6124729-S : SUPERIOR COURT : PHYLLIS SERRA, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF : J.D. OF FAIRFIELD RICHARD SERRA and PHYLLIS SERRA, SURVIVING : SPOUSE : : : VS. : AT BRIDGEPORT : BASF CATALYSTS LLC; : H.B. FULLER COMPANY, individually and as successor- : in-interest to Benjamin Foster and Technical Adhesives; : METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; : SUD-CHEMIE, INC., f/k/a as United Catalysts, Inc., as the : successor-in-interest to Southern Talc Company; : UNION CARBIDE CORP., individually and as successor- : in-interest to Amchem Corporation, Benjamin Foster : Company and The Bakelite Company; : VANDERBILT MINERALS, individually and as : successor-in-interest to RT Vanderbilt Co., Gouverneur : Talc Co., International Talc Co., and Carbola Chemical : Co.; : WINDSOR MATERIALS, LLC, individually and as : successor-in-interest to Windsor Materials, Inc.; : BLOCK DRUG COMPANY, INC., individually and as : successor-in-interest to The Gold Bond Sterilizing Powder : Co. a/k/a The Gold Bond Co.; : CHATTEM, INC., individually and as successor to Martin : Himmel, Inc., successor to Block Drug Company Inc., : successor to the Gold Bond Sterilizing Powder Company : a/k/a The Gold Bond Company, successor to Gold Bond : Pharmaceutical Corporation; : HIMMEL MANAGEMENT CO. LLC, a/k/a Himmel : Group, formerly d/b/a Martin Himmel Inc., individually : and as successor to Block Drug Company Inc., successor to : The Gold Bond Sterilizing Powder Co. a/k/a The Gold : Bond Co.; : HIMMEL MEDIA LLC, individually and as successor to : Block Drug Company Inc., successor to The Gold Bond : Sterilizing Powder Co. a/k/a The Gold Bond Co.; : CHARLES B. CHRYSTAL COMPANY, INC.; : GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE : HOLDINGS US LLC, as successor-in-interest to Block : Drug Company, Inc.; : PFIZER INC.; : PTI UNION, LLC a/k/a Pharma Tech Industries, LLC; : APRIL 5, 2024 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT COUNT I 1. The plaintiff, PHYLLIS SERRA, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF RICHARD SERRA, is a citizen of the State of Connecticut and resides at 33 Cedars Road, North Stonington, CT 06359. 2. The plaintiff, PHYLLIS SERRA, SURVIVING SPOUSE, is a citizen of the State of Connecticut and resides at 33 Cedars Road, North Stonington, CT 06359. 3. Each of the defendants, and/or their predecessors in interest (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendants”), named in the caption above conducted business in the state of Connecticut, has produced, manufactured or distributed asbestos and/or asbestos products with the reasonable expectation that such products were so used or consumed, and/or has committed the tortious acts set forth below. 4. The employer or employers of the plaintiff were engaged in various activities in which it bought and/or installed asbestos and/or asbestos products and materials. 5. The plaintiff was exposed to various asbestos containing products while performing home renovations and repair work in the 1970s and 1980s and his work as a regional planner in the late 1970s and 1980s. Such exposure in Connecticut contributed in part or totally to 2 the plaintiff’s contraction of asbestos-related mesothelioma and other asbestos-related pathologies. 6. During the period of time set forth above, the plaintiff was exposed to and did inhale and/or ingest asbestos dust, fibers, and particles, which dust fibers, and particles came from the asbestos products which were contracted for, mined, milled, processed, manufactured, designed, tested, assembled, fashioned, fabricated, packaged, supplied, distributed, delivered, marketed and/or sold by the defendants. 7. Upon information and belief, the defendants, through their agents and employees, mined, processed, manufactured, designed, tested and/or packaged various asbestos-containing products, and supplied, distributed, delivered, marketed and/or sold said asbestos- containing products to the employer(s) of the plaintiff or to others working at the various jobsites where the plaintiff was employed, or to third persons who, in turn, delivered and sold such products and materials to such employers or to others working at such jobsites for use by employees, including the plaintiff. 8. At all relevant times that the plaintiff was working, the plaintiff was exposed to asbestos materials and products which, as part of the plaintiff‘s employment, the plaintiff was forced to come into contact with an breathe, inhale, and ingest asbestos fibers and particles coming from said asbestos products and materials. 9. At all times pertinent hereto, the defendants were engaged in the business of contracting for, mining, milling, processing, manufacturing, designing, testing, assembling, fashioning, fabricating, packaging, supplying, distributing, delivering, marketing, and/or selling asbestos and asbestos products. 3 10. At all times pertinent hereto, the asbestos products contracted for, mined, milled, processed, manufactured, designed, tested, assembled, fashioned, fabricated, packaged, supplied, distributed, delivered, marketed, and/or sold by the defendants reached the plaintiff without any substantial change in their condition from the time they were sold. 11. The defendants have been possessed of medical and scientific data, studies and reports since approximately 1929, which information clearly indicated that asbestos and asbestos- containing products were hazardous to the health and safety of the plaintiff and other human beings. 12. The defendants, during the 1930's, 1940's, 1950's, and 1960's became possessed of voluminous medical and scientific data, studies and reports, which information conclusively established that asbestos and asbestos-containing products were hazardous to the health and safety of the plaintiff and all humans exposed to the products. 13. The defendants have since the 1930's had numerous workers' compensation claims filed against them by former asbestos workers/employees. 14. The defendants, since the 1920's, have consistently failed to acknowledge, publish, or in any way advise of studies and reports known throughout the industry, including studies conducted by or on behalf of various defendants in the asbestos industry. 15. Notwithstanding that the defendants possessed the foregoing information, the defendants wrongfully contracted for, mined milled, processed, manufactured, designed, tested, assembled, fashioned, fabricated, packaged, supplied, distributed, delivered, marketed, sold, handled, shipped, received, used, and/or stored asbestos products and materials to the plaintiff’s employer(s) and the defendants failed to render proper, adequate and correct 4 warnings, advice, instruction and information and so acted in a grossly negligent, reckless, malicious, willful and wanton manner, failed to use reasonable care under all circumstances, and wrongfully acted in other respects. 16. The actions of the defendants described and alleged above were wrongful under Section 52-572m, et seq., in one or more of the following ways: (a) Strict liability – The defendants are strictly liable for the plaintiffs’ injuries in that said asbestos-containing products were unreasonably defective in one or more of the following ways: i. in that said products were and are unreasonably dangerous and unavoidably unsafe, and failed to carry proper, adequate and correct warnings about their hazards about which the defendant knew or should have known; ii. in that said products were and are unreasonably dangerous, in that they were and are dangerous to an extent beyond that which the ordinary person in the position of the plaintiff would contemplate; (b) Negligence – The defendants knew or should have known that said asbestos- containing products were inherently dangerous to those who were exposed to them, yet the defendants failed to use reasonable and/or ordinary care in one or more of the following ways: i. the defendants failed to provide proper, adequate and correct warnings of the dangers of said products; ii. the defendants failed to test their products to determine the full extent of the health hazards posed by asbestos; 5 iii. the defendants failed to remove their products from market upon learning of the health hazards of asbestos; iv. the defendants failed to find reasonably safer alternatives and/or substitutes for asbestos; v. the defendants failed to market, label or otherwise package their products in a reasonably safe manner to prevent mishandling and to prevent the release of asbestos during packaging, shipping, transportation, delivery, handling and use. (c) Failure to warn – The defendants’ products failed to carry proper, adequate and correct warnings of the hazards about which the defendants knew or should have known and that, to the extent such products did carry warnings, any such warnings, information, packaging, cautions and/or safety instructions were improper and inadequate. i. Any warnings, information and/or instructions of safety precautions were improper and inadequate in that, among other things, they failed adequately and reasonably to apprise users, handlers and persons coming into contact with said products and materials of the full scope and danger to their health of contact with asbestos products and materials, including the risk of cancer and mesothelioma. ii. It was the continuing duty of the defendants to advise and warn purchasers, consumers, users and/or other persons coming into contact with their products, and all prior purchasers, consumers, users and/or other persons 6 who came into contact with their products, of all dangers, characteristics, potentialities and/or defects discovered subsequent to their initial marketing or sale of said asbestos and asbestos products. iii. The defendants breached their duties to warn by: a. failing to warn the plaintiff and the surrounding communities of the dangers, characteristics, and/or potentialities of the product or products when they knew or should have known that the exposure to the product(s) would cause disease and injury; b. failing to warn the plaintiff and the surrounding communities of the dangers to which the plaintiff was exposed when they knew or should have known of the dangers; c. failing to exercise reasonable care to warn the plaintiff and the surrounding communities of what would be safe, sufficient, and properly protective clothing, equipment, and appliances when working with, near or during exposure to asbestos and asbestos products; d. supplying asbestos or asbestos products that were packaged, bagged, boxed and/or supplied in packaging, bagging, boxes or other containers that were inadequate and/or improper; e. supplying asbestos or asbestos products that were delivered to and reached the plaintiff without adequate or proper handling instructions, face masks and/or respirators; f. failing to test the asbestos and asbestos products in order to ascertain the extent of dangers involved upon exposure; g. failing to conduct such research that should have been conducted in the exercise of reasonable care in order to ascertain the dangers involved upon exposure; h. failing to remove the product or products from the market when the defendants knew or should have known of the hazards of exposure to asbestos and asbestos products; i. failing upon discovery of the dangers, hazards, and potentialities of exposure to asbestos adequately to warn and apprise the plaintiff 7 and the surrounding communities of the dangers, hazards, and potentialities discovered; j. generally using unreasonable, careless, negligent and reckless conduct in the contracting for, mining, milling processing, manufacturing, designing, testing, assembling, fashioning, fabricating, packaging, supplying, distributing, delivering, marketing, and/or selling of their asbestos and asbestos products. (d) Breach of warranty – The defendants breached warranties, either implied or expressed, in that these products were not fit and/or safe for their known and intended purposes and uses. 17. As a result of the above, the plaintiff was caused to sustain severe, painful and permanent injuries referred to above and/or other asbestos-related pathologies caused by the plaintiff coming into contact with and breathing, inhaling and/or ingesting asbestos fibers. The injuries and diseases from which the plaintiff suffered caused the plaintiff to suffer great pain, suffering, mental anxiety, distress of mind, humiliation, emotional trauma, mental anguish and death. 18. The disease, diseases or injuries, including death, from which the plaintiff suffered were directly and proximately caused by the plaintiff ‘s exposure to asbestos and asbestos products which were mined, milled, manufactured, designed, assembled, distributed, supplied, constructed, processed, packaged, distributed, delivered, purchased and/or sold by the defendants. 19. As a result thereof, the plaintiff's life span was shortened and the plaintiff’s capacity to carry on life's activities was impaired along with the plaintiff’s capacity to enjoy life and family, to engage in any gainful employment, and to participate in civic affairs. 8 20. As a result of said illness and death, the plaintiff was obligated to incur expenses for medical, hospital and surgical treatment, drugs, medicines, x-rays and medical apparatus, and funeral expenses. 21. As a further result of said illness, the plaintiff's earning capacity was impaired. 9 COUNT II (Recklessness as to all Defendants) 1.- 21. Plaintiff(s) repeat and reallege all allegations contained in all paragraphs above as is fully set forth herein. 22. The plaintiff brings this Count pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes Sections 52-240a, 52-240b, and 52-572m et seq. 23. The defendants have been possessed of medical and scientific data, studies and reports since approximately 1929, which information indicated that asbestos and asbestos- containing products were hazardous to their health and safety of the plaintiff and other human beings. 24. The defendants, during the 1930’s, 1940’s, 1950’s and 1960’s became possessed of medical and scientific data, studies and reports, which information established that asbestos and asbestos-containing products were hazardous to the health and safety of the plaintiff and all humans exposed to those products. 25. The defendants, since the 1920’s, have failed to acknowledge, publish, or in any way advise of studies and reports known throughout the industry, including studies conducted by or on behalf of various defendants in the asbestos industry. 26. Notwithstanding that the defendants possess the foregoing information the defendants committed some or all of the wrongful acts and/or omissions described and alleged in paragraph 10 of the First Count. 27. Said acts and omissions thus constitute misconduct that is grossly negligent, willful, wanton, malicious and/or outrageous. 10 COUNT III (As to Plaintiff PHYLLIS SERRA, SURVIVING SPOUSE, and all Defendants) 1.-27. Plaintiff(s) repeat and reallege all allegations contained in all paragraphs above as is fully set forth herein. 28. As a result of the foregoing injuries and damages suffered by the plaintiff, the said plaintiff’s spouse has and will sustain damages by virtue of his/her loss of consortium with the plaintiff and the loss and impairment of the plaintiff’s services, protection, care and assistance, society, companionship, affection, love, comfort, support, guidance, and kindly offices and advice, and other benefits of the marital relationship. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff, PHYLLIS SERRA, SURVIVING SPOUSE, claims damages. WHEREFORE, PHYLLIS SERRA, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF RICHARD SERRA AND PHYLLIS SERRA, SURVIVING SPOUSE demand judgment and damages against the Defendant(s), jointly and severally, plus interest, costs, and whatever other further relief this Honorable Court deems right and just. 11 THE PLAINTIFF BY: s/ 417342 Christopher Meisenkothen Early, Lucarelli, Sweeney & Meisenkothen, LLC One Century Tower, Suite 1101 265 Church Street New Haven, CT 06510 (203) 777-7799 Juris No. 409080 Their Attorneys 12 IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION ASB-FBT-CV23-6124729-S : SUPERIOR COURT : PHYLLIS SERRA, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF : J.D. OF FAIRFIELD RICHARD SERRA and PHYLLIS SERRA, SURVIVING : SPOUSE : : VS. : AT BRIDGEPORT : BASF CATALYSTS LLC, Et. Al. : APRIL 5, 2024 AD DAMNUM WHEREFORE, the plaintiff, PHYLLIS SERRA, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF RICHARD SERRA AND PHYLLIS SERRA, SURVIVING SPOUSE claims as to the defendants: 1. Full, fair and just money damages; 2. Punitive and exemplary damages, including attorney's fees; 3. Statutory punitive damages and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to General Statutes Sections 52-240a and 52-240b (First Count); 4. Costs of this action. THE PLAINTIFF BY: s/ 417342 Christopher Meisenkothen Early, Lucarelli, Sweeney & Meisenkothen, LLC One Century Tower, Suite 1101 265 Church Street New Haven, CT 06510 (203) 777-7799 Juris No. 409080 Their Attorneys 13 IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION ASB-FBT-CV23-6124729-S : SUPERIOR COURT : PHYLLIS SERRA, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF : J.D. OF FAIRFIELD RICHARD SERRA and PHYLLIS SERRA, SURVIVING : SPOUSE : : VS. : AT BRIDGEPORT : BASF CATALYSTS LLC, Et. Al. : APRIL 5, 2024 STATEMENT OF AMOUNT IN DEMAND The amount, legal interest and property in demand is not less than $15,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. THE PLAINTIFF BY: s/ 417342 Christopher Meisenkothen Early, Lucarelli, Sweeney & Meisenkothen One Century Tower, Suite 1101 265 Church Street New Haven, CT 06510 (203) 777-7799 Juris No. 409080 Their Attorneys 14