IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS



DIVISION OF ST. CROIX



IN RE: KELVIN MANBODH ASBESTOS

LITIGATION SERIES



KELVIN MANBODH, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,



VS.



HESS OIL VIRGIN ISLANDS CORPORATION;



AMERADA HESS CORPORATION; BORINQUEN INSULATION)

COMPANY, INC.; RAYTHEON ENGINEERS & CONSTRUCTORS, )



INC., individually and as successor in interests to LITWIN



CORPORATION and LITWIN PAN-AMERICAN CORPORATION;



OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION; RARITAN

SUPPLY COMPANY, Individually and as successor in interests to

BRIDGE SUPPLY COMPANY; UNION PUMP COMPANY;

PITTSBURGH CORNING CORPORATION, Individually and as



successor to UNARCO INDUSTRIES; MADSEN & HOWELL, INC.;



GARLOCK, INC.; GAF CORPORATION, Individually and as

successor to RUBEROID; FLEXITALLIC GASKET COMPANY;

ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES; CERTAINTEED

PRODUCTS CORPORATION; FOSTER WHEELER

CORPORATION, Individually and as successor in interests to

FORTY-EIGHT INSULATIONS, INC.; INGERSOLL RAND

CORPORATION; ELLIOTT COMPANY, a division of CARRIER;

RIGGERS AND ERECTORS INTERNATIONAL, INC.; VIRGIN

ISLANDS INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE CORPORATION;

DRESSER INDUSTRIES, INC., Individually and as successor in

interests to PACIFIC PUMP, INC.; SHELL OJL COMPANY; and

MOBIL OIL COMPANY;



Defendants.

me ew we ee ce cs ee ee ee es ee ee ee ee we we ee we ws xX



HESS OIL VIRGIN ISLANDS CORPORATION,

Third Party Plaintiff,

v.

DRESSER INDUSTRIES, INC., individually and as successor in



interests to HARBISON-WALKER REFRACTORIES CO.;

HARBISON-WALKER REFRACTORIES CO.; LOCKHEED



MARTIN CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interests



to MARTIN MARIETTA CORPORATION, MARTIN MARIETTA

ALUMINUM, INC. and MARTIN MARIETTA ALUMINUM



Nee Nae Nee Nee Nee Neer? Nee Somme Nome! See” Nee” See” Sem” Nome? Nome’ Some” Some Neue! Ne” Sour? Nene’ ee” Neng? Negeri! Segue’ Seeger” Nene? Neer? Stree Se “nage” eee” See See”



ASBESTOS DOCKET



MASTER DOCKET NO.: 324/1997



CIVIL NO. 324/1997

ACTION FOR DAMAGES



JURY TRIAL DEMANDED



ORDER DENYING THIRD-PARTY

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR A

MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT

PROPERTIES, INC.; MARTIN MARIETTA CORPORATION, }

individually and as successor in interests to MARTIN MARIETTA _ )

ALUMINUM, INC. and MARTIN MARIETTA ALUMINUM }

PROPERTIES, INC.; MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS, INC., }

individually and as successor in interests to MARTIN MARIETTA }

CORPORATION, MARTIN MARIETTA ALUMINUM, INC. and +)

MARTIN MARIETTA ALUMINUM PROPERTIES, INC.; FLUOR_)

DANIEL, individually and as successor in interests to FLUOR )

ENGINEERS AND CONSTRUCTORS, INC.; FLUOR ENGINEERS )

AND CONSTRUCTORS, INC.; FLOUR CORPORATION; A.P. )

GREEN INDUSTRIES, INC., individually and as successor in interests )

to AP. GREEN REFRACTORIES COMPANY; TUTHILL

CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interests to

COPPUS MURRAY GROUP and/ or COPPUS TURBINES;

ALLTITE GASKET COMPANY; JOHN CRANE f/k/a CRANE

PACKING COMPANY; RUBBER AND GASKET COMPANY OF

P.R.; AUSTIN INDUSTRIAL, INC. f/k/a TECHNICAL

MAINTENANCE, INC., AUSTIN TMI, INC. and/ or AUSTIN

INDUSTRIES; KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT, a Halliburton

Company, individually and as successor in interests to BROWN &

ROOT OVERSEAS, INC.; CBI SERVICES, INC.;

COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS & MAINTENANCE

CORPORATION; STANDBY POWER SUPPLIES, INC. A.T.I.M.A.; )

D & M ELECTRIC, INC.; INSTRUMENTATION & ELECTRICAL )

SYSTEMS SERVICES; THE LUMMUS COMPANY; PETROCHEM )

MAINTENANCE & CONSTRUCTION (“PMC”), a division of )

BEACON ELECTRONICS, INC.; ST. CROIX COMPRESSION AND )

ROTATING EQUIPMENT SERVICES, INC.; WESTERN

INDUSTRIAL PIPING; COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC.;

BORN INC. f/k/a BORN ENGINEERING COMPANY; ALFRED

CONHAGEN, INC.; SAINT-GOBAIN ADVANCED CERAMICS, as

successor in interests to CARBORUNDUM CORPORATION;

INDUSTRIAL HOLDINGS CORPORATION, as successor in

interests to CARBORUNDUM CORPORATION; CONTROL

ASSOCIATES; THE DARCOID COMPANY, INC a/k/a DARCOID

RUBBER COMPANY; GERARD PACKING & BELTING

CORPORATION; INSULATION DISTRIBUTORS

CORPORATION; ISLAND SUPPLY COMPANY; LAMONS

GASKET COMPANY; RESAL, INCORPORATED; GENERAL

WELDING WORKS, INC.; PARSONS CORPORATION, as

successor in interests to THE RALPH M. PARSONS COMPANY;

STERLING PACKING & GASKET DIVISION; STANDCO

INDUSTRIES, INC.; STRAHMAN VALVES, INC.; CON-RAD, a

division of U.S. INDUSTRIES; WESTERN SUPPLY COMPANY;

INDUSTRIAL FABRICATING CO.; P.H. SALES INCORPORATED

a/k/a P.H. SALES COMPANY; JOHN ZINK COMPANY a/k/a

JOHN ZINK COMPANY, ZINCLAHOMA, INC.; POWER PIPE

AND SUPPLY COMPANY, INCORPORATED; WANER

CORPORATION; 3M a/k/a MINNESOTA MINING &

MANUFACTURING COMPANY; VIACOM, INC. f/k/a

WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION; STATE

INSULATION CORPORATION; UNIVERSAL OIL PRODUCTS

a/k/a UOP; CDI CORPORATION, as successor in interests to CDI

ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS; CDI ENGINEERING GROUP, CDI

ENGINEERING, INC., CDI STUBBS OVERBECK, STUBBS

OVERBECK & ASSOCIATES, INC.; CDI ENGINEERING



Nome Nee Nee ee See See Nae Nee Nee? See Se”



Name Nee Ne Nene Nem Nee See Sed Nee Nae Nae Sue See! Same” Nee Nee Ste See Nee Nene Sem Soe” Nm” “ome” Nee! Ste! Ste” “tne” me”

SOLUTIONS, as successor in interests to CDI ENGINEERING ,]

GROUP, CDI ENGINEERING, INC., CDI STUBBS OVERBECK, _ )

STUBBS OVERBECK & ASSOCIATES, INC.; CDI ENGINEERING )

GROUP, as successor in interests to CD] ENGINEERING, INC., CDI )

STUBBS OVERBECK, STUBBS OVERBECK & ASSOCIATES, )

INC.; BROWN FINTUBE COMPANY; KOCH ENGINEERING CO,, )

as successor in interests to BROWN FINTUBE COMPANY; )

OHMSTEDE MACHINE WORKS, a/k/a OHMSTEDE, INC.; BROS )

INCORPORATED, a division of AMERICAN HOIST AND

DERRICK; TEREK AMERICAN CRANE CORPORATION, as

successor in interests to AMERICAN CRANE CORPORATION and

AMDURA CORPORATION f/k/a AMERICAN HOIST AND

DERRICK; AMDURA CORPORATION f/k/a AMERICAN HOIST

AND DERRICK.



Third Party Defendants.

me = es es ss 9 es es es 9s os es ss 9 9s ss ss >4



LITWIN CORPORATION and LITWIN PAN-AMERICAN

CORPORATION,



Third Party Plaintiffs,



UNIVERSAL OIL PRODUCTS COMPANY; CHICAGO BRIDGE

AND IRON, N.V., individually and as successor in interest to

CHICAGO BRIDGE AND IRON; BIGELOW LIPTAK; A.P. GREEN )}

INDUSTRIES, INC.; PORTILLA CORPORATION; RESCO }

PRODUCTS, INC.; DRESSER INDUSTRIES, INC., individually and )

as successor in interest to HARBISON-WALKER REFRACTORIES _)

COMPANY; INSULATION DISTRIBUTORS CORPORATION; }

RESAL INC.; EXXON-MOBIL CORPORATION, as successor in }

interest to MOBIL OIL COMPANY; SHELL OIL COMPANY; }

GENERAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION, individually andas —_)

successor in interest to REED WIBLE & BROWN, INC.; KATALCO )

CORPORATION; BORN INC. f’k/a BORN ENGINEERING )

COMPANY; PARSONS CORPORATION, as successor in interest to)

the RALPH M. PARSONS COMPANY; ALLTITE GASKET CO., +)

INC., FHE DARCOID COMPANY, INC., a/k/a DARCOID RUBBER )

COMPANY; RUBBER AND GASKET COMPANY OF PUERTO __)

RICO; AMERICAN CYANIMID COMPANY; SUD-CHEMIE, INC., )

as successor in interest to UNITED CATALYSTS INCORPORATED; )

CHRIS ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION AND MATERIALS

COMPANY, as successor in interest to CHRIS ANDERSON

MATERIALS; CONMACO/RECTOR L.P., as successor in interest to

CONMACCO; CHILDERS PRODUCTS COMPANY; ONDEO

NALCO, as successor in interest to NALCO CHEMICAL

COMPANY; ACME CANVAS AND ROPE COMPANY; A/C PIPE,

INC., OPTIMIZED PROCESS FURNACES, INC.; STUBBS-

OVERBECK, INC.; G.C. BROACH COMPANY; JOHN DOES 1

through 4; VIRGIN ISLANDS INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT

CORPORATION;



Nee? ewe! Nee! See! Seema Sree Se Smee! Se! Some” “eee” Smee! “me? Name Nee’ “reer” “eee” Sree



Third Party Defendants.



Pet set Ned a a la a ad Nd

In re Kelvin Manbodh Asvestos Litigation Series

Civ. No. 324/1997



ORDER — Motion for a More Definite Statement

Page 4 of 9



MEMORANDUM ORDER



THIS MATTER is before the Court on Third-Party Defendants John Crane, Inc.’s,

Tuthill Corporation’s, and Rubber & Gasket Co. of Puerto Rico’s! Motions for a More Definite

Statement (Doc. Nos. 1396, 1525, 2086). Third-Party Plaintiff Hess Oil Virgin Islands

Corporation (hereinafter “HOVIC”) filed oppositions to these motions (Doc. Nos. 1553, 1575,

2094). Rubber and Gasket Co. of Puerto Rico filed a belated reply? to HOVIC’s opposition

(Doc. No. 2098). Third-Party Defendants Virgin Islands Industrial Management Corporation

(“VIIMC”) (Doc. No. 1831) and Austin Industrial (“Austin”) (Doc. No. 1832) joined Tuthill

Corporation’s Motion for a More Definite Statement. For the following reasons, we deny each

motion for a more definite statement.



The standard of review governing a motion for a more definite pleading in the Superior

Court is found in Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure? TERR. CT. R. 31. The

decision of whether to grant a motion for a more definite statement lies entirely within the

discretion of the trial court. Hobson v. Gov't of the Virgin Islands, 20 V.I. 413, 417 (Terr. Ct.

1984) (internal reference omitted). This standard is distinct from the one associated with Rule



12(b)(6)* of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure concerning a motion to dismiss, though the



" Rubber and Gasket Co. of Puerto Rico filed its motion under the caption “Rubber and Gasket Co. of Puerto Rico’s



Motion to Make Court Order of December 19, 2002 Extensive to Rubber & Gasket Co. of Puerto Rico,” (Doc. No.



2086), though it is properly treated as a motion for a more definite statement.



? Rubber and Gasket Co. of Puerto Rico filed a Motion for Extension of Time, on February 20, 2003. Although the



Court did not rule upon the Motion, Rubber and Gasket Co. of Puerto Rico filed its Reply on March 4, 2003.



> Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) provides, in relevant part:

If a pleading to which a responsive pleading is permitted is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot

reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading, the party may move for a more definite statement

before interposing a responsive pleading. The motion shall point out the defects complained of and the

details desired.



FED. R. Civ, P. 12(e) (emphasis added)



* Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) provides, in relevant part:

In re Kelvin Manbodh Asvestos Litigation Series

Civ. No. 324/1997



ORDER — Motion for a More Definite Statement

Page 5 of 9



vague or ambiguous nature of a pleading may be the basis for granting either and parties often

assert prayers for relief in the alternative. 5C CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER,

FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: CIVIL § 1376 (3d ed. 2004). Since Rule 12(e) was

amended in 1948 to narrow its scope, courts have been hesitant to grant motions for more

definite statements because of the potential for abuse of the rule as a mechanism for receiving

discovery before parties are entitled to such information. Jd. Consequently, seldom is granting a

motion for more definite pleading appropriate. Believing that attempts by Third-Party

Defendants in this matter are similarly infirm, we deny their requested relief.



A party may file a motion for a more definite statement when necessary to aid in its

preparation of an answer. 5C CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: CIVIL § 1376. There is nothing in this Complaint that prevents any

of the parties from providing “a simple denial as permitted by Rule 8(b), with a pleading that can

be interposed in good faith or without prejudice to [the litigant],” as has already been done by

several Third-Party Defendants to HOVIC’s Complaint, including Third-Party Defendant Tuthill

Corporation.’ Jd. In arriving at this decision, this Court is mindful that there is some assurance

of the legitimacy of the Complaint provided for by Territorial Court Rule 29, through which

Federal Rule 11 applies, because the attorney filing the pleading is required to affirm through



signature his or her good faith. FED. R. Civ. P. 11.



Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, cross-

claim, or third-party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required, except

that the following defenses may at the option of the pleader be made by motion...(6) failure to state a claim

upon which relief can be granted...

FED. R. Civ. P. 12(b). A motion to dismiss should only be granted where plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Fleming ex rel. Fleming v. Whirlpool Corp., 301 F.Supp.2d

411,414 (D.V.I. App. Div. 2004).

> There are numerous answers filed in the docket from Third-Party and Cross-Claim Defendants to HOVIC’s

Complaint. See e.g., Doc. Nos. 1504-1507, 1539, 1542, 1599, 1811, 1872, 1889, and 2060.

In re Kelvin Manbodh Asoestos Litigation Series

Civ. No, 324/1997



ORDER = Motion for a More Definite Statement

Page 6 of 9



To this end, none of parties before the court satisfy the stringent requirements for the

grant of a motion for a more definite statement. In John Crane, Inc.’s Motion, it claims that

HOVIC’s failure to differentiate between the numerous third-party defendants with respect to

specific acts/omissions, dangerous conditions at the HOVIC refinery, contracts, purchase orders,

the existence of warranties, the breaches of warranties and the manners of the alleged breaches

with respect to Count I, makes this pleading susceptible to attack. John Crane, Inc. further

suggests that Count II suffers from similar infirmities, asserting that HOVIC’s purported

statement of legal conclusions in lieu of facts, against the backdrop of nearly forty (40) years of

course of dealing, is wholly unacceptable. Finally, John Crane, Inc. takes umbrage with Counts

III, 1V, and V of HOVIC’s Third-Party Complaint, focusing on the unexplained exclusion of a

limited pool of third-party defendants from these counts and the failure to attach as exhibits

documents evidencing alleged agreements or insurance policies.



Tuthill Corporation also suggests that the Complaint is impermissibly vague so as to

prevent the framing of meaningful answers and affirmative defenses because of HOVIC’s failure

to identify specific contracts, purchase orders, or their terms including, parties, dates, products

supplied, materials installed and warranties made with respect to Counts I and II.° Yet Tuthill

Corporation filed answers to HOVIC’s Complaint shortly after filing this Motion, without further

comment. Such action suggests that HOVIC’s Complaint was not vague enough to warrant

Tuthill’s requested relief.



Finally, in Rubber and Gasket Co. of Puerto Rico’s Motion, it seeks to extend the ruling



of this Court, granting then Cross-Claim Defendant Ingersoll Rand Company’s Motion for a



* Tuthill’s Motion for More Definite Statement only concerns Counts I and H. It was not named in Counts III, VI,

or V in HOVIC’s original Third-Party Complaint, though they have been subsequently added to Counts III and IV.

This Court anticipates that it would make similar arguments regarding the additional counts.

In re Kelvin Manbodh Asoestos Litigation Series

Civ. No. 324/1997



ORDER — Motion for a More Definite Statement

Page 7 of 9



More Definite Statement (Doc. No. 2071), to its dispute with HOVIC. This Motion suffers from

several shortcomings. The Order granting Ingersoll Rand Company’s Motion applied only to the

HOVIC’s Cross-Claim, specifically Count HI (Contractual Indemnification), not HOVIC’s

Third-Party Complaint. In addition, whereas HOVIC’s original Cross-Claim did not contain the

specific language of the indemnification agreement nor the dates such language was purportedly

included in those agreements, Count III of both HOVIC’s Third-Amended Third-Party

Complaint and Cross-Claim now do. HOVIC has effectively complied with the limited ruling of

this Court, with respect to its Cross-Complaint and gone further, with respect to Third-Party

Complaint. To extend the ruling to Rubber and Gasket at this time would be an exercise in

futility.’



Although broad, the allegations of HOVIC’s Third-Party Complaint with respect to third-

party defendants are not impermissibly vague. A general complaint will likely, to HOVIC’s

detriment, beget a general answer. There is no need to extend the pleadings period any further.

HOVIC has already amended its Third-Party Complaint on three (3) occasions without

substantially addressing many of the concerns embodied in these Motions for More Definite

Statement. Forcing HOVIC to amend its pleading at this time will not achieve any measure of

expediency or clarity that could not be accomplished through the website discovery mechanism

already mandated for use in Case Management Order No. 3 (Doc. No. 2136) and this Court’s



Order of October 4, 2004 (Doc. No. 2429).® Should information become available that raises a



? Given this disposition, this Court need not rule on whether the Rubber and Gasket Co. of Puerto Rico’s Motion

was procedurally improper.



® The same holds true for the Order relating to HOVIC’s Third Amended Cross-Claim (Doc. No. 2431). Although

this Motion specifically concerns HOVIC’s Third Party Complaint, HOVIC’s Cross-Claim would be subject to the

same analysis. Therefore, Cross-Claim Defendants shall be entitled to the same relief discussed herein.

In re Kelvin Manbodh Asvestos Litigation Series

Civ. No. 324/1997



ORDER = Motion for a More Definite Statement

Page 8 of 9



potential affirmative defense not previously known to be available to a third-party defendant due

HOVIC’s broad allegations, that party may file an amended answer reflecting such new findings.



The above decision notwithstanding, HOVIC, however, is not free disregard the specific

details sought and defects complained of in these motions for more definite statement. Such

information shall be provided to third-party and cross-claim defendants, though not necessarily

in the complaint. Due to the large volume of information and complex nature of this proceeding,

this Court favors the use of electronic databases over a paper amendment to the pleadings as a

means of addressing such concerns. HOVIC shall explain the nature of its relationship with

Third-Party Defendants/Cross-Claim Defendants, as a basis for liability, through the website, by

including the following, but not be limited to: (1) copies of specific contracts/purchase

orders/warranties/insurance policies or if not available, information identifying dates, terms,

products supplied, materials installed, facilities and other facts necessary to clarify the extent of

the association; (2) facts supporting HOVIC’s claim of specific breaches of agreements and the

dates obligations to individual plaintiffs arose; (3) facts showing what share of the obligation

should have been paid by each of the parties with respect to Count I of HOVIC’s Third-Party

Complaint and Cross-Claim, (4) facts establishing that the defendant paid no part of the

obligation or if some payment was made, or that the payment was less than the defendant’s pro-

rata share with respect to Count I; (5) facts demonstrating that if a settlement was made, it was

reasonable and in good faith, with respect to Count I; and (6) facts identifying the existence of a

demand for indemnity, its purported refusal and the accompanying dates of such events, with

respect to Counts II, If, 1V, and V.



The Court having considered the pleadings and being advised in the premises, it is hereby

f

In re Kelvin Manbodh Asvestos Litigation Series

Civ. No. 324/1997

ORDER — Motion for a More Definite Statement

Page 9 of 9



ORDERED that John Crane, Inc.’s Motion for a More Definite Statement, concerning

HOVIC’s original Third-Party Complaint is DENIED; it is further



ORDERED that Tuthill Corporation’s Motion for a More Definite Statement, joined by

VIIMC and Austin, concerning HOVIC’s original third-party complaint is DENIED; it is further



ORDERED that Rubber and Gasket Co. of Puerto Rico’s Motion to Make Court Order

of December 19, 2002 Extensive to Rubber & Gasket Co. of Puerto Rico (Doc. No. 2086),

essentially a motion for more definite statement concerning HOVIC’s original third party

complaint, is DENIED; it is finally



ORDERED that Rubber and Gasket Co. of Puerto Rico’s Motion for Extension of Time

(Doc. No. 2096) is DENIED as moot, since this Court is denying Rubber & Gasket Co. of Puerto

Rico’s underlying motion.



ORDERED that copies of this Order are to be directed to Attorneys for Plaintiffs, and all



defense attorneys in these asbestos cases.



er 4



IT IS SO ORDERED THIS _/DAY —— , 2005.



— gla Se SZ



tJ



eoee M M. CABRE

gar Presiding Judge of the Superior

urt of- in Islands

ATTEST: f"



Denise Abramsen



Clerk of the Court