In Bettencourt v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1103, which also involved products liability claims based on the AMMCO machine, the appellate court reached a similar conclusion. After Hennessy obtained judgments on the pleadings without leave to amend, the appellate court reversed, concluding that the plaintiffs' proposed amendments stated facts satisfying the Tellez-Cordova v. Campbell-Hausfeld/Scott Fetzger Co. (2004) exception. (Id. at pp. 1110-1120.) According to the proposed allegations, "the sole and intended purpose" of the AMMCO machine "was to grind asbestos-containing brake linings. At the time in question, all brakeshoe linings used on automobiles and trucks in the United States contained asbestos, and it was not only foreseeable that the machines would be used to grind such linings, this was their inevitable use. The asbestos fiber bundles were physically bound in a matrix in the nonfriable linings, and only when subjected to the action of the machines were the fibers released into the air where they posed a danger to those exposed. Thus, when used as designed and intended, the machines caused the release of the toxic agent that injured plaintiffs, although that agent did not emanate from the machines." (Id. at p. 1117.)