Document 35xNJN3wNnRQ4VwzxwxNMe4J

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION BEXLEY, vs. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, et al KELLEY, vs. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, et al REED, et al vs. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, et al SMITH, et al vs. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, et al ODOM, et al vs. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, et al BANKS, et al vs. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, et al TAYLOR, vs. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, et al MINK, et al vs. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, et al LORD, vs. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, et al CV-87-0700-C CV-87-0703-C CV-87-0704-C CV-87-0706-C CV-87-0709-C CV-87-0711-C CV-87-0712-C CV-87-0715-C CV-87-0716-C DEFENDANT OWENS-ILLINOIS. INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS1 FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Owens-Illinois, Inc. responds to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories as follows; PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Some of the events which may be relevant to the matters inquired about by Plaintiffs' Interrogatories apparently occurred more than thirty-five years ago. In addition, effective April 30, 1958, Owens-Illinois, Inc. disposed of the business involved in this action by way of sale of that business to Owens-Coming Fiberglas Corporation. Since that time, Owens-Illinois, Inc. has not engaged in any such business. It does not now and it has not since that sale manufactured, distributed or sold any asbestos-containing products. As a result of the foregoing factors, many of the individuals who might have had personal knowledge of the matters to which Plaintiffs' interrogatories relate are deceased, or are otherwise unavailable to Owens-Illinois, Inc., and investigations to date indicate that at least some documents which relate to matters inquired about by these interrogatories may have been transferred to Owens-Corning *r PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT i KrSTX Fiberglas Corporation with the transfer of the business in question in 1958. Owens-Illinois, Inc. is engaged in a continuing investigation in an attempt to locate, confirm the transfer of, or confirm the absence of, such documents and is also engaged in a continuing investigation into the matters inquired about in these interrogatories. Unless otherwise stated in an answer to a specific interrogatory, the answers set out hereinafter are limited to the period during which Owens-Illinois, Inc. manufactured asbestos-containing insulation products and to the facilities related to that business. The following is a part of and is incorporated by reference in every answer provided hereinafter: This answer is accurate as of the date made. However, Owens-Illinois, Inc.'s investigation is continuing, and Owens-Illinois, Inc. cannot exclude the possibility that it may be able to obtain more complete information or even information which indicates that the answer being supplied is incorrect. Owens-Illinois, Inc. objects to answering this interrogatory in regard to any period of time other than the period during which it engaged in the business involved in this case which ended in mid1958 or concerning any facility not related to that business, on the basis that any such answer would be irrelevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation, would not be reasonably calculated to 2 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and would be burdensome and oppressive. Furthermore, Owens-Illinois, Inc. objects to the instructions and definitions supplied by Plaintiffs with regard to these interrogatories, on the basis that the definitions are overbroad, vague, and often inconsistent with the normal usage and meaning of such words, and the instructions are overbroad, burdensome and constitute an unreasonable expansion of the interrogatories themselves. Owens-Illinois, Inc. therefore gives notice that it does not consider itself bound by the instructions and definitions propounded by Plaintiffs, and instead shall answer the interrogatories in a manner consistent with a normal understanding of the language used in the answer and to the extent necessary to fairly and fully answer the interrogatory. RESPONSES 1. State Defendant's proper legal name, the present address of Defendant's principal place of business, all states in which Defendant is incorporated, and all states in which Defendant is licensed to do business. ANSWER: This Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it is overbroad, seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving the above objection, Owens-Illinois Glass Company was incorporated in the State of Ohio in 1929. Owens-Illinois Glass Company changed its name to OwensIllinois, Inc. on April 28, 1965. Due to corporate 3 restructuring in 1987, this Defendant is now a Delaware corporation. The address of the principal place of business is One SeaGate, Toledo, Ohio 43666. 2. Please state whether Defendant, Defendant's predecessors or any of Defendant's subsidiaries has ever been licensed to do business in Texas. If so, please state the following: (a) The companies that were licensed to do business in Texas; (b) The years that each such company was licensed to do business in Texas; (c) The name and address of the agent designated to accept service of process for each such company and the years that each agent was so employed; (d) The type of business that each such company conducts or has conducted in the state of Texas; (e) Whether each such company has paid any taxes to the State of Texas or any governmental entity in the State of Texas, and, if so, the amount of taxes paid for each year since 1940. ANSWER: This Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving the above objection, this Defendant has been authorized to conduct business in the state of Texas since 1938. This Defendant's agent for service of process is: CT Corporation System Registered Office 1601 Elm Street c/o CT Corporation System Dallas, Texas 75201 3. Please describe in detail all products and/or services that Defendant currently sells for profit. ANSWER: This Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the 4 basis that it is overbroad, seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving the above objection, effective April 30, 1958, this Defendant sold its asbestos-containing manufacturing division to Owens-Coming Fiberglas Corporation. As of that time, this Defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products and has not engaged in any such business since that date. 4. For each product identified in response to Interrogatory No. 3 above, please state: (a) the approximate volume of products originally sold, distributed, delivered to or applied by people or business entities in the state of Texas, for each year from 1940 through the present; (b) the approximate volume of products originally sold, distributed, delivered to or applied by people or business entities with Defendant's knowledge that said products would be used or applied in Texas, for each year from 1940 through the present; (c) the approximate annual income derived by Defendant, Defendant's predecessors, or Defendant's subsidiaries as a result of sales, application, distribution, and/or servicing of Defendant's products in the State of Texas for each year from 1940 through the present; (d) the percentage of Defendant's overall income that Defendant's income in Texas, as stated in response to Interrogatory No.4(c) above, represents for each year from 1940 through the present; (e) the ten states in which Defendant derives the most income as a result of sales, application, distribution, and servicing of Defendant's products, and the amount of income generated in each of those states. ANSWER: Refer to objections to Interrogatory No. 3. 5. Please identify by trade or brand name each asbestoscontaining insulation product manufactured and or sold by Defendant. For each product identified, please state the 5 following: (a) The years that the product was manufactured and/or sold; (b) A description of the chemical composition of the product, including the type of asbestos contained in the product (e.g., amosite, chrysotile, crocidilite) and the percentage of asbestos in each product? (c) A description of the physical appearance of the product; (d) A detailed description of the intended uses of the product? (e) The address, including city and state, of the plants at which the product was manufactured and/or packaged; (f) The annual dollar amount of production of the product at each of the locations indicated in response in Interrogatory No. 5(e) above, from 1940 through the present? (g) The percentage of the total production of the product for which each plant indicated in response to Interrogatory No. 5(e) was responsible? (h) The annual dollar sales of the product sold, distributed, delivered to or applied by people or business entities in the state of Texas from 1940 through the present ? (i) The approximate percentage of the total market for the product that the Texas market represents from 1940 through the present. ANSWER: Kaylo and Kaylo-20. (a) Owens-Illinois Glass Company began limited pilot operations involving the production of "Kaylo: asbestos- containing products in 1943. It began the manufacture of commercial quantities of "Kaylo" asbestos-containing products in about 1948 and continued such manufacture until about April 30, 1958. (b) This Defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and 6 distribution of its asbestos-containing products in 1958. Its investigation as to the composition of each such product, including the type of asbestos contained therein (i.e., amosite or chrysotile) and the quantitative percentage of asbestos, is continuing,, although the Defendant now believes that this Defendant*s commercially produced asbestos-containing products were hydrous calcium silicates containing between 13% and approximately 20% asbestos. Chrysotile asbestos was the primary type apparently used. Amosite was used to a lesser extent. (c) The Defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. It believes that Kaylo and Kaylo-20 were premolded, rigid products, and were manufactured in two forms, block and pipe covering. Kaylo was white or off-white in color, and Kaylo-20 was pinkish in color. (d) The asbestos-containing products manufactured by this Defendant were intended to be used for industrial high temperature thermal insulation such as pipe covering and block insulation, and to increase fireproofing and fire protection and for insulation through use as a roof deck or fireproof material or door core material. (e) This Defendant's manufacturing plants were located in Berlin, New Jersey and Sayreville, New Jersey. The Berlin plant was in operation from approximately 1943 until on or about April 30, 1958. The Sayreville plant was in operation 7 from February, 1948 until about April 30, 1953. (f,g) This Defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. This Defendant has not found information in its records sufficient to enable it to answer this interrogatory. (h,i) This Defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. This Defendant objects to answering this interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, overly broad and improperly seeks discovery of materials which are protected by the attorney work-product privilege. To the extent this Defendant is in possession of such information, it was collected or created in preparation for litigation. 6. Please state the address of any offices, factories, plants, or places of business ever operated by Defendant in the state of Texas. For each location identified, please state also: (a) the dates that the location was operated as a place of business by Defendant; (b) the type of business conducted at the location? (c) the number of people employed at the location? (d) the name and address of the custodian of records pertaining to the business transacted at the location. ANSWER: This Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it is overly broad and seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 7. Please state the number of claims alleging personal 8 injuries or wrongful death caused by exposure to asbestos pending against Defendant in the state and federal courts in Texas. (a) What is Texas ranking among all states in terms of the largest number of claims filed for each of the past seven years? (b) Please state the approximate percentage of total asbestos claims represented by those filed in Texas for each of the past seven years. ANSWER: This Defendant objects to this interrogatory as being vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, overly broad, burdensome and oppressive, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and not limited to any issue which is the subject of this case. This Defendant has reason to believe that Plaintiff already has knowledge of such actions. 8. Did Defendant ever maintain any distribution agreement with any company located in Texas with respect to the products identified in answer to Interrogatories Nos. 3 and 5? If so, please state the following: (a) The name and address of each company with whom Defendant maintained such an agreement, and the years that each agreement was maintained; (b) The products that the agreements involved. ANSWER: This Defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. This Defendant has not found information in its records sufficient to enable it to answer this interrogatory. However, in 1953, this Defendant entered into a sales agreement with Owens- Corning Fiberglas Corporation under which it agreed to the sale of asbestos-containing thermal insulation products at that time, disbanded its sales force, and that thereafter, Owens- Corning Fiberglas Corporation was the primary marketer of its 9 product until the sale of the division to Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation in 1958. 9. Has Defendant ever entered into any contracts within the state of Texas since 1940? If so, for each such contract, please state: (a) the name and address of the person or company with which Defendant entered into the contract; (b) the place where the contract was entered into; (c) the date of the contract? (d) a general description of the subject matter of the contract. ANSWER: This Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it is overly broad and seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 10. Has Defendant ever advertised its products or services within the state of Texas from 1940 through the present? If so, please state: (a) the way in which each product was advertised, including the name and address of the company that published or promulgated the advertisement? (b) the annual amount spent by Defendant on such advertising in Texas since 1940. ANSWER: This Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving the above objection, this Defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. This Defendant has not found information in 10 its records sufficient to enable it to answer this interrogatory. 11. Please state whether or not the Defendant has purchased, assumed, or in any other manner acquired any of the assets and/or liabilities of any corporation or entity (such corporations or entities being limited to those engaged in the mining of asbestos or the manufacturing, marketing or distributing of asbestos products). ANSWER: No. However, Owens-Illinois Glass Company changed its name to Owens-Illinois, Inc. on April 28, 1965. 12. If so, please state the following: (a) The name of each such corporation or entity; (b) The manner in which each such corporation or entity, or interest therein, was acquired (e.q., purchase, merger, change of name, transfer of assets or product line); (c) The date of each such acquisition. ANSWER: Refer to Response to Interrogatory No. 11. 13. Prior to releasing the products listed in Interrogatory No.5 to the public for sale, were any tests conducted on same to determine potential health hazards involved in the use of material contained therein? ANSWER: This Defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958 and does not have any records from which it can obtain information sufficient to answer this interrogatory. During May, 1979, various papers and reports were produced by an employee of the Trudeau Institute, Mr. Allan Logie, regarding animal experiments conducted at laboratories at Saranac Lake involving dust collected during the Kaylo manufacturing process. These papers and reports may contain information relating to the substance of this interrogatory. 11 This Defendant has not been able to find these papers and reports in its business records or correspondence although it has searched for and continues to search for them. This Defendant's counsel obtained copies of some of the papers and reports produced by Mr. Logie. However, these copies constitute only a portion of a larger volume of papers and reports which this Defendant has not copied. They are available at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, 1 Chase Manhattan Plaza, New York, New York. This Defendant also has reason to believe that Plaintiffs' counsel has copies of the documents produced by Mr. Logie. Those documents found at Saranac Lake and at Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation and elsewhere, indicate that during the period of time when Owens-Illinois was in the business of manufacturing asbestos-containing products, the state of government, industrial hygiene and medical community knowledge was that there was a recognized safe exposure level for asbestos dust and that persons installing insulation were not exposed to excessive or hazardous levels of asbestos dust. The foregoing documents also indicate that Kaylo plant employees were x-rayed periodically and displayed no asbestos-related chest disease; that this Defendant made appropriate efforts to provide ventilation and to control the emissions of all dust emitted during the manufacturing process within recognized safe levels of exposure, including the use of respirators in some instances, dust collection equipment and other devices as 12 necessary; and that therefore during the period in which this Defendant was in the business of manufacturing Kaylo it had no reason to believe that the foreseeable use of Kaylo would create a hazard to users. The documents produced by Owens-Coming Fiberglas Corporation indicate that the September, 1955 publication in the A.M.A. Archives of Industrial Health was a publication of inhalation experiments. To the extent that this interrogatory seeks the production of documents, such documents, as outlined in this response, have not been found as part of this Defendant's records and, to the extent that this Defendant is in possession of copies of documents, it possesses copies only of documents collected in preparation for litigation. This Defendant objects to producing the same. The documents are available from their proper source. 14. If so, please state: (a) the name, address, and job classification of each individual who conducted such tests. (b) the results of such tests. ANSWER: Refer to Response to Interrogatory No. 13. 15. Do any written memoranda, specification, blueprints or other written materials of any kind or character exist relating to the testing of said products? ANSWER: This Defendant has in its records technical reports relating to the development and testing of Kaylo, and will make available to Plaintiffs' counsel through its local counsel these records. Many of the reports are contained on microfilm 13 which is old and of poor quality. Adequate copies may not be made from it, and reading it requires a reader device. This Defendant further states that its investigation into the subject matter referred to in this interrogatory is continuing. 16. If so, please state: (a) List each such written material or document. (b) Identify each person who presently has possession of each such document. (c) State where each such document is located. ANSWER: Refer to Response to Interrogatory No. 15. 17. Were any design changes made as a result of such tests? ANSWER: This Defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. This Defendant has not found information in its records sufficient to enable it to answer this interrogatory. However, this Defendant has in its records technical reports relating to the development and testing of Kaylo, and will make available to Plaintiffs' counsel through its local counsel these records. Many of the reports are contained on microfilm which is old and of poor quality. Adequate copies may not be made from it, and reading it requires a reader device. This Defendant further states that its investigation into the subject matter referred to in this interrogatory is continuing. 18. If so, please state: (a) the nature of the change made. (b) the name, address, and job classification of each person in charge of making a change. 14 ANSWER: Refer to Response to Interrogatory No. 17. 19. After releasing the products listed in answer to Interrogatory No.5 to the public, were any tests conducted thereon to determine potential health hazard involved in the use of materials contained therein? ANSWER: This Defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958 and does not have any records from which it can obtain information sufficient to answer this interrogatory. During May, 1979, various papers and reports were produced by an employee of the Trudeau Institute, Mr. Allan Logie, regarding animal experiments conducted at laboratories at Saranac Lake involving dust collected during the Kaylo manufacturing process. These papers and reports may contain information relating to the substance of this interrogatory. This Defendant has not been able to find these papers and reports in its business records or correspondence although it has searched for and continues to search for them. This Defendant's counsel obtained copies of some of the papers and reports produced by Mr. Logie. However, these copies constitute only a portion of a larger volume of papers and reports which this Defendant has not copied. They are available at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, 1 Chase Manhattan Plaza, New York, New York. This Defendant also has reason to believe that Plaintiffs' counsel has copies of the documents produced by Mr. Logie. Other documents possibly relating to this interrogatory may have been produced by Owens-Corning 15 Fiberglas Corporation in the asbestos litigation. Those documents found at Saranac Lake and at Owens- Corning Fiberglas Corporation and elsewhere, indicate that during the period of time when Owens-Illinois was in the business of manufacturing asbestos-containing products, the state of government, industrial hygiene and medical community knowledge was that there was a recognized safe exposure level for asbestos dust and that persons installing insulation were not exposed to excessive or hazardous levels of asbestos dust. The foregoing documents also indicate that Kaylo plant employees were x-rayed periodically and displayed no asbestosrelated chest disease? that this Defendant made appropriate efforts to provide ventilation and to control the emissions of all dust omitted during the manufacturing process within recognized safe levels of exposure, including the use of respirators in some instances, dust collection equipment and other devices as necessary? and that therefore during the period in which this Defendant was in the business of manufacturing Kaylo it had no reason to believe that the foreseeable use of Kaylo would create a hazard to users. The documents produced by Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation indicate that the September, 1955 publication in the A.M.A. Archives of Industrial Health was a publication of inhalation experiments. To the extent that this interrogatory seeks the production of documents, such document, as outlined in this response, have 16 not been found as part of this Defendant's records and, to the extent that this Defendant is in possession of copies of documents, it possesses copies only of documents collected in preparation for litigation. This Defendant objects to producing the same. The documents are available from their proper source. 20. If so, please state: (a) the name, address, and job classification of each person conducting said tests. (b) the results of said tests. ANSWER: Refer to Response to Interrogatory No. 19. 21. Do any written memoranda, specifications, recommendations or other written materials of any kind or character relating to the potential health hazards of the said products exist? ANSWER: This Defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. This Defendant has not found information in its records sufficient to enable it to answer this interrogatory. 22. If so, please: (a) List each such written material or document. (b) Identify each person who presently has possession of each such document. (c) State where each such document is located. ANSWER: Refer to Response to Interrogatory No. 21. 23. Were any design changes made as a result of such tests? ANSWER: Refer to answer to Interrogatory No. 21. This Defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of 17 asbestos-containing products in 1958. This Defendant has not found information in its records sufficient to enable it to further answer this interrogatory. 24. If so, please state: (a) the nature of the change made. (b) the name, address, and job classification of each person responsible for making such a change. ANSWER: Refer to Response to Interrogatory No. 23. 25. Has Defendant, Defendant's predecessor or any of Defendant's subsidiary companies, at any time, published and/or distributed any brochures, pamphlets, packagings or other written materials of any kind or character that contain any warnings, cautions, caveats or directions concerning the possibility of injury resulting from the use of the products listed in Interrogatory No.5? ANSWER: This Defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. This Defendant has not found information in its records sufficient to enable it to answer this interrogatory. However, it does not appear that any warning concerning asbestos was given in that it does not appear that this Defendant had reason to believe that the use of its products would result in a foreseeable risk of harm. 26. If so, please state: (a) the wording of each such warning. (b) a description of each such printed material. (c) the method used to distribute the warning to persons who are likely to use the products. (d) the date each such warning was issued. (e) the name, address, and job classification of each person who presently has possession of the above-described 18 documents. ANSWER; Refer to Response to Interrogatory No. 25. 27. Did Defendant, Defendant's predecessor, or any of Defendant's subsidiary companies receive notice prior to 1968 that any person was claiming injury as a result of using asbestos products manufactured, and/or sold by Defendant, Defendant's predecessor or any of Defendant's subsidiary companies? ANSWER: No. This Defendant received notice of its first claim alleging injury as a result of exposure to asbestos in 1975. 28. If so, please state: (a) the name and address of each claimant. (b) the date of notice of each claim. (c) a description of the claim. (d) the type of injuries allegedly sustained. (e) the name and address of each attorney representing the individuals making such claims. (f) the style and court number of each such claim. (g) the resolution of each claim. ANSWER; Refer to Response to Interrogatory No. 27. 29. Has Defendant undertaken to investigate the occurrences alleged in Plaintiffs' complaint? ANSWER: This Defendant has not engaged in sufficient discovery to enable it to respond to this interrogatory. 30. If so, please: (a) state the name, address, and job title of the persons participating in each such investigation. (b) list each written record pertaining to such investigation and its location and custodian. (c) state has Defendant obtained statements from any witnesses? 19 (i) If so, please list each witness who has given a statement and the name, address, and job title of each person having custody of any such statement. ANSWER: Refer to Response to Interrogatory No. 29. 31. Please state whether or not the Defendant, Defendant's predecessor, or Defendant's subsidiary companies, from 1930 to the present, ever conducted any tests in the field (i.e., where the asbestos containing insulation products of Defendant, Defendant's predecessor, or Defendant's subsidiary companies were being applied, removed or used) to determine the nature and extent of asbestos fiber exposure to insulators, applicators or fellow employees working in the vicinity thereof. ANSWER: This Defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. This Defendant has not found information in its records sufficient to enable it to answer this interrogatory. 32. If so, please identify: (a) the date, place and nature of each and every test. (b) the particular asbestos containing insulation product to which each test applied. (c) the results of each test with particular reference to the number of asbestos fibers per cubic centimeter of air found at each site. ANSWER: Refer to Response to Interrogatory No. 31. 33. Does Defendant contend that Plaintiff improperly used its product? If so, please (a) specify in full detail all facts supporting this contention; (b) identify by name and address all witnesses having knowledge; (c) identify all documents supporting your contention; ANSWER: Yes, to the extent that it is proven that Plaintiff used this Defendant's asbestos-containing products. 34. Please state the scientific or medial periodicals to 20 which the Defendant, Defendant's predecessor, or Defendant's subsidiary companies, their medical departments, industrial hygiene divisions or consulting physicians subscribed during the period between 1930 and the present time. ANSWER: This Defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. This Defendant has not found information in its records sufficient to enable it to answer this interrogatory. However, it appears that an employee of this Defendant subscribed to and received the Journal of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology. 35. Does Defendant, Defendant's predecessor, or Defendant's subsidiary companies maintain a library dealing with industrial hygiene, medicine, safety and engineering? If so state: (a) the date each such library was established. (b) the location of each such library. (c) the name(s) of the librarian(s) since 1930. (d) all journals subscribed to by Defendant, Defendant's predecessor, or Defendant's subsidiary companies concerning asbestos, industrial hygiene, medicine, safety and/or engineering. (e) all books and articles dealing with asbestos and asbestos-related diseases and the date acquired. ANSWER: During the period of time pertinent to these actions, this Defendant did not maintain an entity which would be characterized as an industrial hygiene, medicine, safety and/or engineering library. However, this Defendant believes that a separate engineering library may have been maintained by its technical facility. This Defendant also states that although it has no records indicating the existence of such a library, upon becoming involved in asbestos-related litigation this 21 Defendant listed all the publications which were in its then existing industrial hygiene library. These publications are listed on Exhibit I. This Defendant has not yet determined which, if any, of these publications were in this Defendant's possession during the time it manufactured, sold and distributed asbestos-containing products. 36. Please identify each distributor or wholesaler of your asbestos-containing or thermal insulation products since 1940 in Alabama. For each distributor or wholesaler, please state: (a) the last known address? (b) the years of the relationship? (c) whether there was a written distributorship agreement? (d) whether the distributorship was exclusive. ANSWER: This Defendant objects to this interrogatory as being vague, irrelevant, overly broad, burdensome and oppressive, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and not limited to any issue which is the subject of this case. Without waiving the above objection, in 1953, this Defendant entered into a sales agreement with Owens-Coming Fiberglas Corporation under which it agreed to the sale of asbestos-containing products to that corporation. This Defendant believes that it ceased the general marketing and sales of its asbestos-containing thermal insulation products at that time, disbanded its sales force, and that thereafter, Owens-Coming Fiberglas Corporation was the primary marketer of its product until the sale of the division to Owens-Coming Fiberglas Corporation in 1958. 22 37. Did-you or do you have any sales offices in Alabama. If so, please state: (a) their addresses; (b) all mangers from 1940 through 1975 and the years during which they served; (c) all sales personnel; (d) the last known addresses of any persons listed in Answers to subparts (b) or (c). ANSWER: This Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it is overly broad and seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 38. If the Answer to Interrogatory No. 37 is negative, which of your sales personnel were responsible for sales in Alabama from 1940 through 1975, during what years, what are their last known addresses and are any still your employees? ANSWER: Refer to Response to Interrogatory No. 37. 39. Did you or did your predecessors-in-interest or subsidiaries supply asbestos-containing products to Shook & Fletcher, Co., Badham Insulation Company, Insulation Engineers, Inc., Marine Supply Co., Standard Equipment Co., Turner Supply Col, McGowan & Lyons Co., Alabama Dry Dock and Shipbuilding Corporation or ADDSCO Industries, Inc. at any time after 1940. ANSWER: This Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, except as it relates to the period of time during which this Defendant engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of its asbestos-containing products. Without waiving the above 23 objection, this Defendant has found information in its business records indicating that it sold asbestos-containing products to Badham Insulation Co., Birmingham, Alabama, 1950-1953 and Insulation Engineers, Inc., Mobile, Alabama, 1950-1952. 40. Did you or did your predecessors-in-interest or subsidiaries sell asbestos-containing products to Shook & Fletcher, Co., Badham Insulation Company, Insulation Engineers, Inc., Marine Supply Co, Standard Equipment Co., Turner Supply Co, McGowan & Lyons Co, Alabama Dry Dock and Shipbuilding Corporation or ADDSCO Industries, Inc. at any time after 1940. ANSWER: This Defendant incorporates by reference its response to Interrogatory No. 39. 41. Did you or did your predecessors-in-interest or subsidiaries deliver asbestos-containing products to Shook & Fletcher, Co., Badham Insulation Company, Insulation Engineers, Inc., Marine Supply Co., Standard Equipment Co., Turner Supply Co., McGowan & Lyons Co., Alabama Dry Dock and Shipbuilding Corporation or ADDSCO Industries, Inc. at any time after 1940. ANSWER: Refer to Response to Interrogatory No. 39. 42. Did you or did your predecessors-in-interest or subsidiaries have knowledge that asbestos-containing products produced by you, your predecessors-in-interest or subsidiaries, were being used by Shook & Fletcher, Co., Badham Insulation Company, Insulation Engineers, Inc., Marine Supply Co., Standard Equipment Co., Tuner Supply Co., McGowan & Lyons Co, Alabama Dry Dock and Shipbuilding Corporation, ADDSCO Industries, Inc., Marine Supply Co., Standard Equipment Co., Turner Supply Co., McGowan & Lyons Co, Alabama Dry Dock and Shipbuilding Corporation or ADDSCO Industries, Inc. at any time after 1940. ANSWER: Refer to Response to Interrogatory No. 39. 43. If any of the preceding four Interrogatories is answered in the affirmative, state for each sale, delivery or supply to each company: (a) The date of each sale, delivery or supply; (b) The generic name of the commercial and/or asbestos insulation products sold, delivered or supplied; 24 (c) The brand name of the asbestos insulation products sold, delivered or supplied; (d) The trademark name of the asbestos insulation products sold, delivered or supplied; (e) The quantity of each such sale, delivery or supply and the price paid for each such shipment; (f) The invoice and purchase ordering number of each such shipment and any other information required to identify each such document; (g) The department and officer or employee at each firm who: - (i) Placed the order; (ii) Accepted delivery. ANSWER: (are,f). Refer to Exhibit IX. This Defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. This Defendant has not found information in its records sufficient to enable it to further answer this interrogatory. (b). Hydrous calcium silicates. (c,d). Kaylo. (g). This Defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. This Defendant has not found information in its records sufficient to enable it to answer this interrogatory. 44. Please list the name, address, and job title of each person who provided assistance in answering these interrogatories. ANSWER: This Defendant states that it has referred to the relevant business records of the Owens-Illinois, Inc., in 25 connection with the preparation of answers to these interrogatories unless otherwise indicated. Signed as to objection: CROSBY, SAAD & BEEBE, P. C. Qs /L/ By: C. PAUL CAVENDER 2970 Cottage Hill Road Suite 210 Mobile, Alabama 36606 (205) 476-3000 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have on this '>***- day of , 1988 served a copy of the foregoing on counsel for all parties to this cause by mailing by United States Mail, properly addressed and first class postage prepaid. & C. PAUL CAVENDER 01.Ans 26 AFFIDAVIT STATE OF OHIO COUNTY OF LUCAS )SS: ) A. H. SMITH, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that he is an Assistant Secretary of OwensIllinois, Inc., a defendant herein; that as such he is authorized to make an Affidavit on its behalf; and that the facts set forth in the foregoing DEFENDANT, OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC.'S ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES, are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. & H __ A. H. SMITH SWORN TO and subscribed My Commission Expires: EXHIBIT I American Medical Association Archives Health, published by the American Medical Association, Vol. 11, 1955, through Vol. 1958. . American Industrial Hygiene Association Quarterly, 1946 through 1958. Annual Review of Nuclear Science, published by Annual Reviews, Inc., 1952 through 1953; 1955 through 1957. Archives of Industrial Hygiene and Occupational Medicine, published by the American Medical Association? 1950 to 1954. British Journal of Industrial Medicine, published by British Medical Association, 1949 through 1958. Industrial Medicine and Hygiene, published by Butterworth and Company, 1954 through 1956. .Industrial Medicine and Surgery, 1949 through 1953. Journal of*Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology, The, published by the Williams and Wilkins Company, 1928 through 1949. Noise Control, published by the Accoustical Society of America, 1955 through 1958. Aids to Anatomy, Last, 1951. * Airborne Contagion and Air Hygiene, An Ecological Study of Traupwood Infections, Wells, 1955. . Analytical Chemistry. By Treadwell, Vol. 1, Quantitative Analysis, 1937. Chemical Analysis of Industrial Solvents, Jacobs and Scheslan, 1953. Chemical Engineers' Handbook, edited by Perry, 1941. Design of Industrial Exhaust Systems, Alden, 1939. Dictionary of Modern English Usage, A, by Fowler, 1926. Electromagnetically Enriched Isotopes and Mass Spectrometry, Proceedings of the Conference Held in Cockcroft Hall, Harwell, Sept., 1955? Encyclopedia of Instrumentation for Industrial Hygiene, edited by Yasse, Byers and Hosey, 1956. Fatigue, edited by Floyd and Welford, 1953. -2- . Fatigue of Workers - Its Relation to Industrial Production, Committee on Work Industry of the National Research Council, 1941. . Fuels and Combustion, Smith and Stinson, 1952. .Acoustics and Vibrational Physics, Stevens and . Bate, 1950; Acoustical Engineering, Olson, 1957; ' Acoustic Measurements, Beranek, 1949; The Measurement of Hearing, Hirsh, 1952; - Man's World of.Sound, Pierce and David, 1958; Technical Aspects of Sound, edited by Richardson, 1953; Physiological Acoustics, Weaver and Lawrence, 1954; Fundamentals of Acoustics, 2nd Edition, Kinsler and Frey, 1950; Acoustics Noise in Buildings, Parkin and ' . Humphreys, 1958; Hearing and Deafness, 3rd Edition, edited by Davis and Silverman, 1947; . A Textbook of Sound, Wood, 1949? . Noise Reduction Manual, Geiger, 1953? Physical Acoustics, Supplement 1, edited by Lukasik and Nolle, 1955; . Foundry Noise Manual, American Foundrymen's Society, 1958 and 1956; Foundry Ventilation and Dust Control, Harrogate, 1956; Body Temperature, Its Changes with Environment, Disease and Therapy, Selle, 1952; Applied Heat Transmission, Stoever, 1941; Heat and Temperature Measurement, Weber, 1950; Life Heat and Altitude, Dill, 1938; Heat Insulation, Wilkes, 1950; Basic Principles of Ventilation and Eeating, Bedford, 1948; Heat Transmission, McAdams, 1942; Climate in Everyday Life, Brooks, 1951; Handbook of Chemistry, Lange, 1956. Handbook of Emergency Toxicology, Kaye, 1954. Handbook of Glass Manufacture. By Tooley, 1953. 1957. Handbook of Material Trade Names, Zimmerman and Lavine, ` -7- 1957; Handbook of Toxicology, edited by Soector, 1955 and _ History'of Factory and Hina Hygiene, Teleky, 1948. . Human Machine, The, Shilling, 1955. . Industrial Environment and Its Control, The, by Dallaval1*, 1948. . "industrial Medicine and Hygiene, edited by Merewether, 1954 through 1956. Industrial Methods of Analysis, Willard, Merritt,- and Dean, 1948. _ Industrial Poisons in the United States, Hamilton, 1929. Industrial Toxicology, Hamilton and Johnstone, 1945. 1923. Introduction to Medical Biometry and Statistics, Pearl, Introductory Quantitative Chemistry, Olson, Koch and Pimentel, 1955. . Language Habits in Human Affairs, Lee, 1941. Manual of Industrial Health Hazards, Ficklen, 1940. Manual of the International List of Causes of Death, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1929. Manual of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Injuries, and Causes of Death, Vol. 2, Alphabetical Index, 1950. Mechanical Engineer's Handbook, edited by Marks, 1951. Methods of Air Analysis. By Haldane, 1935. Noxious Gas and the Principles of Respiration Influencing their Action, Henderson and Haggard, 1927. Odors Physiology Control, Cord and Witheridge, 1949. Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Smillie, 1947. Professional Engineer's Examination Questions and Answers, Londe, 1956. . Radioisotopes in Scientific Research, edited by Sxtermann, 1958. . -4- 1958! Roget's College ThesaureS/ The New American Library, . Standard Methods of Chemical Analysis, Scott, 5th Edition, 19.2 5. ' Symposium on Instrumentation in Atmospheric Analysis, published by The American Society for Testing and Materials, 1958. . . Toxicology and Hygiene of Industrial Solvents, edited by Lehmann and Flury, 1943. V7omen in Industry - Their Health and Efficiency, Baetjer, 1946'. . Proceedings of the 9th International Congress on Industrial Medicine, 1949. The Pneumoconiosis Problem, Thomas, 1958. 5- EXHIBIT XI Attention of % INTRA-COMPANY CORRESPONDENCE General Offices Toledo, Ohio Jolcdo DeGcr'ocr 2C, l?50 Snbjoct rrsvt.-.fio:: _:::gi:3z:is , rrc. r. 0. lozolS i'-obi1 e --' Ue are returning to 70u today, attached to letter for checic number 8493> in the amount of &L6760 The balance of tho check, in the amount of ^147*52, is due subject distributor for sale of follow ing material shipped into their territory* Very truly yours ?. C. Frank ICaylo Srles Attention of INTRA-COMPANY CORRESPONDENCE General Offices Toledo, Ohio '3. hollas - Toledo Kay 8, 195 subject n:sjUTiOii P. 0* Box 815 i-bbilc. Alabama me Please issue check due subject company in the amount of $11*34 representing distributors commission due then for shipments into their territory during the month of March 1951. The amount was arrived at as follows: FCF/cab Very truly yours F* C. Frank Kaylo Sales Attention of Hr ^fcuftQflgQS CVrAI.S6^ INTRACOMPANY CORRESPONDENCE General Offices Toledo, Ohio kaylo division hollas - Toledo June 5, 1951 Subject INSULATION pT~U* box S15 Nobile. Alabama INC. rlease issue check due subject company in the amount of $11*32 representing distributors connission due then for shipr.ients into their territory during the nonth of April, 1951* The enount vas arrived at as follows: FCF/mab Very truly yours naylo Seles j3 '3 3 3 y General Offices Toledo, Ohio Attention Follas - Toledo ucccri t H- 0> Subject i..j. 0* Tox G15 Mobile. .wlabarii c. Pioase 133U3 chsclc due subject couranv in cue araxit of ;7.9 representing distributors cozrdssion due tueu for chipiao tueir territory durir.3 t'.ie nont'.i of Movenber 1951. The ersount was arrived at as follows: Attention of Subject \J , JL--*--< A - i ui,5 TX V-DO \_U^V*I t'.A^N 1 KAYLO DIVISION INTRA-COMPANY CORRESPONDENT General Offices Toledo, Ohio Hr. J. 2. Follas - Toledo Hay 5, 1952 Insulation Engineers. Inc. l.ooiio, Aiaoema ~ Please issue check due subject company in the amount of $24.00 representing distributors commission due them for shipments into their territory during the month of March, 1952 * The amount was arrived at as follows: of Form KA 1L2-S KAYLO DIVISION INTRA-COMPANY CORRESPONDENCE Attention of !r. J. 3. Follas General Office* Toledo, Ohio June 13, 1952 Subject Insulation Engineers. Inc. IiObile, Alabama Please issue check due subject company in the amount of 311*.21 representing distributors commission due then for shipments into their territory during the month of April, 1952. Ihe amount was arrived at as follows: , 1 dr. J. 3. Follas Insulation 3hgtusers, Inc. ;.oolle, X-norm July 1, ~S;rj?: Please issue check due subject company in the amount of J7.14 representing distributors comission duo there for chimeric into their territory during the north of day, 1952* The amount was arrived at as follows: Fora KA 1I2-S Attention of Subject OWENS-ILLINOIS GLASS COMPANY KAYLO DIVISION INTRA-COMPANY CORRESPONDENCE Mr. J. B. Foilas Genera] Office* Toledo, Ohio July 28, 1952 Insulation Mobile, Alabama Two, Please issue check due subject company in the amount of $77.70 representing distributors connision due them for shipment into their territory during the month of June, 1952. The amount was errived at as follows; L_ K.AYLO DIVlsiO.N INTRA-COMPANY CORi&SPONDENO Attention of 'x* J. 3. FollSS General Office* Toledo, Ohio AujUSt 2o, 1952 Subject Insulation InainfersT Inc., Mobile, Alabama Please issue checl: due subject company in the amount of ,.>5.81 represent ing distributors comission due then for shipments into their territory during the month of July, 1952. The amount was arrived at as follows: 44' w Form KA 112-S OWeAs- ILLINOIS GLASS COMPANY KAYLO DIVISION INTRA-COMPANY CORRESPONDENCE Attention ol Subject nr. J. 3. Follas General Office* Toledo, Ohio Sept. 11, 1952 Insulation Ingineers, Inc> TiO'oile, Ala. ~ Please issue check due subject company in the amount of $3o0 representing distributors conrission due than for shipments into their territory during the month of August, 1952* The amount was arrived at follows: FCF:eca F. CJ. Tranx tr* s -5 CN CN o CN Nj CN \ a m a O to 0 9 H O z > I z** eg g8 z *4 S' >5J oez *4 Q \ ........ iu*> u oucot io. Month of-- JU U K .IN A 1.  <A S' 9 3 Ci 9 %o --5* * C-\ *o3` 3 -4 * I \ w OB V o ws H** o 2 > ^ V JS. 2oa tr u & 'tA'~ -A 9 ^>o -A o i V\ z HI to ot<r**r A z 9 i 4*"i S' Vi ? I \ ^ Osi 1I IS I FV t*J t 09 o w "0 ft M taM O 2 V >i r xl *T > 5 Xoi * OA IP l ; X* s? Ci ro C\ v-9 > s cO oc <A tz H W cr o 3a >o Cj p % o 2 o Cn ~w w>3 < yO '>/*>/;* - * ~t ------------ J^KUtjltjssr-r-J..IJ^^XrusTt.X*^wvLiZ^i' 1! . i /f 1 . /M7C.CA / -... .i . 31 7J 5 ! | 1; ,i i ii ! f! 1; i: t ij (1 i t - "7T .1 i1 t' i 11L r iI :i f- ; ! ii --! - -- ( ~m,`~'' l i0 U) : . i. -f !i 1 i- -- ! . u1 t ' ;l . .... .. :>|i . * i\ : t 71 \ i' " i i ! , > !i 11 !i ;* 1 * i i : !! ij 1 ii _7 ^ TSV> - ~r~? <y ^ s-y fb ~ V, / ..i 1 II ' / . . /. 7 S -- ------------- 1 ---- -- i "t y i ~, :, I i; -r __U^2J^-I .,. i i ! i ; i ; 7??7 X(^2 9C , Tl .. .. __.... !t --r .... ; t___ I ( 1 - -.. L L- - || * cl v $ ( $5- 9\ 03 a o S3 a* 0 vy H M o z MOi<;iAia o n v v p vO C ?o > nr 'a "4 ^ >* X> _^5l jL s os*o*r o tN C~N TT C-' -s S O' ? V\ 2 CcDr s c* P2 \ <t> \ V W 0 O 53 ** H O 2 -S' -J ^ CS Os gg P D 251 >1 r t nc er e K | f F 9<a` - '-x -si D o: ta % H ' Q '-l s~J Attention oi Subject /- &c> '63 INTRA-COMPANY CORRESPONDENCE General Offices Toledo, Ohio 3, pollao - Toledo z' yy December 7, 1750 Please issue check due subject company* in the amount of 07.16 repre senting distributors commission due them for shipments into their territory during the month of October. For your information but not to be shown on the commission statement, the amount vas arrived at as follows: Shipment of B^hnn^nsulation Company. Jlirminghan. Alabama to themselves at lirSnghaia, Alabama on order 92--2<39K* -- invoices392--2383. 392-2271. ______________ in. Ft. 3/4"~x l^fivaylo Pipe Insulation .C12/lin.ft. $2. 168 Lin. Ft, 3/4" x l^T Wlo ftps Insulation .C12/lin.ft. 02.02 252 Lin.Ft. 1" x 1" Kaylo Pips Insulation .013/lir..ft, 3.23 42 Lin.Ft. l*-l/4" x lw Kaylo Pipe Insulation 9 .015/lin.ft. .63 63 Lin.Ft. l-l/2;l x 1" Kaylo Pipe Insulation .Ql6/lin.ft. = 1.01 12 Lin.Ft. 2!t x 1" Kaylo Pipe Insulation .018/lin.i*t. .22 TOTAL $7.16, Very truly yours DU-i/nab ICayio Sales Attention oi Subject INTRA-COMPANY CORRESPONDENCE General Offices Toledo, Ohio 3* Follas - Toledo K*7 8, 1951 ELease issue check due subject company in the amount of $11*34 representing distributors commission due them for shipments into their territory during the month of March 1951* The amount was arrived at as follows: Invoiced to: 3adham Insulation Shipped to , Birgdnjhan. Alabama _________________ Invoice B92-3272 of 3-14--------------------------------------------------------- $11*34 Very truly yours FCF/mab F. C* Frank Kaylo Sales Attendoi 1NTRA-C0MPANY CORRESPONDENCE General Office* Toledo, Ohio ToHas - Toledo June 5, 1951 Subject 3ADHA.1 IMSlXATICI; CQilrAI.T, IIIC, 1909 First Avenue, >outii Birmingham 3. Alabama Please issue deck due subject company in the amount of $21*93 representing distributors commission due them for shipments into their territory during the month of March and April 1951* The amount was arrived at as follows: FCF/nab Very truly yours Xaylo Sales Subject ^uftaqgns <9 *TAINS* INTRA-COMPANY CORRESPONDENCE General Offices Toledo, Ohio Follas - Toledo June 5, 1951 Please issue check due subject company in the anount of $20.98 representing distributors connission due then for shipments into their territory during the ncnth of April 1951* The anount v;as arrived at as follous: Invoiced to Baahan Insulation Company. Bircin.qhan. Alabama Shioosd to_________ _______________ Invoice 392-3453 of 4-10 - ------------------------------------------------- 0 .95 Invoice 392-3493 of 4-12-51 --------------------------------------------------- 10.02 Invoice B95-1362 of 4-26-51 --------------------------------------------------- 10.01 TOTAL 020.98 Very truly yours FC?/mab F. C* Frank Kaylo Sales * 3&mftrtf)gns * Attention of INTRA-COMPANY CORRESPONDENCE Genera! Offices Toledo, Ohio Mr# J* B* Follas - Toledo June 29, 1951 Subject "TTr>w pnPflWT , TMn 1^09 ^irst Avenue, South Birmingham 3, Alabama ,->S'7/ ' Please isaue check due subject company in the amount of $31-94 representing distributors commission due them for shipments into their territory during the month of May, 1951* The amount was arrived at as follows: PCF/wb TOTAL Very truly yours, Yl C* Frank Kaylo Sales ___________________________ _________________ . apwwQtnV _ .tendon of IKTSA-COMPAKY CORRESPONDENCE -' General Offices Toledo, Ohio Kr. J* B. Follas - Toledo --------July 29, 1951. Sabject Please issue check due subject company in the amount of $239.53 representing distributors commission due them for shipments into their territory during the month of Vay, 1951* The amount was arrived at as follows; Invoiced to Badham Insulation Shipped to _ Tne. BirminghamT Ala. Invoice B92-3661 of 5/3/51 -......................................................... $232.51 FCF/wb TOTAL Very truly yours, F. C. Frank, Kaylo Sales. General Offices - Toledo, Ohio ation of ^.Vs\ J. 3, fbllris Toledo December 7, 1951 Subject Pleane issue chech due subject company in the amount of 510.20 representing distributors connission due then for ship'ier.tc into their territory during the month of November 1951. The amount was arrived at as follows: Invoiced to Shinned to T*0;,iaHan n^'Yapy, Dirninghan, Alabama ________________________ Invoice B92-5603 of 11-20 ---------- ---------------- --- - ---------- -- - - 010.20 Cft S r"c5o 0 -} O t:By .uii < o Attention of Subject KAYLO DIVISION INTRACOMPANY CORRESKJNDENCc. General Offices Toledo, Ohio Er. J. B. Follas - Toledo April 2, 1952 Please issue check due subject company in the amount of C67.64 representing distributors commission due then for shipments into their territory during the months of January and February, 1952. The amount was arrived at as follows: Invoiced to Badfcam Insulation Co.. Inc., Birmingham, Alabama Shipped to -Invoice B92-6015 of 1-7-52--------------------------------------------------- 510.20 invoice B92-6311 of 2-1-52--------------------------------------------------- 4.10 Attention of Subject O'v-jrlrVS-ILLINOIS GI-ASS r >>ipAA*Y KAYLO DIVISION INTRA-COMPANY CORRESPONDENCE General Offices - Toledo, Ohio Mr* J. 3. Follas - Toledo May 5, 1952 Please issue check due subject company in the amount of $24.00 representing distributors commission due them for shipments into their territory during the month of March, 1952 The amount was afrived at as follows; Invoiced to 3adham Insulation Co, Inc.Birmingham, Alabama Shipped to __________________________ invoice 92-6702 of 3-11-52--------------------------------------------------- $24.00 V_/ r f a j ^kj ^ iJl'-.v* < i KAYLO DIVISION intra-company correspondence Attention of General Offices * Toledo, Ohio Ifr. J. 3. Follas - Toledo Hay 5, 1952 Subject Please issue check due subject company in the amount of 0299*42 representing distributors commission due then for shipments into their territory during the month of March, 1952. The amount was arrived at as follows: Invoiced to Badhan Insulation Co. Inc., Birmingham, Alabama Shinned to " ` ______________. . '-Invoice 392-6804 of 3-24-52 --------------------------------------------- --- - -*?22.75 ^Invoice 392-6347 of 3-31-52-------------------------------------------------------- 6.00 Term KA 112-S OWE^S- ILLINOIS GLASS COMPANY KAYLO DIVISION INTRA-COMPANY CORRESPONDENCE Attention of :'-2r. J B, Follas General Offices Toledo, Ohio June 13, 1952 Subject Please issue check due subject cor.ipaiv in the amount of 3lU*21 representing disbributors commission cue then for shipments into their territory* during the month of April, 1952. Tha amount was arrived at as follows: Invoiced + ~ Shipped to T"en1a^n j Birainghan, Alabama. ____________ __ -Invoice 3 ?2-700ii of h/l& - --------------------------------------------------- 11,86 Invoiced to Badhan Insulation Co., Biminghan, Alabama. Shinned to ~ 2.33 Fora KA U2-L . 0>V Erls-ILLINOIS GLASS COMPANY KAYLO DIVISION INTRA-COMPANY CORRESPONDENCE Attention oi I-X* J. 3. 3`ollas General Offices Toledo, Ohio June 13, 1952 Subject Please issue check due subject con?any in the amount of 071*59 representing distributors contission due then for shipments into their territory during the month of April, 1952* The amount was arrived at as follows: Invoiced to Badhan Insulation Conjanv. Birmingham, Alabama Shipped to Carolina ----------------- ~- - --- --invoice B 92-6908 of k/& -------------------------------------------------------- 13.20 $71759 iir. J* B* Follas July 7, 1951 Please issue check due subject company in the amount of 17*14 representing distributors coiroission. duo then for shipments into their territory dicing the month of May, 1952* The amount uas arrived at as follows: Invoiced to 3adhan Insulation Co* Birmingham, Alabama Shipped to_____________________ ________ :_________ . invoice 3 9-3-7335 of 5/?-3------------------------------------------------------------ 07.14 Ir. J. 3. Folios \ Jiv.7 7, 19C2 Please issue chee!: duo subject company in the amount or S3.S9 representing distributors corx.iission due then for shipments into their territory during the r.onth of lay, 1952. The anount \re.s arrived at as follow: Invoiced to Badhan ^ , 3imin^}ian. Alabina Shipped to_____________ ____________________________________ . . .. -Invoice 3 92-71C0 of 5/7------------------------------------------------- -- 0 2.95 invoiced to 3adhsn Insulation Co. 3irriingha::i, Alabp-ja Shipped to , __ _Invoice 3 92-732S of 5/22 ------------------------------------------------- 5.94 .29 ) -4 3-d* Attention of Mr. J. B. Follas Subject KAYLO DIVISION INTRA-COMPANY CORRESPONDENCE General Offices Toledo, Ohio July 29, 1952 Please issue check due subject cornany in the amount of $444-30 representing distributors commission due them for shipments into their territory during the month of June, 1952. The amount was arrived at as follows: Invoiced to Badhaa Insulation Co.r Birmingham, Ala. Shipped to . ____________________________ ""--Invoice B 92-7567 of 6/19-------------------------------------------------------- 20.95 Invoiced to Basham Insulation Co., Birmingham, Ala. Shipped to ^ "Invoice B 92-7416 of 6/3-------------------------------------------------------- 59.28 invoice 3 92-7563 of 6/19----- --- --------------------- --- - - ------------18.11 Farm KA 112-1/ o' 'SINS-Illinois glass ompany KAYLO DIVISION INTRA-COMPANY CORRESPONDENCE Attention of Mr. J. tf. Follas General Offices Toledo, Ohio Subject Please issue check due subject conpany in the araount of .'63.37 representing distributors corriission due then for shipments into their territory during the nonth of July, 1952. The anount was arrived at as follows: Invoiced to Sadftan Insulation Co.. Inc., Birmingham, Alabama. Shinned to Invoice B 95-2369 of ?/l0 -- 95-2336 of 7/21 -- 92-7752 of 7/lit -- $ 5.9ii Invoiced to Badhan Insulation Co., Inc., Birmingham, Alabama Shinned to Invoice 3 95-2376 of 7/l6""" 0 3.00 Xaylo Sales :r3 o \A Fores KA H2-S OWEll'S- ILLINOIS GLASS COMPANY KAYLO DIVISION INTRA-COMPANY CORRESPONDENCE Attention of HT. J. 3. Follas General Office* * Toledo, Ohio Sept. 11, 1952 Subject Please issue check due subject company in the amount of 3.60 representing distributors coa:ission due then for shipments into their territory during the nonth of August, 1952. The amount was arrived at follows: Invoiced to Shioned to________ ,(ft, Sirminghan, Ala. Invoice 3 95-2411 of 8/7 33.60 d- Fora KA 112-S OWeIjS-ILLINOIS GLASS CoilPANY KAYLO DIVISION INTRA-COMPANY CORRESPONDENCE Attention of iir. J. B. Follas General Office* Toledo, Ohio Sept. 11, 1952 Subject Please issue check due subject company in the amount of 316*47 representing distributors commission due them for shipments into their territory during the month of August, 1952. The amount './as arrived at as follows: Invoiced to Badham Insulation Co.. Birmingham, Ala. Shiooed to /invoice 3 95-2412 of S/ll-----------------------------------------------------312.73 Invoiced to Badhan Insulation Co. Birmingham, Ala. Shinned to ______ _ "* /^Invoice B 92-7987 of S/18----------------------------------------------------- 3.69 316.47 seen e C. Frank Ol *7^ Attention of J. B. Follf.S KAYLO DIVISION INTRA-COMPANY CORRESPONDENCE A..'li. | k. _ ' General Offices * Toledo, Ohio October 15, 1952 Subject Flense issue else1.: due subject cenp :.nv in the amount of `319*63 representing distributor comission due then for shipment into their territory during the month of Sep-, te.i'oer, 1952. The amount \ns arrived at as follows: Invoiced to.3adhan Insulation Go., Sirninglian, Ala. Shipped to .................... Invoice 3 95-2436 of 9/2/52--------------------------------- 31.50 3 95-2459 of9/16/52----------------------------------2.52 3 92-3324 of9/30/52 -------------------------------- 15.66 '319.63 .ention of Subject Mr# J# B# Follas General Office - Toledo, Ohio December 18, 1952 /</- /7'^ Please issue check due subject company in the anount of 339*57 representing distributor commission, due them for shipments into their territory during the months of October, 1952# f*'*i**w*+ f*n1 1 nr.ro Shipped to ... , .. Invoiced to Bg.^nag_Ingulgjtipn^onv)any^3ir!^nghag^_Als.bina Invoice B95-2509^of lO/^LO/52----------------------------------------------------------- 18.25 Invoiced to Badhaa Insulation Company, Birmingham, Alabama^ Shipped to ` ^ Invoice B92-S573 of 10/23/52y -- 3.37 $39-57 mention of Subject fvAi'Lu INTRA-COMPANY CO?J^S?ONDE> Kr. J.. B# -Follas General Offices - Toledo, Ohio December IS, 1952 Pleasa issue check due subject company in the amount of $353*40 representing distributor commission due them for shipments into their territory during the months of August and October, 1952. The amount uas arrived at as follows: Invoiced to Badham Insulation Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Shipped to i _ Invoice B92-8553 of 10/21/52 / V -SZ-0** Attention of Subject Mr* J, B Foilas General Office* Toledo, Ohio cc: R, L. Long April 10, 1953 3ADR&H EISHilTTF 3IRMIH0HAM. ALABAMA, TM- Please issue check due subject company in the amount of $13*25> representing distributor commission due them for shipments into their territory during the month- of March 1953 The amount was arrived at as follows: prl