Document J3MMVyV3V51jV6RroR83Ov2ze

J: j: VIRGINIA: J i' IN THE CIRCUIT CCUR FOR TKE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH J: WILLIAM B. CLOVER, Ij P .1 a i n 1:iff, i v' j! JOHN'S KAN VI LIE CORP., el a I.. 1! Defendants. AT LAW NO. L-76-747 C/P *77-1 I i I ! ANSWERS OF DEFENDANT GAF CORPORATION I TO PLAINTIFF'S INITIAL INTERROGATORIES ;:i -P--R---O---P--O---U---N--D---E--D------T--O --A--L---L----D---E--F---E--N---D---A--N---T--S | Defendant, GAP Corporation, makes answer to che Plaint!f ! Initial Interrogatories propounded Co all defendants, as follows: 1. Please state the name, address; and job title of each person who has supplied information used in answering these interrogatories. j 1, Phillip Bettoli, Technical Director Research Department, c/o GAF Corporation, South Bound Brook, New Horsey. jWilliam Schwingen, Manager of Materials Research, c/o GAF j Corporation, Wayne, New Jersey. William Fassuliotiu, Director I of Safety, Security and Occupational Health, c/o OAF Corporation, i; Wayne, New Jersey. 2. Please state whether or not you are a corporation. If so, state: a. Your correct corporate name; b. The state or your corporation; c. The date of your incorporation; d. The address of youv principal place of business; e. Whether or not your have ever held a certificate of s ufhority to do bu.?in.-:;3C i n tile St.cit'? of Virc: x n \ a.; ilusth or no 1 y r>u Vi:.' -'c 3. t h "i" L*VI1 C'O SJ O of' siZC&pK i r. j off V .i.vvjin i a i-f r.o, V of i; t; c c i g: t J.'Of rc.c v ict? ii\ th:- S`;x: ; C j jiwd pro 3 'iCsdfr- 1 g. o.r no l*. ou h.Hv'e o ' h:\?. [.ary, or cor;r>or..'.t. Lop. (i>) , J5 O Tho na*n& of tho .v.ubsidiary and/or pm^:c jciicu: 2. :t L * s date of incorporation, if corporation; 3. ii;`s corporaLe purposes. 2. Yes, A. GAF Corporation P.. Del awn re. ;; Si jj b ft [j i ;do business C. 1929 I>. 140 West 51st Street, New York, We w York .10020. K. GAF does not hold a certificate of authority to in the State of Virginia. F. GAF does not have a registered agent tor the purpose of accepting service in the State of Virginia. ; c- '- ;; 1. OAF was incorporated in Delaware as the American l.G. Chemical Corporation in 1929 , then in 1939 the i I name was changed to General Aniline i. Film Corporation and then in 1908 the name was changed to GAF Corporation. jj 7. 1929 I; 3. The Knberoid Co., a New Jersey Corporation, was a Now York Stock Exchange Company, engaged in the mar.oFaccure Jof industrial and consumer building material. On May 26, 1967, GAF merged with the Ruber old Co. 3. State your corporate purposes. ij 3. See the answer t.o 2(0) ( 3 } above. 4. State whether you have controlled, purchased, or in any way acquired any interest in any corporation or business entity ' which has mined, manufactured, produced, processed, compounded, ' converted, sold, merchandised, supplied, distributed, and/or I otherwise placed in the stream of commerce asbestos, material i containing asbestos, asbestos products and compounds, if so, stilt a. The name and address of said corporation or business entity; r-) b. The date you controlled, purchased or acquired any interest; c. The manner of acquisition, including percentage of ownership. i i; jiYork, 4. Yes. A. New York. The Ruberoid Company, 733 third .Avenue, Mew j B. Pursuant' to Agt eereunc dated March 23, 1567, or. !f!ay 26, 1567, GAP merged with The Ruberoid Co., a hew Jersey | Corpor a t. i on . j C. Merger, ! 5. State whether you have, at any time, been engager! in i the mining, manufacturing, producing, processing, compounding. converting, selling, merchandising, supplying, distributing, and/or asbestos products and/or material containing asbestos? j i I; Be specific in your answer and state; jl a. The trade name(s) of the product(s); j j il i b. The date- you first mined, manufactured, produced, ] processed, compounded, converted, sold, merchandised, supplied, distributed and/or otherwise placed in | the stream of commerce your asbestos, asbestos j products and/or products containing asbestos; j c. The date your asbestos, asbestos products and/or ) materials containing asbestos were first placed upon the market; i !] d. The inclusive dates of mining, manufacturing, jj producing, processing, compounding, converting, j) selling, merchandising, supplying, distributing |! and/or otherwise placing in the stream of commerce. I :! e. Whether or not the said product or products are I still being mined, manufactured, produced, processed, compounded, converted, sold, merchandised ; supplied, distributed and/or placed in the stream j of commerce, and if not, the date of discontinuance; and/or withdrawal from the market, and the ! reason for said discontinuance; f. A complete description of the product or products including the type of asbestos contained in the produo t; g. The percentage of asbestos contained in said product or products. h. A description o.t" the physical appearance of such product; i. A description of the intended uses of each such product; j. If you are a seller or distributor of asbestos , material containing asbestos, asbestos products and compounds, then specify from whom you purchase said products, whan and in what quantity. 5. Ybs. A. "Cals iiite", "l 1.5" and ''21V Insulating Cements, T/NA-.1.00" Insulating Jacketing and Asbestos Paper and Millboard, j: B. On May 26 , 196 7 , CAF merged with the Ruberold ;Co. Ruberold began the manufacture of industrial thermal insuIntion products containing asbestos in the late 1920's or early 1930's . I C. "Calsilite" - first manufactured at Gloucester, |Uew Jersey from the mid 1940's until mid 1970 at which time GAF il j commenced the production of 3sbestos~free Calsilite ("Calsilite ii |;TI"). j! "11.6" and ''214" insulating Cements - nanuf.act.ured jjafc Kyde Park, Vermont from approximately 1936 through September, 15 V. !i !i "T/KA-100" Insulating .Jacketing - maiiufaccared at South Bound Brook, New Jersey from 1962 to September, 1971. [ ^at ! Erie, '`Asbestos Taper and Millboard" - manufactured ! Pennsylvania from approximately 1923 until September, 1971. D. See answer to 5(C). I Il !if E. None of the above are still being mined, aarw- i /lectured, produced, processed, compounded, converted, sold, I j limetchandised, supplied, distributed and/or placed in the stream jjof commerce by CAF Corporation with the exception of asbestos jipaper and millboard. The dates of d i s r on i i nuance and/or wf.thdr.twajj -are in the answer to 5(c) above. i 1 !! I: jibluck. F. "Calsilite" - high temperature p ipe cove r i g and i Contained 10Z asbestos and balance consisted of. diatama -- ! jiceous earth and hydrous lime silicate. Contained primarily : a mo site, asbestos. "115'' and ''21V Insulating Cements - known ;generically as 7M and 7_SC_type cements, respectively, composed li jientirely of asbestos fibers. Contained Crysotile. asbestos. Ai V 1vr/BWiwv>>l<evdw/0vA-.v T/NA-100" Insulation Jacketing a two-ply !! Ilaminated product codglstisB of a layer of asbestos paper in {{ j'.which rrysetik ,jr,hearea fibers were bonded with tjooprenc and a player of polyvinyl floride. (Tedlar) plastic film attached by iadheaive on one side. Contained Crysotile asbestos. ! Asbestos paper A Millboard crysotiic insnlntir.H `paper, used as a .-jacketing or pipe wrap. Millboard was used 'primarily as a commercial heat or fire barrier. Contained jerysotile asbestos. G. See answers to 5(F). J H. Cals i ll. r e. - high temperature pipe covering and ibui.lt up block containing approximately 10Z amosite asbestos jfiber and 2X crysotlle fiber and remainder consisting of hydrous lime silicate and diatamaceo-us earth. \ "115" & "214" Insulation cements - .insulating j'ceraents composed of crysotile asbestos fiber. jj "T/NA-100" Insulating Jacketing - two ply, lanin- j-ated product consisting of layer of asbestos paper in which j! jerysotile asbestos fibers were bonded with Kcoyrer.fi and layer j.of polyvinyl floride (l'cdlar) plastic film attached by adhesive !i |ion one: side. j ` j | j !jc.1 ng pApsr , u jibiirrler. Asbestos paper arid, millboard - crysotile insula- j as a jacketing, pipe cap, com-aer cial heat or: ri.ee. Calatlite - high temperature pipe coverin j: a lul built-up block. J { :c*m* n v -:i . 115 and ?. 14 Insulating cements -- i.usolatii T/h'A--100 - insulation jacketing. Asbestos paper & millboard - insulating paper used as a jacketing or pipe wrap. Millboard -./as used primarily as an industrial fire barrier. J. N/A. II VMV.VA-.<VWW-WMVWMW.V 6. Kith respect to each asbestos product mined, manufactured,' produced, processed, compounded, converted, sold, merchandised, ; ; supplied, distributed, and/or otherwise pieced in the stream of commerce by you or any predecessor or subsidiary corporation, j j i | j state whether the said product was/is sold in a solid form or a powdered form or other form and state the process or procedure for actually using each of your products by the ultimate consumer/userJ j 6. Solid fore. CAF'o products uere supplied in a Iready to use form. However, where on-site fitting was required, (jthe following procedures were necessary: H ij Calsilite - required cutting only where dimensions Iso dictated. ! 115 and 214 insulating cements - required nixing with water. In addition* a small amount of ordinary building ceaenc was `.adduct at the user's option, j | T/NA--.1.00 - required cutting only where dimensions so dictated. | Asbestos paper and millboard - required cutting jor.ly where dimensions so dictated, CAF has no direct knowledge {regarding how its products were us^d on the \ob sites. j 7. Were any patents or trademarks ever applied for or granted with regard to any product listed in the previous Interrogatory? If so, for each such product state; j i c\ . The number of each patent; ; b' The date issued and to whom issued; c. The name of each patent application that in presently pending. j; li / * j; 3,300.927. Yen A. T/NA-100 is covered by U.3. Patent No. B. It was Issued January 31, 1967, to I'htilip Ber.f.e'l C. hone. ,**WMVMWW (D ' 8. State; the composition of the asbestos, material containing *; I !i asbestos, asbestos products and compounds, which you or any j jj predecessor or subsidiary corporation have mined, manufactured, produced, processed, compounded, converted, sold, merchandised, supplied, distributed and/or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce, and since the initial date of said mining, manufacturing) producing, processing, compounding, converting, selling, merchan- ; t dining, supplying, distributing and/or otherwise placing in the ; stream of commerce, advise whether or not there have been any alterations or changes in that composition. If there have been . j ' such alterations or changes, then as to said alterations or changes state: ! a. The trade name of each such product; > j b. The date each such product was first, offered; c. The specific nature and date of each alteration or change of composition; .? d. The reason for each alteration dr change of ,j composition. I i 'changed 3. See answer to 5(F) for composition. Cnlsilito was in 1957 to facilitate its aonufacruring process. In raid S1970, CAF began the production of asbestes-frec Calsilite II. Minor changes in the composition of Calsilite were made. ' 9. Do any memoranda, specifications, blueprints or other 'written materials of any kind or character relating to the 'design and preparation of said product now exist? If so: )j a. List each such written material of document; ii b. State the name and address of the person who j presently has possession of the same; c. Provide a copy of said memoranda, specifications, blueprints or other written materials or identify !; same with such particularity so as to enable jj same to be made subject to a Motion for Production ;< of Documents, pursuant to Rule 4.9 of the Code ;j .... of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Ye:!., SCO answer to !'/ and f/,ti . 7 VO v.v 10. Please identify by location and product produced, each ''plant in which products listed in your answer to Interrogatory .No. 5 have been manufactured and/or assembled Ij = i plants have been in operation. and the dates said i i i j t i 10. See 5 {C) for the plants in which the products were I i manufactured. These plants have been in operation as follows: Cal. sill t.e was ra 3 n u f a e tured from the aid 19 4 0 f a through September, 1970 at Gloucester, New Jersey. 115 and 214 Insulating Cements were mined at Hyde Park, Vermont from 191ft through 19/5. T/KA-1.00 was manufactured at South Bound Brook, New Jersey*from 1562 to September, 1971. Asbestos paper and mtllboard have been manufactured at Erie, Pennsylvania since 1928. 11. Please list the name and address of each business jentity from whom you have received raw asbestos and the dates and I' ;! amounts received. i I j I 11. GAF purchased certain asbestos fibers from Cape (Asbestos Corporation and, to a small e.xte.nr, Johns--Manville . jThe. dates and amounts received of these purchases are unknown, j. 1 !' i2. State whether you have any record of any hind indicating I !;that any asbestos, material containing asbestos, asbestos products and compounds mined, manufactured, produced, processed, compounded, converted, sold, merchandised, supplied, distributed, ' and/or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce by or through. you were sold to or purchased from any of the defendants in this suit? If your answer is in the affirmative, state: : ! a. The name of each such defendant, (a) ; ; b. The date(s) of sale or purchase or each said product including the amount and kind of materials so sold or purchased, specifying trade name; c. The name, address and job classification of the individual currently having possession of such records. > ; \ i 9 I 12. Although r/r/rcaio ^a 1 ci; records ere /i vu i J.ub J tv , tho 'present state und condition of. these documents n.ike it. virtually i 1.1 to pcs.si b 7 y to ;.;oorch for the requested in f o rma f. ion without setae I I j or oil of the following items ol`. information; (a) CAT' or 'Kubcroid product name (b) ayproxiisatc date of shipment (c) i contractor or sub-contractor (d) job site and <e) regions', 'distributor. j| In the event that plaintiff is unable or unwilling jSto supply this information, in whole or in port, GAF will comply |:with this in te r roga t cry as far as practicable pursuant to i| I'KuXc 3 J (O, Fed. E. Civ. T. i: 13. Are or have any o your asbestos products ever been ; marketed and/or sold in the State of Virginia by companies Mother than your own? If so, state.; a. The name and address of each such company; b. The date and to whom that company sold your product (s); c. The type of product(s) sold, including trade name; .! d. The ultimate purchaser/user of said product(s). j; 13. No. j 14. Havtj you either directly or indirectly sold, distributed or delivered any products containing asbestos to the 'Norfolk Naval Shipyard, ' or any other agent or agency : thereof. j 14. CAFrs available shipping records show no sales oi: [shipments to the. Norfolk Naval Shipyard. CAF is not familiar .with `'other agent (s) or agencies thereof" but will conduct c (search of its available record* if s o acivls.'d of tho tu-tm's I; );auch entities. r \ If your answttt to the previous Interrogatory is in the affirmative, state: <n. The name of the agent or agencies to whom sold; b. Whether sold by you directly or through an agent er subsidiary; c. The name and address of the agent and/or subsidiary; d. The date(s) sold; e. The trade name of the product(s) sold; . The volume of sales; y. The amount and hind of materials sold; h. From whom you purchased said materials. i. The ultimate purchaser/user of said products. i! 15. K/A. ii 16. With regard to the rireceeding Interrogatory, c!o you have any records which would note any such sale? If so, please provide copies of same, or, in the alternative, specifically state the name, present, address and job classification of the person having possession c>f such records, and identify such "records with such particularity so as to enable same to be subject i; to a Motion for Production of Documents, pursuant to Rule 4.9 of 'the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. ji 7.6. h'/A. ;. 17. State the names of individual or individuals (including !; their present job classifications, length of employment, and 'dates of various job titles) who has/have knowledge of whether ;. or not any of the asbestos, material containing asbestos, j: asbestos products and compounds, were sold to the Norfolk Naval I; Shipyard, or the United States Government, Department of the Navy i! ;j of to any Governmental Agency, j: S2e response co inte rrt'g.u.ory if. 18. Describe the manner in which you have maintained i records of purchases and/or sales over the past thirty years. I j5late: Where said records are kept; The information contained in such records; !i c. The length of time said purchase and/or sale ij records are maintained by your company. I; >. 18. Shipping records ubh originally kept at the jnanufac tit ring site. Today, available shipping records for j'Ca 1 si 1 ite axe kept in Gloucester and South Bound fir.ook. Moo Je rsey S ;,GAJf" maintains a seven (7) year document retention program. jj 19. list the name and address of each business entity from i; whom you have purchased or received raw asbestos and the ji i! date and amounts purchased or received. I, 19. See answer to interrogatory 11. li jj 20. Describe in detail the type of packages in which you j: sold, distributed or delivered asbestos, material containing j' li asbestos, asbestos products and compounds in the State of j |! Virginia, listing: - a. The date each type oi' package was used; :i b. A physical description thereof including the size of the package, color, and size of any lettering on the package, including warnings of any kind; c. A description of any printed material or trademarks that appeared on or in said package, including a verbatim statement of any warnings; or cautions. fj 20. Host Rube r oi cl end CAR industrial t.hernal insulation (. (`products ware sold In cor rug at ft A car rib oarA boxes bearing the? jfcoepanics * respective naoftft or logos. j) sold ir. heavy-duty bagsii The insulating cement ` .21 Slate the names and addresses of all distributors of any of defendant's products in the State of Virginia. For each distributor state: j < ! a. The dates products were first sold or delivered to said distributor; j b. The type and quantity of product or products sold or delivered t.o said distributor; I c. Whether any agreement concerning third party liability existed between you and the distributors;j if so, and if such agreement was in writing j attach a copy of such agreement; if said I agreement, was oral then set forth fully the terms and the names anti address of the persons j making such oral agreement. j jj 21. C.AF sold Calsilite to the following companies in i , |the State of Virginia: Vaco Insulation Co., C. E. Thurston 5. Ijsons, end ['orter Hoyden Co., whom we believe arc distributors. I ;GAF has in Its possession shipping records for certain of its industrial, thermal insulation products for the year? 1967 - 1969 (in part) and 1970 - 1972 (whole). The partial records are : presently stored at GAF's facility in Gloucester, Vew Jersey and ! the latex- records are in South Bound Brook, New Jersey. These | records, voluminous in number, are in numerical order by invoice < number. GAF is presently in the process of organizing these I records by product and shipping area including distributor or !' contractor or sub-contractor and job-site wherever possible. i' ;| 22. Did defendant at any time assign any of it's asbestos, !; material containing asbestos, asbestos products and compounds ;i to any person, firm or corporation? If so, state.: a. The name of the product so assigned; i ' b. The time period of the assignment; i; Tha nature o the assignment (whether exclusive \\ or not) ,, { i i i f j t t I 22 . Hot. to GAP's knowledge i'l I^ 2 3. At the timt? o f ouch assignment, was there any agreement between the parties, concerning their liability in the event ! of future litigation concerning the product? It so, state: a. The nature and substance of such agreement; b. Who has a copy of the same. | 23. N/A. i; ; i I X | i 24. While engaged in the mining, manufacturing, producing, processing, compounding, converting, selling, merchandising, supplying, distributing, and/or otherwise placixig in the stream of commerce of an asbestos or asbestos-containing product, did you or any defendant sell directly to insulation distrib utors? if so, name the said distributors, giving: a. Their correct corporate name; b. Their address; c. The dates sold; d. The specific nature of the products sold, using trade name; e. The percentage of asbestos fiber contained in the said product; f. Wow the said product was delivered to the distributor, including size; g. How the said product was packaged for delivery to the distributor, and what warnings, if any, were on the same, giving dates said warnings were used or modified; h. Whether the distributor was advised or instructed to use warnings in it's sales of said product* I 24. Yes. See response to Interrogatory 21. 25. State whether you presently manufacture the product(s) previously listed? If not, state the date such manufacture was discontinued and the reason for such discontinuance. 25. GAf does not nsnnfactpr* any industrial asbestos products now. Discontinued in September, 1971. Ihnufsirture of suc.ii products was discontinued because they were suit profitable. 2 6. Have any of the products .listed above in Interrogatory Mo. .6 been altered in chemical composition since first being marketed? 26. Y<;s. 27. If so, please state: a. The trade name of each such product. b. The date each such product was altered ~c. The nature of the alteration. 27, See answer to interrogatory 8S. 1 i 28. What is the name, address, and the job title of each individual who participated in t.he design and preparation of j j manufacturing specifications for each such product? ! 2P. rhillil' Bettoli, Technical Director, Research j Pepni-rnent, CA F Corporation, Sooth Bound Brook, New Jersey and j Dr. Cordon (now deceased), both nee were employed in the Kuberolul j Research Department. [ 29. Do any written memoranda, specifications, blueprints | Jor other written materials of any kind or character relating to . the design and preparation of said products now exist? j 29. Yes. | 30. If so, please state: a. List each such written material or document. b. Who presently has possession of each such document. c. Provide a copy of said memoranda, specifications, blueprints, or other 'written materials or identify same to be made subject to a Motion for Production ; of Documents pursuant to Rule 4.9 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. j ! 30. See answer Co interrogatory S 9. I i H 31. Prior t.o releasing the products listed in Interrogator No. 5 to the public for sale, were any tests conducted on same to determine potential health hazards involved in the use of materials contained therein? !i 31. Neither r.uberuid nor Ca? liad facilities nor cquipi`mfnt designed for medical research and therefore conducted no j: tests or studies of the nature specified. 32. If so, please state: a. The name, address, and job classification of each individual who conducted such tests. b. The results of such said tests. i| 32. See answer to interrogatory f31. li ..... 33. Do any written memoranda, specifications, blueprints or other written materials of any Kind or character exist relating to the testing of said products? 34. If so, please state: a. List, each such written material or document. b. Who presently has possession of each such document and where is it located. c. Provide a copy of said memoranda, specifications, blueprints or other written materials or identify same with such particularity so as to enable same to be made subject to a Motion for Production of Documents, pursuant to Rule 4.9 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. jj 35. Did defendant make any design changes as a result of i: such tests? ,p<iWMWWWWW 3G. If so, please state: a. The nature of the change made. b. The purpose of the change. c. The name, address, and job classification of each person in charge of making a change. 3b. MtuiWu ''h $5/. of 37. After releasing said products to the public were any tests conducted thereon to determine potential health hazards involved in the use of materials contained therein? o7 io 0/uO&3/. 0o 38. If so, please state: a. The name, address, and job classification of each person conducting said tests. b. The purpose of the test. 3-0. c. The results of said tests. UL, QnUSJArt'Vio yO^y ^ /. 39. Do any written memoranda, specifications, recommend ations or other written materials of any kind or character relating to the testing of the said products exist? 39. 0/fVUV~L-\J jt> /, 40. If so, please state: a. List each such -written material or document. b. Who presently has possession of each such document and where is it located. 70. c. Provide a copy of said memoranda, specifications, ox other written materials or identify same with such particularity so as to enable same to be made subject to a -Motion for Production of Documents, pursuant to Rule 4.9 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Ol/'Mm/Z-'v 'j'O *Jhx)kOvKu>C>aj`& W-if 3 i . 0/ 41. Did defendant make any changes as a result of such tests? ji{. 6-Q.t- $n*v'v 'fo \jty\it^ 3/ . 0 !L 42. If so, please state: a. The nature of the change made. b. The purpose of the change. The name, address, and job classification of each ~ person responsible for making such a change. r z&Mvvjjl.' 'fo / i v't 'Vl/) Oediy^u US I. jj 43. Has sales material been prepared by defendant or its }i agents for purposes of marketing or advertising defendant's I' asbestos products? 'I 4 3. Yes. <54. If so, please state: a. The name and address of each person or entity who prepared same. b. The name,address, and job title of each person who presently lias possession of same. c. The date same was prepared. d. The media used to disseminate the sales material. 44. CAP lias produced for inspection and copying by plaintiffs attorney those copies of its relevant sales material, which are presently within GAF's possession', custody or control. The persona who prepared these materials arc unknown. The dates of preparation are unknown unless indicated thereon. 45. lias any written material of any kind or character been prepared by defendant or its agents indicating how defen dant's products should be used and maintained? ('+ 5 Yes. See answer to io te rrogatory 4 44 and .454. 46. If so, please state as follows: a. The name, address, and job classifiention of each person who prepared same. b. The name, address, and job classification of each person who presently lias possession of same. c. The dates and manner in which said material was distributed to purchasers of defendant's products. d. Provide a copy e said written material or identify same with such particularity so as to enable same to be made subject to a Motion for Production of Documents, pursuant to Rule 4.9 of the Code of Virginia, 19.90, as amended. H 46. See. answer to interrogatory 44.1. I! 47. State the method by which you mine, manufacture, produce, process, compound, convert, sell, merchandise, supply, distribute, and/or otherwise place in the stream of commerce I your asbestos product, including in your answer the nature of any : raw material or any additives used and specify each step under- | taken by you from the time said raw materials or additives are ji received by you until your product is finished. Explain fully. j! 47. CAP no longer is,mufoctijrcs industrial thermal 1 f insulation rclatfa product.!. 48. Do you still mine, manufacture, produce, process, compound, convert, sell, merchandise, supply, distribute, and/or : otherwise place in the stream of commerce asbestos, material !, 1 containing asbestos, asbestos products and compounds? If so. tate: a. Whether or not you have changed the composition of the product (s) b. The nature of the change, being specific; c. Whether or not you issue, or have ever issued, > any warnings with regard to the use, handling, or 1 exposure to said product(s), and, i! d. If so, attach copies of all such warnings giving y the date(s) of the same and where they have appeared, or in the alternative, identify such ;l warnings with such particularity so as to enable i same to be subject to a Motion for Production of j: Documents, pursuant to Rule 4.9 of the Code of !' Virginia, 1950, as amended. 48. No. 49. Describe the manner in which your product (s) is (are) shipped to the ultimate consumer. a. If boxed or packaged in any manner, is there any type of warning or labelling on the package? If so, state: /<? b. The nature of such warning or 1 <tDc> L f c. The nature of all warnings that you have given on such packaging and the dates you commenced to give same; d. Attach copies oi: all warnings with dates cl issuance, or in the alternative, identify such warnings with such particularity so as to enable same to be subject to a Motion for Production of Documents, pursuant to Rule 4.9 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. 49. Host. Ruhevoltl and RAF i t\ d us c r i.a 1 thermal insulation products were sold and shipped in corrugated cardboard boxes bearing those companies' names nod logos. The insulating cement j i j I I I'was sold in heavy-duty bags. For warning language see answer to I ii interrogatory '-`54. Thu specific description, if any, appearing on. the package is unknown, except to the extent that the trade name J ! of. the product did appear thereon. 50. Doss the asbestos product(s) that you mine, manufacture, : produce, process, compound, Convert, sell, merchandise, supply, ' distribute', and/or otherwise place in the stream of commerce require any further change or modification before being put to ' its ultimate use by the consumer? If so, state the specific. i nature if | . of the change or modification. 50. See answer to interrogatory #47. i J i j i j j j; 51. ii i! produced, ! ; supplied, If you have advertised the product mined, manufactured, processed, compounded, converted, sold, merchandised, distributed, and/or otherwise placed in the stream of i: j; commerce by you, state: ! j i j i ; j j! a. How you have advertised the same; . ... ' , jj b. In what journals, magazines, etc., such advertise- [ |j inents have appeared and when; j c. Whether or not at any time such advertisements j have carried warnings with them; ;: t \ d. Attach copies of all. such adver Uisemsnts, including warnings, giving the date(s) of same j and where they have appeared, or in the j ; alternative, identify such warnings with such | particularity so as to enable same to be subject to a Motion for Production of Documents, pursuant to Rule 4.9 of the Coda ofVirginia, 1950, as amended. j , fJ IP' 51. Yn a , soc answer to .Interrogatory S 4 4 . 52. When, if at all, did you first realize that the use, handling, and exposure to asbestos, material containing asbestos asbestos products and compounds, and the asbestos vapors, dust and fibers resulting therefrom might cause illness or disease of any kind? 52. GAP was aware in approximately 196S of opinions ;to such effect expressed by members of the medical profession. Certain employees may have heard of such a potential problem in 1965. 53. Kith regard to the preceding Interrogatory, explain fully hovt you made such discovery, indicating when and what papers, journals or warnings you may have read, giving the names and dates thereof ar.d the exact manner in which you acquired such knowledge. 53. See answer to Interrogatory #52. 54. State whether you have at any time issued any warnings of any kind with regard to the possible toxic effect that asbestos or asbestos products may have upon humans and/or animals. If so, state: a. Wien each such warning was issued; b. The manner of issuance; c. The exact wording of such warning; d. Where it appeared; e. If in writing, the sice of the print; . Attach copies of all such warnings to this answer, of in the alternative, identify such warnings with such particularity so as to enable same to be subject to a Motion for Production of Documents, pursuant to kuie 4,9 of the Code of Virginia, 1350, as amended. D'I 54. Yes. In late 1965 or aarly 1.966,, Rubnroid began | placing the followln r warning on par. kagea of it || insula ti on p roducts containing a s b e a tou fiber. industrial, t h e r u> a.) I CAUTION I THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS ASBESTOS TIBER. INHA LATION OF ASBESTOS IN EXCESSIVE QUANTITIES OVER LONG PERIOD Of TIME MAY BE HARMFUL. IF DUST IS CREATED WHEN THIS PRODUCT IS HANDLED, 1: 'i AVOID BREATHING THE DUST. IF ADEQUATE VENTIL i ATION CONTROL IS NOT POSSIBLE, NEAR RESPIRATORS APPROVED BY THE U.S. BUREAU OF MINES FOR PNEUMOCONIOSIS PRODUCING DUST. ii i: l;In .19 70 this warning label was changed to read as follows: j: CAUTION |] CONTAINS ASBESTOS FIBER. INHALATION IN EXCESSIVE ji QUANTITIES OVER LONC PERIODS OF TIME MAY BE HARMFUL. j! AVOID BREATHING DUST. IF ADEQUATE VENTILATION |: IS NOT POSSIBLE, WEAR RESPIRATORS APPROVED BY 1 1 THE U.S. BUREAU OF MINES FOR PNEUMOCONIOSIS ii ; PRODUCING DUST. jit approximately 197?., this warning was huther changed to read ! as f. allows : i. 'u 1! jj if CAUTION CONTAINS ASBESTOS FI BEE. INHALATION IN EXCESSIVE QUANTITIES OVER LONG PERIODS OF TIME MAY RE HARMFUL. AVOID BREATHING DUST. 5S. State whether you are aware that the continued unprotected exposure to asbestos, material containing asbestos, ;: j{ asbestos products and compounds, and the asbestos vapors, dust ; J j and fibers resulting therefrom, can cause, or contribute to < causing illness or disease of any kind? If so, state: a. When you acquired such awareness; b. The manner in which you acquired it; ! I i t i c. What illnesses arid/or diseases are caused, precipitated, or aggravated by such prolonged i exposure, stating whether the illness and/or i: disease is, in vour opinion, caused, precipitated !) or aggravated; i i l! d- Does such illness or disease create chronic condition e. If so, can said condition progressively worsen, ! even after removal from the proximity of asbestos, material containing asbestos, asbestos products ; and compounds, and/or other dangerous substances, ' and the asbestos vapors, dust and fibers resulting \ therefrom; f. State fully your understanding in this regard. 55, GAF is aware thac the continued unprotected inbala~ jtion or ingestion of asbestos fibers can cause serious bodily f jharro. h\ 1965 , GA.F first, became a*ara of iadical opinions *fco thiy effect* GAP .is unable and iacompe Cent Co answer those Tparcs of this interrogatory vhir.h seek medical opinions. i s 50. If your answer to the preceding Interrogatory is in the : affirmative, state that: part or those parts of the body which j is (are) or can be affected by prolonged exposure to asbestos, material containing asbestos, asbestos products and compounds, and the asbestos vapors, dust and fibers resulting therefrom. 56. Sec answer to interrogatory 155. 57. Do you know the manner in which those parts are affected? If your answer to this interrogatory is in the Affirmative, explain fully. 4 59. State what you have done since the above knowledge was acquired to attempt, to eliminate the illnesses and/or diseases that can be caused, precipitated or aggravated by prolonged exposure to asbestos, material containing asbestos, asbestos products and compounds, and the asbestos vapors, dust and fibers resulting therefrom. In your answer, specifically state: a. What changes you have made in the composition of your product(s) and the dates on which said changes were made; Jo. What changes you have mads in the packaging of your product<s), and the dates on which said changes were made; c. What changes you have made in the procedure that you recommend for persons who will be using, handling or exposed to said product(s) over a prolonged period, and as to said recommended procedure, state; 1. Whether any respiratory apparatus is recommended to be worn; 2. Whether any special clothing or protective outfits are recommended to be worn; 3.. Whether any air circulation, ventilation or washing procedure is recommended in areas where persons will be using, handling and exposed to said asbestos product(s). II 58. GAF began plating warning labels On its industrial II 'thermal insulation products in 1566. GAT was the first ,'company to develop an aabes t os-i're e pipe covering, Calsilite lill, in 1911. 59. Describe specifically each safety requirement that has been initiated, and as to each state the following; State the current standard safety requirements in the asbestos industry geared to protect persons who use, handle and are exposed to asbestos, material containing asbestos, asbestos products and compounds, and the asbestos vapors, dust and fibers resulting therefrom over a prolonged period: a. When said safety requirements were first invoked; b. By whom said safety requirements were first invoked; /i -v JO c. State how said safety requirements are enforced and whether periodic evaluations or investi.cjat.xcns are made. If so, state: 1. Who maker, said evaluations or investigations? 2. How frequently are said evaluations or investigations made? . ; 3. Whether a written record of said evluations j or investigations is made, and if so, ' provide all copies of same or identify same with such particularity so as to enable ; j same to be subject to a Motion for Production j of Documents, pursuant to Rule 4.9 of the ! Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. j ! 59. This interrogatory calls for a legal interpretation |of present 03HA standards and requirements. CAF procedures and .practices which are or were used in its manufacturing plants are. ^irrelevant to field insulators such as plaintiff. j; 60. Has defendant, at any time, published and/or distributed i j; i j: any brochures, pamphlets or other written materials of any kind ! > or character that contain any warnings concerning the possibility ;; !| of injuryresultingfrom the use of the products listed in l! j; Interrogatory Ho. 5? I j i j 60. Sop answer to 1 nrrrvgatory l-J'461. If so, please state: j ! a. The wording of each such warning. j b. A description of each such printed, material. J c. The method used to distribute the warning to j persons who are likely to use the products. j il!: d. The date each such warning was issued. j i' je. The name, address, and job classification ofeach person who presently has possession of the above described documents. j f. Provide a copy of said brochures, pamphlets orotherj written materials or identify same with such particularity so as to enable same to he made subject to a Motion for.Production of Documents, pursuant to Rule 4.9 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. 61. See answer to in r. <: r i; og a i. o ry 60. *34 62. Does defendant contend that asbestos products can bo manufactured so as to eliminate all potential health hazards to workers using same? ' j| f'2- CAF objects to this interrogatory on the grounds diet; jji t is argiiRUiUative, ambiguous anil calls for t-xporf crc.!in-U-.il ( ;i< a n cl ruv d j. c a 1 o rrl r. i o rt. 63. If SO/ please explain. j> 63. Sc answer to in ter rogaoc ry #62. i; j i 6<S. Did you ever at any time give advice or warnings to ! I workers, persons or entities such ns, plaintiff of any dangerous |t ; nature or possible dangerous nature of your products? If j so, describe your warnings and to whom such warnings were given. j t !: $4, See answer to Inter rogatory i?5 4. | 65. As to asbestos products and products containing asbestos, have you ever recognized any threshold limit at any time from 1940 to present. i: 65. The threshold Umlc has been studied by the American i: 'Conference \ irxot have a of Governmental, and Industrial Hygienists* GA? does specific, recollection concerning the date on which it .first became aware of recommended threshold Halts. This; defendant.! jhas always'endeavored to operate within the special limits thus j .recommended. j 66. With regard t:o asbestos products and products containing asbestos manufactured, sold or distributed by you during the period of 1940 to present., What do you contend to be"threshold"limits? j; 66. Hot required by Court to hr. answered .in other Jlcoor dina f.ed proceedings. 67. Have you over advised or warned those using your products cl threshold Units? if you did, describe exactly ! how you advised those using your products of such threshold limits. j| 67- CA" belongs to the Asbestos Information Association/ hKort.ii America, Inc. ("AIA"). As it is believed that the main iifur.ction of the AIA is to publish material and literature which |i jjthen forwarded or otherwise transmitted to contractors, GAP has Ijindirectly advised contractors of such threshold limits. is 68. Xf you did not advise those using your products of such threshold limit, explain why you did not. ! j 68. H/A. I 69. Where did you obtain such information concerning threshold limits, and when did you get such information? 69. See answer to interrogatory #65. 70. If your company is one contending that some dust count constitutes a threshold level, please explain in detail ' when you got such information, exactly what it is, setting out all the details which you have concerning this iri its entirety, and what your company has done to advise those.who might use : your products. || 70. Hof. required by court to be answered. m 71 When did your company first become aware of any governmental or private agency or other person issuing guide lines suggesting threshold values for exposure to asbestos dust. j: 71. See answer to interrogatory if Co. 72. State, the name and address of the agency or person issuing the guideline and the proposed guideline and, in ' answering, defendant's opinion, of the purpose of the suggested limitation. 1'J. $.0 6- 7? "fF& 73. Has your company ever gone into the field and seen, observed, or counted, or in any way shown any interest in ascertaining how much dust is creator! by the worker applying your products when he is in an enclosed area such as a ship, submarine, building, factory, room, or confined space? Answer "Yes" or "No". 73. Not to GAF's knowledge. ( I 74. If your answer is "Yes" to Interrogatory No. 73, then please explain the details of when and where such observations were taken, by whom the.y were taken, giving the complete name and address, the system used for such observation : and the complete results, and to whom the results were reported. 74. N/A. 75. State what changes you have made at your place of i business concerning the safety of your employees insofar as !i the procedure used by those who have, had, or will have ;i prolonged exposure to asbestos, material containing asbestos, ii asbestos products and compounds, and the asbestos vapors, dust il |! and fibers resulting therefrom, and as to said changes, '* El . When said changes were put into effect; state: b. How these changes were communicated to your employees, and if in writing, please provide a copy of said notification of change or identify same with such particularity so as to enable same to be subject to a Motion for Production of Documents, pursuant to Rule 4.9 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. | j j I * j I j j j | ; < j j c. Whether you purchased, supplied, required or re.commended any special respiratory apparatus, clothing or other protective health means for your [ employees using, handling or being exposed to asbestos, material containing asbestos, asbestos products and compounds, and the asbestos vapors, dust and fibers resulting therefrom, and if so, when you did same. j : : ! j 75. H/A. GAF does not presently nan u f. oc t u re .Indus t r i a 1 ; thermal insulation products containing asbestos fibers. 76. Have you over giver. ar.y warnings to your employees of dar.erers of illness and/or disease by reason of their exposure to asbestos, material containing asbestos, asbestos products and I compounds, and the asbestos vapors, dust and fibers resulting therefrom? If so, state: a. The date of each such warning; b. How such warnings were given; c. If such warnings were oral, state the names and addresses of the persons giving arid receiving such warnings; d. If such warnings were 'written, state: 1. The dates of such warnings; 2. The present location of such warning; ! 3. The names and addresses of individuals who prepared such warnings? 4. Where such warnings were posted, published or distributed; provide copies of same, i ; j ; 5. Or, in the alternative, identify same with such particularity so as to enable same to ; j be subject to a Motion for Production.of J Documents, pursuant t.o Rule 4.9 of the Code of } Virginia, 1950, as amended. j e. The reasons for such warnings, ! ! j! 76. See answer to interrogatory S54. | ij 77. Have you ever had your employees who have been exposed j to asbestos, material containing asbestos, asbestos products and ) f compounds, and/or other dangerous substances, and the asbestos i! J; vapors, dust and fibers resulting therefrom medically examined !: or tested? If so, state: i i | j i a. The purpose of such medical examination; b. How often such examinations are made; c. The full description of the tests and procedure included in the examination; d. The names and addresses of the physicians, hospitals and laboratories who have conducted such examinations and tests. i i i j \ \ j i 77. Hot relevant to the issues in this case as CAP {[never employed field a ti y u jUi t ors who performed services r.inilar to | h l c\ i vj t 1 f . oft >. 78. State whether you have received notice of any workmens compensation claim for injury, occupational disease ji or death to any of your employees as a result of their employment with your company and their exposure to `asbestos". If so, state as to each: a. The date it was received; b. The name and address of the injured person or his personal representative; c. The name and address of his attorney, if any. j. 7S. Although workmen's compensation claims have been jfi.led against CAF from time to time, there is no current fist of j.'ii.ch claims nor arc they relevant to working situations similar to t; Vchose. of plaintiff. 79. Have you ever been named as a defendant in an action for workmen's compensation benefits for injury, occupational disease, or death by any of your employees by reason of claim for exposure to "asbestos". If so, state as to each such claim; a. The name and address of the claimant; b. The date it was filed; c. The name and address of claimant's attorney; d. The name and address of the court, agency, administrative body in which it was filed; e. The number or terra o. such action; f. The result of such claim, including benefits i paid, if any; g. The names and address of claimant's physicians; h. The name and address of your physician; i j; i. The names and addresses of claimant's expert I; witnesses; j. The names and addresses of your expert witness. 80. State whether you ox' your insurance carrier ever voluntarily or by agreement paid to any employee workman'r> compensation or occupational disease benefits by reason of any illness and/or disease caused by or contributed to by exposure to "asbestos" materials, containing asbestos, asbestos products and compounds and the asbestos fibers, vapors or dust resulting therefrom. SO. hot relevant to the isves in thin case as 0At never employed field insu1 tors who performed services similar to those, of plaintiff. 81. If so, state as to each employee: a. The name and address of the employee? b. The name and address of the employee's attorney? c. The date the claim was made; d. The date payment commenced and duration; e. The name and address of the insurance carrier making such payment; f. Whether such agreement was filed with any court agency, or administrative body, if so state: 1, The date it was filed; 2. The location of such filing. g. The current location of any documents evidencing such voluntary payment. h. Provide a copy of said documents or identify same with such particularity so as to enable same to b made subject to a Motion for Production of Documents, pursuant to Rule '1.9 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Si. K/A. 82. State whether you or vour insurance carrier has voluntarily or by agreement paid to any employee, benefits; for accident, sickness, health disability, or retirement by reason of exposure to '"asbestos"? . n. n/.4 A ft du 83. .If so, state ns to each: a. The name and address of such employee; b. The name and address of the employee's attorney; c. The names and addresses of the insurance carriers making such payment; 1 fi d. The dates the claims were made as to each separate i: claim by each employer; e. The dates payments were made. i; <23. j 84. State the names and addresses of all your insurance i carriers for workmen's compensation and occupational disease !: compensation from 1940 |i to present, and as to each insurance : carrier state the period when such coverage was provided and i, ! the amount of coverage provided. ' tj . 84. Will provide iif required under Virginia !i |!carriers ore irrelevant. :i nanes lav. of products liability insurers Wane of workman's compensation ; 85. State the names and addresses of all your Insurance, j: carriers for accident, sickness, health and disability claims ;; your employees from 1940 to present and as to each insurance I 'j carrier state time period when such coverage was provided j; and the amount provided, j: 83. See answer to interrogatory 84. 86. Have you ever received notice of injury o.r death ii an the result of or arising from the use, handling, or exposure to "asbestos". If so, state as to each such notice: a. The date, it was received: b. The name and address of the injured person, or hir, personal representative; c. The name and address of his attorney, if any; d. The injuries claimed. |i 86. GAP has had knowledge of deaths or: lung diseases Jjanong its onpjoyeea which have been attributed to the inhalation !of asbestos dust or fibers ever lung periods of time under | iccrtain e n vi r oncian t a 1 conditions that existed prior to CAP s {acquisition of facilities utilising asbestos. To the best of CAF's 'knowledge, elates related to these deaths or diseases, which arose i :'in the states of Vermont, Missouri and New Jersey, were all filed it jwith appropriate workmen's tonpenfiatipn agencies, which files are j \a matter of public record and equally available to plaintiff and j JcAF* Such files would normally contain the information requested it Iby this interrogatory. GAF has been or is a defendat In the lawsuits i illsced in Exhibit "A" fittached hereto which allege damages as a 'result of injury to plaintiff or plaintiff's decedants pulmonary Isysren. The court files in these cases are a matter of public jrecord nod are equally available to plaintiff and GAF. Such files Iwould normally contain the information requested by this interrogatory. 87. Have you ever been named as a defendant in any other 1 l j action to recover for injuries or death as a result of using, j handling or exposure to "asbestos11. if so, state as to each action: a. The name and address of the plaintiff; b. The name and address of each eodefendant; c. The date it was filed; ! d. The name of court in which it was filed; ! e. The court, term, and number of the action; , f. The name and address of the attorney for plaintiff; ! g. The results of such action whether, settled, verdict or appeal; j j 1 h. The names and addresses of plaintiff's physicians; j i. The names and addresses of your physicians; \ j j. The names and addresses of plain tiff's expert witnesses; i i ! k. The names and address of your expert witness. ; 3 V . S e c a 11 a c h e d b x h j b i t *' A . I; 88. Have you been investigated or participated in an !> j: investigation by any state, federal, local, governmental or' independent agency with regard to health hazards arising from > i | the continued use, handling or exposure to your product(s)? If so, state: a. The name of such agency; i j j b. Its address; j c. When such investigationtook place; d. Whether or not there was a stenographic record; j i e. Identify with such particularity the nature of said record and the person having a copy of same so as to enable same to be subject to a Motion for Production of Documents, pursuant, to Rule 4.9 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, i f. Whether or not a final report exists or existed,and. g. If you have a copy of the same, attach it to \ these answers, or identify same w.it.h such particu- ; larity so as to enable same to be subject to a Motion for Production of Documents, pursuant to j Rule 4.9 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. 88. Not to CAP'a knowledge. 09. Have you ever recalled any part of any shipments of :! your asbestos product(s)? If so, state: a. The shipment recalled; b. Date of recall; 1 c. Reason for recall; d. What was done 'with product(s) that were recalled. 90. Has any governmental agency seized or ordered the recall of any of your asbestos procluct(s)? If so, state as to each seizure or recall: a. The products seized or recalled; b. The date of seizure or recall; c. The governmental agency ordering the seizure or recall; d. The reasons for such seizure or recall. SO. No . I 9.1. Dave you at any time advised the United States Government., or any agency thereof, of the. dangerous propensities of using, handling or being exposed to asbestos, material | i i containing asbestos, asbestos prod-acts arid compounds, and the asbestos vapors, dust and fibers resulting therefrom? .T.f so, state.: a. The manner of such advice; b. When given; c. To whom; d. Attach copies of any written memorandum, notes, or correspondence with regard to same, or, in the alternative, identify same with such particularity so as to enable same to be subject to a Motion for Production of Documents, pursuant to Rule 4.9 of the Code of Virginia, 1.950, as amended. 91. Yes. In 1971 CaF attempted to hid governuent Jobs using Calsilite TT, .in asbestos-free pipe coveting. The government insl&tfscl upon products conc;.iinin% asbestos. j 92. Has the United States Government ever advised you of the dangerous propensities of using, handling or being I i i exposed to asbestos, material containing asbestos, asbestos products and compounds, and the asbestos vapors, dust and fibers j ; resulting therefrom? If so, state: a. The manner of such advice; j j b. Whan given; C. To whom; i. j d. Attach copies of any written memorandum, notes, i or correspondence with regard to the same, or-, in j the alternative, identify same with such particu- larity so as to enable sacs to be subject to a Motion for Production of Documents, pursuant to ; ; ! Rule 4.9 of the Code of Virginia, 1.950, as amended.! j 93. Did you at any time change your advertising and/or labe.tli.iU7 to include any type o sitateinont or warning which would indicate the possibility of tho dangerous and toxic i ! I } M ^i i propensities arising out of using, handling or being exposed to i. ii asbestos, material containing asbestos, asbestos products and I' compounds, and the. asbestos vapors, dust and fibers resulting therefrom? If so, state: i i a. When was the decision first made to tna?:e such I j; inclusion; i: in -b. When were such .inclusions made and what advertising II 11 i; pieces, giving the date and places of publication; i c. When was said inclusion placed on your product labelling; t t i d. Attach copies of all such warnings, or, in the ; alternative, identify such warnings with such i !! particularity so as to enable same to be subject ii to a Motion for Production of Documents, pursuant ' to Rule 4.9 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as j I! amended. ! 93. see answer to interrogatory j: 94. State who in your company has, or has had, any expertise! d with regard to the dangerous propensities arising out of. the ! j; use, handling, or exposure to asbestos, material containing i; asbestos, asbestos products and compounds, and the asbestos !. vapors, dust and fibers resulting therefrom, giving that person's t full name, present address, present job title, and educational j and work background. List all such persons with your company or formerly employed by your company. ; j j Ii 94. William Fassouliott.s , present Director of Safety ^Security aritl Occupational Health, e/o GAT Corporation, Wayne, LNew Jersey. I !j i i i i 95. Please list each individual who has acted in a medical advisory capacity to your company for the past 25 years and the ;; current address and job title of each such individual. !i j! 9 5. None. ' ; ' go. Have you ever consulted experts in the defense of any claim made against you for injury or death from exposure to ; asbestos. If. so, state: a. The names and addresses of such experts; b. His field of expertise; c. Whether you were furnished with a written report of his opinion; d. The present location of such report. || e. Attach copies or all ouch reports, or, in the !j alternative, identify such warnings with such j: particularity so as to enable same to be subject !; to a Motion for Production of Documents,pursuant j; to Rule 4.9 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, ji as amended. || 96. Mot required by Coun to be answered in other [coordinated proceedings. 97. Has any employee or agent or your corporation ever testified before any governmental agency or body regarding injury or death from exposure to asbestos? i j j | 97. See answer to interrogatory #96. 98. If so, state; a. The names and addresses of the persons giving such testimony; b. The governmental agency or body before whom such testimony was given and the dates of such testimony; c. Whether you prepared a written statement of your position and i.f. so, state; 1. Who prepared such statement; 2. When such statement was prepared; 3. Its present location; d. Whether a transcript was made of the testimony given. e. Attach copies of all such transcripts, or, in the alternative, identify such transcripts with such particularity so as to enable same to be subject to a Motion for Production of Documents, pursuant to Rule 4.9 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Cj%, Sm/ faMAV&ks io $%. 99. State whether any investigation or inquiry was made of your company by any government agency or body regarding injury or death from exposure to asbestos? 99. No. .100. .Ti so, state: a. By whom such inquiry or investigation was made; b. The dates of. such inquiry or investiyation; c. The name and address of the persons on your behalf who handled such inquiry or investigation; d. Whether a written memorandum was prepared by your company; i: e. The present location of such memorandum; . The name and address of the person preparing said , 'i memorandum. !| * i it g. Provide a copy of said memoranda, oridentify same J with such particularity so as to enable same to i be made subject to a Motion for Production of j Documents, pursuant to Rule 4.9 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. : i 100. M/A. [ >j 101. State whether any modifications or any changes in your '!asbestos products, advertising, warning, information and/or ; procedure of mining, fabricating, manufacturing or processing !were requested or initiated as a result of such inquiry or j: investigation referred to in Interrogatory Ho. 100? j: 101. N/A. 102. If so, state: a. Whether a written directive was issued; b. The location of such directive; ) I j I c. By whom such directive was issued; j d. The date issued; , e. The modifications or changes requested or initiated; j f. What modifications and changes yen made pursuant to such request. g. Provide a copy of said written directive, ox idant ify same with such, particularity so as to enable same to be made subject: to a Motion for Production of Documents, pursuant to Rule A.9 of the Coda of Virginia, 1950, as amended. i 102. M/A. <.5 / 10 3. Have you furnished to any governmental body or agenc reports of tests, examinations regarding illness; or death by ; reason of exposure to asbestos? i! 103. Ho. 104, If so, state: a. The date of such report; b. To whom such report was furnished; c. The name and address of the person preparing the report; d. The name and address of the person conducting the examination or test; e. Provide a copy of said reports, or identify same with such particularity so as to enable same to be made subject to a Motion for Production of Documents, pursuant to Rule 4.9 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. 104, N/A. 105. Have your asbestos products at any time been subjected to: a. Tests or studies by a governmental agency; b. Tests or studies by any independent organization; c. Tests conducted on humans or animals on your behalf or behalf of any defendant in this action;. d. Tests, studies or analysis conducted by or on behalf of you or any defendant in this action. 1C 5, No. 106. If your answer to any subsection of the previous interrogatory is in the affirmative, for each test or study, state a. The date it began; b. The date it ended; c. Describe the procedure of the test or study; d. The number of man hours spent on it; e. The xji*ue where it was conductod; f. The names and addresses and job classifications of each person who helped conduct it, indicating the part played by each person listed; 9- The purpose of ouch study of test; h. The results obtained or the conclusions reached; i. The cost oi the test or study; j. The source of authority for the performance of the test or study v/ritten. ; k. Were written records or reports made of the tents and studies; j i 1 1. The present location of such record or report; 2. The name and address of each person who has custody of e;ich such record or report; ! 3. Provide a copy of said written records, or ; reports, or identify same with such particu larity so as to enable same to be made subject i to a Motion for Production of Documents, ; pursuant to Rule 4.9 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. | 106. N/A. I 107. State whether anyone acting on your behalf ever received any information regarding the effect of exposure to ; < i asbestos and its relation to safety and health of those persons I; so exposed. If so, state: j i i; a. The dates such information was received; '! b. The names and address of the person(s) receiving such i; information; 1 : c. The names and addresses of the persons furnishing j i; such information; i d. Whether any written document was. prepared with respect to such informatioxi and if so, state: ; IS -| 1. The present, location of such document; 2. The dates prepared; :. 3. The names and addresses of the parsons i ,i preparing them; I 4. Provide a copy of said written document or ' : identify same with such particularity so j i as to enable same to he made subject j to a Motion for Production of Documents, \ \ pursuant to Rule 4.9 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. 107. See answer to laterrnjntory f53 and 108. State whether any information received by you or anyone- acting on your behalf indicated the existence or possibility of dan to health by reason of exposure to asbestos, state: a. The dates such information was received; b. The manner it was received; c. The names and addresses of the persons receiving it; d. What steps or action if any you took after receiving. such information; '; e. What changes, alterations or modifications you made ; with respect to any asbestos product; f. What warnings, if any, were given to your employees,! purchasers, distributors or users of your asbestos ! products; ^ i g. What steps, if any, you took to eliminate or lessen the possibility of danger to health by reason of exposure to asbestos. 108. Yes. See answer to interrogatory#.107. 109.. What notification, if any, was given by' you to any j j other miner, manufacturer, fabricator,processor;seller, or i ! distributor of the existence of or the possibility of danger to ' health by reason of exposure to asbestos and state: a. The date it was given; ji b. Name and address to whom it was given; I J | c. Name and address of person who gave notice; \ !! d. Provide a copy of said notice or state in full the t ;i contents thereof, or in the alternative, identify ' same with such particularity so as to enable same to be subject to a Motion for Production of j Documents, pursuant to Rule 4.9 of the Code of 1 Virginia, 1950, as amended, ii I: 109. See answer to interrogatory #54. ! 1.10. State the names, addresses, employment addresses, \ ! present whereabouts of all persons known to you or anyone acting ; on your behalf: *; :j a. Now employed by you? : b. Formerly employed by you; : jj j ; c. Who have been independently employed by you. I I 1. Who have information, knowledge or experience regarding the existence of or the possibility ! of danger to health byreason of exposure ! to asbestos. ! I 2. Who arc familiar with the dangers to health by > reason of exposure to asbestos. 3. Who have expressed an opinion or belief that exposure to asbestos is or can be dangerous to your health. 4. Who have expressed an opinion or belief that warnings or notifications should be given to users of asbestos products regarding the existence of or possibility of danger to health by reason of exposure or use. 110. No: required by Court to be answered in other coo rd i n ted proceedings. .lil. With respect to the preceding interrogatory state as to each .item whether a written memorandum, record, or document was prepared by each such person giving a complete listing thereof and if you will do so without a motion to produce attach a copy of such writing. (II $ }iQ. 112. Do you and have you in the past had in your employment or as consultants any medical doctors? If so, st<ate: a. The name and address of any such doctors; b. Their speica.lty {ies}; c. The reason for such consulting physician(s); d. Any tests they may have performed concerning asbestos, giving complete details on each including, but. not limited to, type of tests performed, dates performed, results of tests, publication of tests results, etc. 112. He. 113.- Have you or has any independent agency at your behest at any time conducted any tests with regard to a determination of the toxicity and/or health hazards which may arise due to prolonged use, handling or exposure to asbestos, material containing asbestos, asbestos products and compounds, and the I asbestos vapors, dust and fibers resulting therefrom? If so, state: a. Bach test performed, giving its title, purpose, dat and duration; u/-[1 ii b. Who pel-formed such tests, giving party's name, address, title, qualifications and background; c. Where such tests were performed: j j I ; d. The results of such tests; e. Attach copies of ail such results, or, in the , alternative, identify same with such particularity so as to enable same to be subject to a Motion for Product! on of Documents, pursuant to Rule 4.9 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. 1 113. Darin y the per lot! from 1967 to p cscct, the ^following po.rsor.fi a t GAF liav e held the position, Vice-President, \t\t tKcficarch: !; i mz DATE OF SERVICE PRESENT EMPLOYER. ! Or. IJDr. ?<eon Katz F rede rick Cross e r 19C 7 19 0 / - 1969 Awe rican Can CAF i'Dr. Roberts Meyers 1969 - 1972 Regal Paper ''hr. SI iron Kar.tor 1 972 - present CAP" !rh* directors of the Research Department /it the fvtiberold Corap/iny a;c rc as follows: V 1 NAME ;d UJ rd Duke j [Clarence Eckert date OF SERVICE -- 194 7 19 4 7 - 1958 PRESENT EMPLOYER Retired -- nidress unknown ; Deceased jPhil lip Betto.li 193 8 - 1967 GAF GAF does not recall the date vhen tt initially established a Research Department. 114. Have you or any of the defendants, at any time, published and/or distributed any brochure, pamphlet or other , written material of any kind or character that contained information of any kind with regard to asbestos, material . I r containing asbestos, asbestos products and compounds, manufactured, produced, processed, compounded, converted, sold, merchandised, supplied, distributed, and/or otherwise placed in the. stream of commerce, whether it be for manner of use, warning or otherwise? If so, as to each such brochure, pamphlet or other written 1 material: y a. Provide a copy of such brochure, pamphlet or otherwritten material, or, in the alternative, identify same with such particularity so as to enable same to be subject to a Motion for Production of Documents, pursuant to Rule 4.9 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. b. Describe the nature of the material contained therein; c. Give the date published and by whom; d. Give the name and address of the person who has a copy of the same; I e. State specifically if there war, any warning contained therein concerning the use, handling or exposure to asbestos, material containing asbestos, asbestos products and compounds, and the asbestos vapors, dust and fibers resulting therefrom. j] 114. See answer to iC r roi;a tory f54. 115. With regard to the previous Interrogatory, state the mthod used to distribute the material, being specific. Also j state; i} a. How many distributed? b. To whom were they distributed? .1 c. When were they distributed? /j$?. 2^ Qsr&vfo 116. Do you or have you maintained a library wherein you l! ' subscribe or did subscribe to various periodicals, articles, magazines, texts, technical magazines, trade journals, and/or medical journals or medical publications, and the like, which in any way dealt, with or had any dealing with any'information concerning the illnesses and/or diseases of any hind arising from the uscage, handling or exposure to any asbestos, material containing asbestos, asbestos products and compounds, and the ' asbestos vapors, dust and fibers resulting therefrom? If so, statl: a. All such journals, periodicals, etc., setting xorth the frequency of publication (i.e., annual, monthly, etc.) b. The date you first subscribed to such journal, periodical, etc., and, c. Whether your subscription has continued from inception to the present on a coxitinuous basis. : jrature or medical articles; of: :h illness, sickness, or disease ; st.os, material containing : impounds, and the asbestos vapors/ am. Specify the date, month, how long.after publication you ; t that article. ! 1 . "B". time, bean a member of any ion" composed of other iers of asbestos products? \ i 3 of each such association or Lch defendant was a mercber. plications published by or sociation or organization. i i i j j ; * ition Association/North America, ish.iugton , B. C. National .on, Inc., 441 Lexington Avenue, :os Cement. Product Association H'.ltt.)' of Testing Materials, Rato i. ; which CAP was a member are ! lirations of those organizations 1 ; ' that plaintiffs improperly i j \ . :..* . ` ' 117. List all pub! ished ii 1 which you are nwarwhich deal v due to prolonged eaosure to ast i asbestos, asbestosvroducts and i dust and fibers realting there! : and year of each sch article ar : became aware of th<existence oi ii 117. See stached xhlb i; ii 118. Has defendant, at am ! ; "trade organization or "associ; :| manufacturers, mints, and/or si ji | 118. Yes. 119. If so, lease state: ' a. The xtae arid adore ;j- orgaization. j b. The utes during v i c. The ames ox any j jj writen by such c >} |i 1.19. A. Abestos Infor ii [Suite 914, tIif jjlnsti 1 n t i on 1G6C L Sreet, H.W. , Haaufactcers Assooi.a j;Xew York, Kew York 10017, Ashe Jtiow believed dcfunc. American .Srrcet, Phi larlelph'i a P*r>r> v y 1 v <tn j B. 'la <\ atfrs dur i unknown, 1; Iv !! i.Aifl uakiiown. C. &mcs of any p \\ 120. Does do2ndanfc contei ;; ur.e<3 t.hi r product? . <!: 120. YYaern. ,. 4`j- 121.. If so , please set-, out-, i; products were, improperly used. i.n detail Its which respect, said. j ! .121. Assuming. arpneado, Eli at plaintiff u-.;n; any of the 1; jr> r oduc t rr? Ft'.r rtd to in intf?frog.Jtory 5, plaintiff (<;) fa i \ o d r. o ; > j use proncr.ly vespirf r.otv devices a l Though a v ,i i J.nb X n aurt o f t r < <1 to !;hi::i far his personal use; and/or <t>) failed to use such products I'ij.n a rcnnnrr chill- would have mininized `he creation of dust. 122. Does defendant expect to call expert witnesses at the trial, of this case? ij 122. Not known at this fi.:e. i- t j 123. ,T.f so, please state: a. The name, address, and job classification of each such expert witness. b. The testimony expected to be given by each such expert witness. ji 123. N/A. 124. Do you contend that the asbestos products manufactured, sold or distributed by you are not "hazardous substances" as defined in 15 U.S. Code, Sec. 1261 (i:) . ' 124. CAF does not raanii r at r u r e industrial asbestos `.nroductu now. : 125. If so, state the facts you rely on to support such contention. 12l>. N/A. 126. Does defendant have policies of injure,..... claim that has ;.been made by plaintiff, herein cover the might 12.6. Yes. 127. If so, please list the name and address of each ` insurance carrier who have coverage, the amounts of such coverag i and the date of each such policy. 12 7. See answer to interrogatory 0 6 . ^4 128. Does defendant admit that sarvice of process was properly had on defendant .in this case? i| 128. tar.. 1 | 129. If the answer to Interrogatory No. 128 is negative. please explain the reasons tor such answer. 129. B/A. i; ciTY/eotiir tY OF........New York__________________ | I STATU OF HEM YORK ; !; .........Jonathan Bercrerbeing duly sworn I ; j ^according to 1 a", depose; a and says that he. is gn Assistant Sscratan. of GA? Corporation; that as such he is i; i; this affidavit on its behalf; and that j; i!in the foregoing Answers of Defendant, duly authorized to KaU the facts set forth CA1 C. o r por at rert to I; PI ai n t i f f 1 s Initial Interrogatories Propounded to All. Defendants !i are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information jj |and belief. Morhurt V. Kelly ! Marry J. Koscel Jones ,, B l e chmau Woltv*. ' 2600 U.'sshi Hfjfyn Avenue N cwpo r t s * a v; s , Virginia & Kelly, -23607 P.C. i I hereby certify that on thc<3l ny of Qj.OLfXj^'S__ 1 19 7 3 , n true copy of the. foregoing Answers to 1 n te r. r o " a t o r ies was njiiilo*.;. to oil counsel of record. ... Attorney wov G A F Corpovatio:.i A ASBESTGSXS CASES Ahem vs, Kgeue Industrial Insulation. et al County of Philadelphia, Court of Common Pleas Case No. 3463 Piled: May 20, 1976 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Masirov, Geiman, Jaffa A Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Albert va, Keene Industrial Insulation, et al County o Philadelphia, Court of Common Pleas Case No. 680 Piled: February, 1976 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Meairov, Celaaa, Jaffa A eraser City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Allure vs. Coafcustlon Engineering. Inc., et al United States Discrict Court for the Northern District of Ohio - Eastern Division Case No. C-75-447 Filed: May 5, 1976 Amount sought: $500,000 geueral and special damages, together with $2,000,000 exemplary and punitive damages, plus costs and Interests Attorney handling case: Baker, Hostetler A Patterson City of suit: Cleveland, Ohio Antholz vs. Pibreboard Pager Products, et al United States District Court for District of Minnesota - Fifth Division Case No. 5-70 Civ. 10S Filed: December 31, 1970 AmounC sought: $250,000 general and special; $100,000 exemplary'damages; plus costs and interest Attorney handling case: Faegre A Benson City of suit: Minneapolis, Minnesota Status: dismissed Armstrong vs. Keene Industrial Insulation, et al Court of Cannon Pleas of Philadelphia County Case No. 1057 Filed: February, 1976 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Masirov, Gelman, Jaffe A Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 3alllr.ger vs. Combustion Engineering. Inc., et al Circuit Court, Division I, Knox Co., Knoxville, Tennessee Case No. 1-684-75 Piled: December 30, 1975 Amount sought: $2,000,000, plus compensatory and punitive damages City of suit: Knoxville, Tennessee Attorney handling case: Witt, Gaither, BLichardaou, Henniss A Whitaker Barrett vs. Johns-Maaville Products Corporation, et al Circuit Court of Missouri, Sixteenth Judicial Circuit Case No. 784937 Filed: October 30, 1974 Amount sought: $500,000 for court C03C3 and damages; $200,000 for Ethel Barrett for deprivation of companionship, society, services and consortorium Attorney handling case: Spencer, Fane, Britt A Browne City of suit: Kansas City, Missouri Status: dismissed Bcnasnn vs. pibreboard Paper Products Corporation, et al Superior Court of the State of California in and far the City and County of San Francisco Case No. 683-553 Filed: April 7, 1975 Amount sought: Complaint for damages to be determined Attorney handling case: KeCutchea, Doyle, Brown A Enersen City of suit: San Francisco, California Baumgartner vs. Combustion Engineering United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio Case No. C-75-10S? Filed: December 4, 1975 Amount sought: $500,000 general and special damages Attorney handling case: Baker, Hostetler A Patterson City of suit: Cleveind, Chic Eastsca Division IT "A11 / / Casa Ho. 76 1-5285 Filed: March 26, 1976 Adeline: sought: $1,000,000 Attorney handling case: Preteel, Stouffer, Nolan & Rooney City of suit: Chicago, Illinois Status: dismissed Ball vs. Fibreboard Panar Products Corn., et al United States District Court for Eastern District of Texas Case No. B-74-CA-50 Filed: February 13, 1974 Amount sought: $500,000 general and special; $500,000 exemplary damages; plus costs and interest City of suit: Beaumont, Texas Attorney handling case: Orgain. Bell A Tucker Status: settled Beliot vs. Fibreboard Com,, et al United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas - Beaumont Division Case No. B-74-233-CA Filed: August 13, 1974 Amount sought: $1,500,000 plus costs and interest City of suit: Beaumont, Texas Attorney handling case: Drgaln, Bell & Tucker Status: settled Bender vs. Armstrong Cork Company, et al United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division Case No. 75-2578 Piled: December 8, 1975 Amount sought: $750,000 City of suit: Miami, Florida Attorney handling case: Fowler, Whits, Burnetc, Hurley, Baaick A Knight Bllotta vs. Keene Industrial Insulation, et al Court of Common Fleas of Philadelphia County Case No. 412, 413 Filed: April 30, 1976 Amauac sought: Attorney handling case: Mssirov, Gelman, Jaffe A Cramer City of suit: Fhiladelphia, Pennsylvania Birknar vs. GAF Corporation, et al Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, State of Missouri Case No. 57711 F Filed: February 5, 1976 Amount sought: $750,000 plus costs Attorney handling case: Spencer, Fane, Britt a Browne City of suit: St. Louis, Missouri of Texas - Beaumont Division Case No. 6449 Filed: November 20, 1969 Amount sought: $500,000 general and special; $500,000 exemplary damages; plus costs and interest Attorney handling case: Orgain, Bell A Tucker City of suit: Beaumont, Texas Status: settled Breedlove vs. Combustion Engineering. Tnc., et al United States District Court - Northern District of Ohio - Eastern Division Case No. C-74-U30 Filed: December 9, 1974 Amount sought: $500,COO general end special; $500,000 exemplary damages; plu.3 costs and interest Attorney handling case: Baker, Hostetler A Patterson City of suit: Cleveland, Ohio Broussard vs. Fibreboard Facer Products Corporation, et al United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas - Beaumont Division Case No. S-73-CA-3CC Filed: October 11, 1973 Amount sought: $500,000 general and special; $500,000 exemplary damages; plus costs and interest Attorney handling case: Orgain, Bell A Tucker City of suit: Beaumont, Texas Status: settled Brown vs. Coabustion Engineering, Itic,, ntal United States District Court, District of South Carolina, Charleston Division Case Ho. 76-1162 Filed: June 25, 1976 Amount sought $2,000,000 Attorney handling case: Grimball, Cahaaiss, Vaughan & Guerard City of suit: Charleston, South Carolina Case No. 76 1 2164 Filed: March 31, 1976 Amount sought: 5500,000 Attorney handling ease: Pretzel, Stauffer, Nolan A Rooney City of suit: Chicago, Illinois Bunn vs. Keene Industrial Insulation, et al County of Philadelphia, Court of Common Pleas Case No. 3455 ' Filed: May 20, 1976 Amount anight: Attorney handling case: Kesirov, Gelmaa, Jaffe & Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Sura vs. Keene Industrial Insulation, et al Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Case No. 684 Filed: February, 1976 Amount sought: Attorney handling case; Kesirov, Gelcau, Jaffe & Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Burke vs. Combustion Engineering. Inc., et al United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio - Eastern Division Case No. C73-239 Filed: March 2, 1973 Amount sought: $500,000 general and special; $500,000 exemplary damages; plus costs and interest Attorney handling case: 3aker, Hostetler & Patterson City of suit: Cleveland, Ohio Burke vs. Standard Asbestos Manufacturing end Insulating Company, et al United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas - Houston Division Case No. 75-H-870 Filed: June 6, 1975 Amount sought: $275,000 Attorney handling case: Baker A Botts City of suit: Houston, Texas Buscair.o vs. Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, et al Superior Court of the State of California in and for the City and County of San Francisco Case No. 694-sal Filed: August 27,. 1975 Amount sought: costs for special and exemplary damages Attorney handling case: KcCutchen, Doyle, Brown A Enersen City of suit: San Francisco, California Status; settled Byeciv vs. Standard Asbestos Manufacturing and Insulating Company, et al United States District Court for the Southern District of Texa3 - Houston Division Case Ho. 75-K-856 Filed: June 6, 1975 Amount sought: $250,000 Attorney handling case: Baker A Botts City of suit: Houston, Texas Catu.no vs. Keene Industrial Insulation, et al Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Case No* 924 Filed: February, 1976 Amount sought: Attorney handling case; Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffe A Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Carr vs. Combustion Engineering, Int., et al i'.S. District Court, East. Dist. of Michigan, South Division Case No. 572332 Filed: November 28, 1975 Amount sought: $1,000,000 Attorney handling case: Dykeiaa, Gossett, Spencer., Goodnow A Trigg City of suit: Detroit, Michigan -Status: settled Career vs. Keana Industrial. Insulation, at A Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Casa Ho, 413 Filed: April 30, 1976 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffe A Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Path cart vs. Keene Indus trial Insulation, et al Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Case No. 923 Filed: February, 1976 Amount sought: Attorney handling ease: Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffa f Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Chaddock vs. Combustion Eaglnaerina. Inc., et al United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio - Eastern Division Case Mo. C-75-102 Filed: February 5, 1975 Amount sought: $500,000 exemplary; $500,000 general and special damages, plus costs and interest Attorney handling case: Baker, Hostetler 6 Patterson City of suit: Cleveland, Ohio Ciseck vs, Keene Industrial Insulation, et al Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Case No, 4022 Filed: January, .1976 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Caiman, Jaffe & Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia , Pennsylvania Coleman vs. Keene Industrial Insulation, eg el County of Philadelphia, Court of Common Pleas Case No. 3459 Filed: Nay 20, 1975 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffe & Cramer City or suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Condray vs. Fibreboard Corporation, et al United States District Court, F.astem District of Texas, Beaumont Division Case No. B-76-1C8-CA Filed: March 10, 1976 Amount sought: $500,000 general and special damages, $500,000 exemplary damages; plus costs, disbursements and interest Attorney handling case: Crgaia, Bell A Tucker City of suit: Beaumont, Texas Status: Settled Conte vs, Keane Industrial Insulation, et al Court of Common Picas of Philadelphia County Casa No. 686 Filed: February, 1976 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffe A Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Corea vs. Keene Industrial Insulation, et al Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Case Ho. 1056 Filed: February, 1976 Amount sought: Attorney handling case; Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffe & Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Corkran vs. Fibreboard Pater Products Corporation.et al United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas - Beaumont Division Case No. 3-76-128-CA Filed: March 25, 1976 Amount sought: $500,000 general end special damages; $500,000 exemplary damages; plus costs, disbursements and interest at 67. per annum .Attorney handling case: Orgain, Bell A Tucker City of suit: P.eaumout, Texas Crawford vs, Fibreboard Corporation, ec al Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Case Ho. 4016 Filed: March 4, 1976 Aaouat sougiic: Attorney handling case: Mesitov, Gelmaa, Jaffe A Cramer Cit7 of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Crawford vs. Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, et al United States District Court for the Sastam District of Texas - Beaumont Division Case Mo. 6492 Piled: December 4, 1969 Amount sought: $500,000 general and special; $500,000 exemplary damages; plus costs and Interest Attorney handling case; Orgain, Ball & Tucker City of suit: Beaumont, Texas Status: settled Cunningham vs. Keene Industrial Insulation, et al Court of Common pleas of Philadelphia County Case No. 412, 413 Filed: April 30, 1976 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: llesirciv, Gelman, Jaffa & Crater City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Curtin vs, Johns-Kaaville Products Corporation, et al Circuit Court cf ;tha Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County Case Mo. 75-1-146 Filed: March 4, 1975 Amount sought: $1,000,000 Attorney handling case: Bernard fit Davidson City of suit: East Sc. Louis, Illinois Status: dismissed V3.Daniels Combustion Engineering. Inc,, et al Stata of Tennessee, Circuit Court of Knox County, Division I Case No. 1-492-75 Filed; September 19, 1975 Amount sought: $4,000,000 Attorney handling case: Witt, Gaithar, Richardson, Banniss fit Whitaker City of suit: Knoxville, Tennessee SeChrlstooher vs. Keene Industrial Insulation, et al Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Case No. 1749 Filed: February, 1976 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Gelmaa, Jaffe 6 Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Dellano vs. Keene Corporation, et al Court of Common Fleas of Philadelphia County Case No. 100 Filed: September 2, 1975 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Hesirov, Gelman, Jaffe & Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Dickev vs. Standard Asbestos Manufacturing and Insulating Company, et al Halted States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division Case No. 75-E-654 Filed: June 6, 1975 Amount sought: $200,000 A.ttomey handling case: Baker Batts City of suit: Houston, Texas Dolce vs. Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, et al United Scates District Court for the Eastern District of Texas - Beaumont Division Case No. B-75-191-CA Filed; June 25, 1975 Amount sought: $1,000,000 Attorney handling case: Or gain, Bell & Tucker City of suit: Beaumont, Texas lumbar vs. Keane Industrial Insulscion, et al Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Case No. 411, 413 Filed: April 30, 1976 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffe a Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Duncan vs. Combustion Engineering. T.nc., et aj United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Charleston Division Case Ho. 76-1249 Filed: July 8, 1976 Amount sought: $2,000,000 compensatory and punitive damages Attorney handling case; Gridall, Cabaniss, Vaughan & Guerard City of suit: Charleston, South Carolina Dunn vs. Keane Industrial Insulation, et al County of Philadelohia, Court of Common Pleas Case No. 3452 ' Filed: toy 20, 1976 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Mestrov, Gelman, Jaffe 6 Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Penn vs. Johns-Manville International Corporation, et el United States District Court for the Souchem District of Texas - Houston Division Case No. 73-H-1072 Filed: February 6, 1975 Amount sought: $550,000 for damages, costs and interest Attorney handling case: Baker & Boots City of suit: Houston, Texas Estenp va. Combustion Engineering, et al State of Tennessee, Circuit Court of Knox County Case No. 2-474-75 Filed: September 10, 1975 Amount sought: $1,000,000 Attorney handling case: Witt, Gaither, Richardson, Heoniss & Whitaker City of suit: Knoxville, Tennessee Farrar vs. Standard Asbestos Manufacturing & Insulating Co., et al United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division Case Ho. 75-H-862 Filed: June 6, 1975 Amount sought: $100,000 Attorney handling case: Baker & Botts City of suit: Houston, Texas Fe.atherstone vs. Johns-Manvilla Sales Corporation, et al United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas - Beaumont Division Cese Ho. B-75-167-CA Filed: April 30, 1976 Amount sought: $1,000,000 Attorney handling case: Strasburgex, Price, Kelton, Martin f. Unis Ssetleaeau5noat' Texa* Ferris vs. Keene Corporation, et al Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Case No. Filed: July , 1976 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: tosirov, CeIrian, Jaffe & Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Foster vs, Fibreboard Pacer Products Corporation, et al United States District Court for the Eastern District ot Texas - Beaumont Division Case Ho. B-74-204-CA Filed: July 5, 1974 Amount sought: $500,000 general and special; $500,000 exemplary damages; plus costs and interest Attorney handling case: Orgain, Bell 6 Tucker City of suit; Beaumont, Texas Status: settled Freeman V3. Standard Asbestos Manufacturing and Insulating Company, et al United States District Court for the Southern District ot Texas - Houston Division Case Ho. 7S-K-869 Filed: .June 6, 1975 Amount sought: $475,000 Attorney handling case: Baker A Botts City of suit: Houston, Texas rrlth vs. Job?!*-Many 111a Produces Corporation. et al United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana - Shreveport Division Case So. 73-3-1072 riled: February 10, 1S75 Amount sought: $680,000 for wrongful death of D. C. Frith Attorney handling case: Blanchard, Walker, 0'Quinn A Roberts City of suit: Shreveport, Louisiana Case Ho. 75-H-86S Filed: June 6, 1975 Amount sought: $200,000 Attorney handling case: Baker A Botts City of suit: Houston, Texas Division Cau3 vs. Keene industrial Insulation, et al Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Case Ho. 4020 Piled: January, 1976 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Gelnan, Jaffe & Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Gerace vs. Keene Industrial Insulation, et al Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Case Ho. 3930 Filed: January, 1976 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Geiman, Jaffe A Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania c: >, rado Case Ho. 74-12-6-2 Filed: May 17, 1974- Amount sought: Herbert Gibson - $750,000 compensatory, plus $25,000,000 punitive. Furl Gibson. - $2S0,000 compensatory damages Attorney handling case: Davis, Graham & Stubbs City of suit: Boulder, Colorado Status: settled Grecco vs. Keene Industrial Insulation, et al Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Case Ho. 4017 Filed: January, 1976 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Geiman, Jaffe & Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Greene vs. Keene Industrial Insulation, et al County of Philadelphia, Court of Common Pleas Case Ho. 3458 Filed: May 20, 1976 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Celman, Jaffe & Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Gustafson vs. Fibrebeard Pacer Products Corporation, et al United States District Court for the Fifth Division - District of Minnesota Case Ko. 5-71-40 Filed: May A, 1971 Amount sought: $500,000 general and special; $100,000 exemplary damages; plus coats and interest Attorney handling case: Fargre & Benson City of suit: Minneapolis, Miuneaota Status: dismissed Halnsvorth vs, Keene Industrial Insulation, et al Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Case Ho. 4024* Filed: January, 1976 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Masirov, Caiman, Jaffe A Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Hallln.au vs. Combustion Errineerir.u, Inc., et al United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana - Evansville Division Case No. 75-Z3-C Filed: February 24, 1975 Amount sought: $600,000 general and special; $500,000 exemplary damages Attorney handling case: Dix, Patrick, Ratcliff, Anton A Adana on City of suit: Evansville, Indiana Status: settled sas City Case No, 784,986 Filed: October 31, 1974 Amount sought: $50,000 for medical and funeral expenses; judgment of $50,000 against each defendant Attorney handling case: Spencer, Fane, City of suit: Kansas City, Missouri Status: dismissed Britt A Erowne Hj-mrmrf vs. Keene Industrial Insulation, et al Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Case No, 9Z2 Filed: February, 1975 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Mesircv, Gelman, Jaffe A Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Hanna vs. Keane Industrial Insulation, et al Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Case No. 4023 Filed: January, 1976 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Celnan, Jaf.fe.A Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Harter vs. Combustion Engineering. Inc., et al United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division Case No. C-75- 452 Filed: May 30, 1975 Amount sought: $500,000 general and special; $500,000 exemplary damages; plus costs and interest Attorney handling ease: Baker, Hostetler A Petterson City of suit: Cleveland, Ohio Hartwell V3, Johns-Manyillc Products Corporation, et al United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas - Beaumont Division Case No. 7513 Filed: November 11, 1971 Amount sought: $500,000 general end special; $500,000 exemplary damages; plus costs and interest Attorney handling case: Orgain, Bell A Tucker City of suit: Beaumont, Texas Status: settled Heinsdorf vs. Keene Industrial Insulation, et al Court of Common pleas of Philadelphia County Case No. 1755 Filed: February, 1S76 Amount sought: Attorney handling ease: Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffe A Cramer City of suit; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Holton vs. Standard Asbestos Manufactuning A Insulacin?. Co., et al United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas - Houston Division Case No. 75-H-1635 Filed: September 29, 1S7S Amount sought: $175,000 Attorney handling case: Baker A Botts City of suit: Houston, Texas Howard vs. Owens-Coming Fiberglass Corporation, et el United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas - Sherman Division Case No. S-75-5S-CA Filed: July 9, 1975 Amount sought: $1,000,000 Attorney handling case: Surasburger. Price, Kelton, Martin A Unis City of suit: Dallas, Texas Bratus: dismissed Hughes vs. Keene Industrial Insulation. at al County of Philadelphia, Court of Common Pleas Case No. 3451 Filed: Kay 20, 19/6 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Kesirov, Caiman, Jaffa & Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Hnthaacher vs Kaene Industrial Insulation, et al County of Philadelphia, Court of Common Pleas Casa ho. 3457 Filed: Hay 20, 1976 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Masirov, Celmen, Jaffe A Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Hutsor. vs. Armstrong Cork Coot any, et al United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division Case No. 76-53-Civ-CA Piled: January 19, 1976 Amount sought: $750,000 general and special damages; $250,000 exemplary damages Attorney handling case: Fowler, White, Burnett, Hurley, Banick A Knight City of suit: Miami, Florida Jacoaiao vs. Johns-Marr/iLie Corporation, et al Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County Case No. 1507 Filed: January 14, 1975 Amount sought: In excess of $10,000 and punitive damages $10,000 against defendants on each count Attorney handling case: Heairov, Celman, Jaffe A Cramer City cf suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in sum in excess of Jeane vs. Flbreboard Corporation, et al United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas - Beaumont Division Case No. B-74-337-CA Filed: November 24, 1974 Amount sought: $1,000,000 for interest and costs for injuries Attorney handling case: Orgain, Bell A Tucker Citv cf suit: Beaumont, Texas Status: settled Johnson vs. Flbreboard pager Products Corporation, et al United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas - Beaumont Division Case No. B-74-124-CA Filed: May 3, 1974 Amount sought: $500,000 general and special; $500,000 mental anguish, pain and suffering; $500,000 exemplary' damages; pins costs and interest Attorney handling case: Orgain, Bell A Tucket City of suit: 3eaumont, Texas Status: settled Joyce vs. Keene Industrial Insulation, et al Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Case No. 4019 Filed: January, 1976 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffe A Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Joyner vs, Armstrong Cork Company, et al United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division Case No. 75-25B1 Filed: December 8, 1975 Amount sought: $750,000 City of suit: Miami, Florida Attorney handling case: Fowler, tdiita, Burnett, Hurley, Banick 6 Knight Kariala vs. Flbreboard Paver Products Corporation, et al 'Jutted States District Court for the District of Minnesota - Fifth Division Case No. 5-71-13 Filed: February 23, 1971 Amount sought: $500,000 general and special; $100,000 exemplary damages; plus costs and interest Attorney handling case: Faegrs A Benson City of suit: Minneapolis, Minnesota Status: dismissed Kearns vs. Combustion Engineering, Inc..,,t_.l Uniced States District Court for the northern District of Ohio - Eastern Division Case No. C73-70 Filed: January 24, 1973 Amount sought: $500,000 general and special; $500,000 exemplary damages; plus costs and interest Attorney handling case: Baker, Hostetler 8 Patterson City of suit: Cleveland, Ohio Kendall vs. Fibrefcoard Bauer Products Corporation, et el Superior Court of the State of California in and fcr the City end County of San Francisco Case Mo. 704-023 Attorney handling case: Filed: March 26, 1976 McCutchen, Doyle, Broun Eaersen City of suit: San Francisco, California Amount sought: General damages to be proven at trial Kirchner vs. Standard Asbestos Manufacturing & Insulating Co., et al Case No. 75-H-1634 Filed: September 29, 1975" Amount sought: $175,000 Attorney handling case: Baker & Betts City of suit: Houston, Texas Kvburz vs. Standard Asbestos Manufacturing and Insulating Company, et al United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas - Houston Division Case No. 75-H-863 Tiled: June 6, 1975 Amount sought: $100,000 Attorney handling case: Baker & Botts City' of suit: Houston, Texas LaGrapoe vs. Flbreboard Corporation, et a.l United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas - Beaumont Division Case No. B-74-66-CA Filed: February 28, 1974 Amount sought: $500,000 general and special; $500,000 exemplary damages; plus costs and interest Attorney handling case; Orgain, Bell & Tucker City cr suit: Beaumont, Texas Status: settled l.andre vs. Johns-Manville Sale3 Corooratton, et al Superior Court of California, County of Alameda Case No. 449876-8 Filed: May 17, 1974 Amount sought: $11,000,000, general, exemplary and nunitive damages Attorney handling case: McCutchen, Doyle, Brown 6 F.hersen City of suit: San Francisco, California Laurie vs. Keene Industrial Insulation, at al Court of Common Plea3 of Philadelphia County Casa No. 681 Filed: February, 1976 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Nesirov, Caiman, Jaffa & Cramer City of suit; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania l.eava vs. Johns-Manville Products Com., et al The Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri at Kansas City Case No. CV75-4160 Filed: December 4, 1975 Amount sought: $200,000 City of suit: Kansas City, Missouri Attorney handling case: Spencer, Fane, Britt & Browne Lewis vs, GAP Corporation. et al Court of Common Fleas, Philadelphia County Case No. 12969 Filed: April 19, 1976 Amount nought: Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Celman, Jaffa ft Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Lombardo vr.. Keene Industrial Insulation. et al County of Philadelphia, Court of Cimra Pleas Casa No. .1448 Tiled: May 20, 1976 Amount sought: .Attorney handling ease: Mesirov, Celrnaa, Jaffe. & Crater City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Locet vs Armstrong Cork Company, et el United Stares District Court for the Southern District of Pierian- Miami Division Case So. 75-1365 CW-JIK Filed: July 14, 1575 Amount sought: $10,000, plus costs and Interest Attorney handling case: Fourier, White Burnett, Hurley, Sanies 6 Knight City of auic: Miami, Florida Lucera vs. Keer.e Industrial Insulation, at al Court of Cocoon Pleas of Philadelphia County Case No. 683 Filed: February, 1976 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Gel Clan, Jaffa & Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Inker vs. Johns-Manville International Corporation, et ai United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas - Houston Division Case No. 75-E-342 Filed: March 6, 1975 Amount sought: $1,750,000 Attorney handling case; Baker & Botts City of suit: Houston, Texas Ivons vs. G. & W. H. Corson Inc., et al Court of Cossaon Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania Case No. 75-6065 Filed: May 5, 1975 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Me siro'/, Gelman, Jaffa & Cramer City of suit: Madia, Pennsylvania McAndrev vs. Keene Industrial Insulation, et al Court of Common Fleas of Philadelphia County Case No. 2192 Filed: February, 1976 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffe & Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania McClain vs. G. & W. H. Corson Inc., et al Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania Case No. 75-6065 Filed: May 5, 1975 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Gelmars, Jaffe & Cramer City of suit: Media, Pennsylvania McCoy vs. Flbreboard Paper Products, et al Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri at Kansas City Case No. CV76-1377 Civil E Filed: March 5, 1976 Amount sought: $200,000 plus costs City of suit: Kansas City, Missouri Attorney handling case: Spencer, Fane, Britt f, Browne McDaniel vs. Johns-Kanville Products Corporation, et al Unated States District Court for the Eastern District of Tanas - Beaumont Division Case No. 6967 Filed: November 13, 1570 Amount sought: $300,000 general and special; $500,000 exemplary damages; plus costs and interest Attorney handling case: Orgain, Bell 6 Tut'aer City of suit: Beaumont, Texas Status: settled McCinnis vs. Combustion Engineering, Inc.. et al United States District Coart for the Northern District of Ohio - Eastern Division Case No. C-74-I077 Filed: November 22, 1974 Amount sought: $500,000 general and special; $300,000 exemplary damages; plus costs and interest Attorney handling case; Baker, Hostetler f* Patterson City of suit: Cleveland, Ohio McGiinn vs. G. & W. H, Corson lac., et al Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania Case No. 75-6065 Filed: May 5, 1975 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Ke3trov, Gelman, Jaffe & Cramer City of suit: Media, Pennsylvania McGovern vs. Keene Industrial Insulation, et al Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Case No. 1752. Filed: February, IS76 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Mestrov, Gelman, Jaffe & Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania McOurk vs, Keene Industrial Insulation, et al Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Case No. 1748 Filed: February, 1976 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffe & Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania McKee vs. Johns-Manville Corporation, et al State of New York Supreme Court, County of Erie Case No. Filed: August 22, 1975 Amount sought: $1,000,000 Attorney handling case: Phillips, Lytle, Hitchcock, Blaine & Huber City of suit: Buffalo, New York MtKlamle vs. Combustion Engineering, et al United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio - Eastern Division Case No. C-76-180 Filed: February 27, 1976 Amount sought: $500,000 general and special damages; and $500,000 exemplary damages; plus costs and interest at 62 per annum Attorney handling case; Baker, Hostetler & Patterson City of suit: Cleveland, Ohio McLaughlin vs. Combustion Engineering. Inc.. et al United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio - Eastern Division Case No. C-75-377 Filed: May 5, 1975 Amount sought; $500,000 general aad special; $500,000 exemplary damages; plus costs and interest Attorney handling case: Baker, Hostetler 4 Patterson City of suit: Cleveland, Ohio McLauahltn vs. Combustion Engineering. Inc., et al United States District Court for the Northern District of. Ohio - Eastern Division Case No. C-74-923 Filed: November 18, 1970 Amount sought: $500,000 general end special; $500,000 exemplary damages, plus costs and Interest Attorney handling case: Baker, Hostetler 6 Patterson City of suit: Cleveland, Ohio strict of Ohio - Eastern Division Case No. C-74-74 Filed: January 27, 1975 Amount sought: $500,000 general and special; $500,000 exemplary damages; plus costs and interest Attorney handling case: Baker, Hostetler & Patterson City of suit: Cleveland, Ohio McPcvie vs. Keene Industrial Insulation, et al Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Case No. 4021 Filed: January, 1976 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffa & Oramar rt . 4 * < 9L.-1 e T>~--......1 ....... i .. Maoaluso vs. Keene Industrial Insulation, at at County of Philadelphia, Court of Common Pleas Case No. .1462 Filed: Hay 20, 1976 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Geiman, Jaffe & Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania hack!risen vs, Keene Industrial Insulation, et el Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Case No. 1747 Filed: February, 1976 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Geiman, Jaffe & Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Hatthews vs. Plbreboard Paoer Products Corporation, et al United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texa3 Beaumont:Division Case No. B-73-CA-309 Filed: October 15, 1973 Amount sought: $500,000 general and special; $300,000 exemplary damages; piu3 costs and Interest Attorney handling case: Orgaia, Bell A Tucker City of suit:. 3aaumoat, Texas Status: settled Heasor vs. Combustion F.ngineerinz. Inc., et al United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio - Eastern Division Cass No. C73-233 Filed: March 2, 1973 Amount sought: $500,000 general and special; $500,000 exemplary damages; plus C03ts end interest Attorney handling case: Baker, Hostetler a Patterson City of suit: Cleveland, Ohio Mellot vs. Johns-Manville Products Corporation, et al United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio - F.astem Division C3e No. C-75-1058 Filed: December 4, 1375 Amount sought: $500,000 general and special damages Attorney handling case: Baker, Hostetler & Patterson City of suit; Cleveland, Ohio Mis------- "* ........... .. Cou Case No. 1751 Piled: February, 1S76 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Mesircv, Caiman, Jaffe & Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania VU.L.n ... - Judicial Circuit - Madison County Case No. 74-1-676 Filed: November 15, 1976 Amount sought: $1,290,000 for injuries; plus costs and interest Attorney handling case: Bernard & Davidson City of suit: East St. Louis, Illinois Horan vs. G. A Vf. K. Corson Inc., et al Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania Case No. 1699 Filed: February S, 1374 Amount sought: damages "in excess of $10,000" together vith costs Attorney handling case; Mesircv, Gelnan, Jaffe 4 Cramer City of suit: Media, Pennsylvania Case No. 76-1504-1 Filed:. Hay 26, 1976 e of Colorado Amount sought: $750,000 compensatory damages and $25,000,000 exemplary and punitive damages as well as $250,000 compensatory damages for plaintiff's wife Attorney handling case: Davis, Graham A Stubbs City cf suit: Boulder, Colorado Statius: settles Morris on vs. Fibreboard Paper Preducts Corporation, et al Superior Court of the State of California in and for the City and County of Sar. Francisco Case No. 701 446 Filed: March 16, 1975 Amount sought: to be proven at trial Attorney handling case: McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Ennrsea City of suit: Sac Francisco, California Muntear. vs. Combustion Engineerin'.;. Inc., et al 'united States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio - Eastern Division Case Ho. C73-199 Filed: February 23, 1973 Amount sought: $500,000 general and special; $500,000 exemplary damages; plus coses and interest Attorney handling case: Dakar, Hostetler 4 Patterson City of suit: Cleveland, Ohio Murohy vs. Coehustion Engineering, Inc., et al United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio - Eastern Division Case No. C-75-453 Filed: May 30, 1975 Amount sought: $500,000 generel and special; $500,000 exemplary damages; plus costs and interest Attorney handling case: Baker, Hostetler & Patterson City of suit: Cleveland, Ohio Neve vs. Combustion Engineering. Inc., et al State of Tennessee, Circuit Court of Knox County, Division III Case No. 3-491-75 Filed: September 19, 1975 Amount sought: $4,000,000 Attorney handling case: Witt, Gaither, Richardson, Henniss 4 Whitaker City of suit: Knoxville, Tennessee Kayo vs. Keene Industrial Insulation, et el County of Philadelphia, Court of Common Pleas Case No. 3461 Filed: May 20, 1976 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Gelmar., Jaffa & Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Holer, vs. Johns-Mnnvjlle A-sbestos & Magnesia Materials Company, et al Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois Case No. 75 D 8672 Filed: June 27, 1975 Amount sought: $50G,C0Q, plus costs Attorney handling case: Pretzel, Stouffer, Nolan & Rooney City of suit: Chicago, Illinois Status: Dismissed Overstreet vs. Keene Industrial Insulation, et al Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Case No. 412, 413 Filed: April 30, 1976 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Gel nan, Jaffe & Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Palermo vs. Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, et al United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas - Beaumont Division Case No. B-75-1S2-CA Filed: June 25, 1975 Amount sought: $1,900,000 Attorney handling case: Orgain, Beil 4 Tucker City of suit: Beaumont, Texas Status: nettled Papoalardo vs. Keene Industrial Insulation, et al County of Philadelphia, Court of Common Pleas Case No. 3454 Filed: May 20, 1976 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Gelssan, Jaffe 4 Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Ricci vs. Combustion Engineering, Inc., eg al United States District Court for toe Northern District of Ohio - Eastern Division Case No. C72-50? Filed: May 19, 1.972 Austinc sought: 5500,COO general and special; 5500,000 exemplary Cartages; plus costs and interest Attorney handling case: Baker, Hostetler o Patterson City of suit: Cleveland, Ohio Richards vs, Keene Industrial Insulation, et al Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Case No. 1753 Filed: February, 1976 Ancunt sought: Attorney handling case: Mcsirov, Caiman, Jaffe U Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Sodg.rnen vs. Combustion Engineering. Inc., et al United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio - Eastern Division Case No. C72-390 Filed; August 29, 1972 Amount sought: $500,000 general and special; $500,000 exemplary damages; plus costs and interest Attorney handling case: Baker, Hostetler & Patterson City of suit: Cleveland, Ohio Romano vs. Keene Industrial Insulation, et al Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Case No. 921 Filed: February, 1976 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Gelaan, Jaffe it Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Roseneuest vs. GAF. et al United States District Court, Southern District of Texas - Housron;Divisiaa Casa No. 76-3-115 riled: January 19, 1976 Amount sought: $550,000 plus interest Attorney handling case: Baker 6 Botts City of suit: Houston, Texas P.oswum vs. Philip Carey Manufacturing Corporation, et al Circuit Court of Jackson County', Missouri Case No. CV76-2631 Filed: June 8, 1976 Amount sought: $100,000, plus expenses Attorney handling case: Spencer, Fane, Britt & Browne City of suit: Kansas City, Missouri P.udio vs. Keene Industrial Insulation, et al County of Philadelphia, Court of Common Pleas Case No. 3556 Filed: May 20, 1976 Amount sought: Attorney handling ease: Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffe A Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Russo vs. Keene Industrial Insulation, et al Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Case. No. 5026 Filed: January, 1975 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffe & Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Sgaohod vs. C. & B, K. Corson Inc., et al Court of Common Pleas of .Delaware County, Pennsylvania Case No: 75-6065 Filed: May 5, 1975 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Caiman, Jaffe & Cramer City of suit: Media, Pennsylvania v<- Flbrebuard Paver Produces Corporation. et ai Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco Casa Ho. 689-959 Filati: Hay 14, 1975 Amount sought: Costs and further relief for injuries Attorney handling case: kc.Cutcneo, Coyle, orovu u Ennrsen City of suit: San Francisco, California Padlock vs. Combustion Engineering. Ir.o,, at al United States District Court for the Northern District of Chin - eastern Division Case No. C72-395 Filed: April 25, 1972 Amount sought: 5500,000 general and special; $500,000 exemplary damages; plus costs said interest Attorney handling case; Baker, Hostetler 6 Patterson City of suit: Cleveland, Ohio So.arlcchio vs. C. A l*. H, Corson Inc,, ftt' al Court of Coimoon Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania Case No. 75-6065 Filed: Hay 5, 1975 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Kestrov, Gelnan, Jaffe & Cramer City of suit: Media, Pennsylvania Shaw vs. Keene Industrial Insulation, et al County of Philadelphia, Court of German Pleas Case No. 5453 Filed: Hay 20, 1976 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Wesirov, Gel nan, Jaffe , Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Slander vs. Keene Industrial Insulation, et al Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Case So. 685 Filed: February, 1975 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Hesirav, Celman, Jaffe A Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Snell vs. Keene Industrial Insulation, et al County of Philadelphia, Court of Common Pleas Case No. 3460 Filed: Hay 20, 1976 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: ftosirov, Geloan, Jaffe A Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Speer vs. Fifareboard Pater Products Corporation, et al Superior Court of the State of California in and for the City and County of San Francisco Case So. 695-157 Piled: September 11, 1975 Amount sought: General and Special Damages Attorney handling case: HcCutchen, Doyle, brown & Enersen City of suit: San Francisco, California Snell vs, Fibrehoard Paper Products Corporation, et al United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas - Beaumont Division Case No. E-71-81-CA. Filed: Hatch 19, 1974 Amount sought: $500,000 general and special; $500,000 exemplary damages; plus costs and interest Attorney handling case: Orgain, Bell 6 Tucker City of suit: Beaumont, Texas Status: settled Starnes vs. GAP, g.t al United States District Court fur the Northern District of Ohio - Eastern Division Case No. C-76-46 Piled: January 15, 1976 Amount sought: $500,000 general and special damages; $500,000 exemplary damages; plus costs and Interest Attorney handling case: Baker, Hostetler A Patterson City of suit: Cleveland, Ohio 5tames vs. Combustien Enginaerins. Inc., et al United Scaces District Court for the Eastern Dis ttrict of Tennessee Case Vo. CIV-2'75-122 Filed: September 30, 1375 Amount sought: $4,000,000 Attorney handling case: Witt, Gaither, :ii.ehard3on, ileaaiss & Whitaker City of so.it: Knoxville, Tennessee Status: Settled a teals vs. Combustion Engineering. Inc., at al United States District Court for the Northern District of Chic- - Eastern Division Case No. C-75-359 Filed: May 2, 1975 Amount sought: $500,000 general and special; $500,000 exemplary damages; plus costs and Interest Attorney handling case: Baker, Hostetler > Patterson City of suit: Cleveland, Ohio Stewart vs. Fibreboard Facer Products Corporation, et al Superior Court or the State of California in and for the City and County of San Francisco Case No. 695 921 Filed: September 29, 1975 Amount sought: General, special and exemplary damages; plus costs of suit and further relief as the Court may dees just and proper Attorney handling case: McCutchen, Doyle, Brown < Enarsen City of suit: San Francisco, California Case No. 75-H-492 Filed: March 31, 1975 Amount sought: $1,500,000plus costs and interest Attorney handling case: Baker & Botts City of suit: Houston, Texas s - Houston Division Strickland vs. Fibreboard Facer Products Corporation, et al Superior Court of the State of California in and for the City and County of San Francisco Cass Ho. 677-527 Filed: October 28, 1973 Amount sought: $1,000,000 Attorney handling case: McCutchen, Doyle, Brown St Snerse.n City of suit: San Francisco, California Sutcliffe vs. Keene Industrial Insulation, et al Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Case Ho. 4015 Filed: January, 1976 Amount sought; Attorney handling ca3e: Kesirov, Gelnaa, Jeffs A Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Talarico vs, Keene Industrial Insulation, et al Court of Common Fleas of Philadelphia County Case Ho. 1035 Piled: February, 1976 Amoun t s ough t: Attorney handling case: Masirov, Gelmsn, Jaffe & Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Talbot vs, Fibreboard Paoer Products Corporation, et al United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas - Beaumont Division Case No. E-75-391-CA Filed: November 7, 1975 Amount sought: $10,000 general and punitive damages Attorney handling case: Orgain, Bell > Tucker City of suit: Beaumont, Texas Case No. 673 Filed: February, 1976 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Caiman, Jaffe A Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ....... . c* ' Taylor, vs. Combustion Engineering,. T.o? United States Oistrice Court for the District nr Soutn Carolina Division Case Bo. 76-1208 Filed: July 1, 1976 Amount sought: $2,000,000, plus costs Attorney handling case: Orimhall, Csbar.iss,' Vaughan & retard City of suit: Chariciston, South Carolina Charleston Taylor vs. Combustion. Engineering, Inc., e.t_.l Baited States District Court for the District of South Carolina - Cnerlsscoa Pivision Case Bo. 76-12*1 riled: July 7, 1976 Articront sought: $250,000 City or suit: Charlestoa, South Carolina Att&raay handling case: Cabaniss, Vaughan & Ger&r<5 Ihasaosort vs. Fibreboerd Taper Products Corporation, et al Superior Court of the State of California in and for the City and County of San Francisco Case Bo. 638-370 Filed: December 2, 1975 Amount sought: general and punitive damages Attorney handling case: McCutche.n, Doyle, Brown & E tiers an City of suit: San Francisco, California U.Tillman vs. G. & K. Corson Inc., .et al Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania Case Ho. 75-6065 Filed: May 5, 1975 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Hesirov, Caiman, Jaffe A Cramer Cicy of suit: Media, Pennsylvania Trahan vs. Standard Asbestos Manufacturing and Insulating Company, et al United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas - Houston Division Case Ho. 75-H-905 Filed: June II, 197S Amount sought: $100,000 Attorney handling case: Baker 8 Sorts City of suit: Houston, Texas Treadwav vs. Combustion Engineering. T.nc., et al Circuit Court, Division 1, Knox County, Knoxville, Tennessee Case Ho. 1-528-75 Filed: October 7, 1975 Amount sought: $3,000,000 compensatory and punitive damages (<Attorney handling case: Witt, Gaither, Richardson, Henriiss Whitaker City of suit: Knoxville, Tennessee Status: Dismissed Triccskl vs. Keene. Industrial Insulation, et. al County of Philadelphia, Court of Common Pleas Case Ho. 5449 Filed: May 20, 1376 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Hesirov, Celman, Jaffe <i Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tt:re_i_ys,_^eene_Industrial insulation, et al Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Case Mo. 2131 Piled: February, 1976 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffe & Cramer Cicy of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tvler vs, Keene Industrial Insulation, et al Court of Common pleas of Philadelphia County Case Ho. 7.193 Filed: February, 1976 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Caiman, Jaffe 6 Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Case So, 76 X. 2913 Filed: March 31, 1976 Amour.*: sought.: $500,000 Attorney handling case: Pretzel, Stouffet, Solan 6 Rooney City of suit: Chicago, Illinois Velasques vs. Fi'oreboard Paoer Products Corporation, et al Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco Case So, 681 172 Filed: November 11, 1974 Amount sought: $900,000 for personal injuries Attorney handling case: McCutchan, Dcyle, Brown 6. Euersea City of suit: San Francisco, California Viator vs. Standard .Asbestos Manufacturing and Insulating Company, et al United States district Court for the Southern District of Texas - Houston Division Case h'o. 75-H-S67 Filed: .June 6, 1975 Amouug sought: $200,000 Attorney handling case: Baker 6 Betts City of suit: Houston, Texas Vice vs. Fibreboard Corporation, et al United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas - Beaumont Division Case Ho. B-75-115-CA Filed: March 17, 1976 Amount sought: $1,000,000 general and special damages, plus costs, disbursements and interest Attorney handling case: Orgain, 3ell & Tucker City cf suit: Beaumont, Texas Wedlev vs. Fibreboerd Paoer Products Corporation, et si Superior Court of Una State of California in and for the City and County of San Francisco Case Ho. 697-762 Filed: November 6, 1975 Amount sought: general and punitive damages Attorney handling case: McCutchan, Doyle, Brown A Enersen City of suit: San Francisco, California Walters vs, Keene Industrial Insulation, et al Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Case No. 4-018 Filed: January, 1976 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Mesirov, German, Jaffa A Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Warrington vs. Keane Industrial Insulation, et oi Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Case No. 679 Filed: February, 1976 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Kasircv, Caiman, Jaxfe & Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Watts vs. Keene Industrial Insulation, et al Court of Ccroon Pleas of Philadelphia County Casa No, 407.5 Filed; January, 1976 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Caiman, Jaffe City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Cramer Welker vs. Keans Industrial Insulation, et al Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Case No. 1750 Filed: February, 1975 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffe 6 Cramer City of suit; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wesberrv vs. Standard Asbestos Manufacturing arid Insulating Company, et al United States District Court for the Southern District oi Texas - Houston Division Case No. 75-E-S55 Filed: June 6, 1975 Annuoc sought: $72.5,000 Attorney handling ease: Baker 4 Botes City of suit: Houston, Taxes Whice_vs. Combustion Engineering, Inc,, et al Circuit Court for Xnox County, Tennessee Case No. 3-672-73 Filed: December 7.2, 1975 Amount sought: $2,000,000 compensatory end punitive damages Attorney handling cose: Witt, Gaither, Richardson, Htnaiss Whitaker City of suit: Knoxville, Tennessee Plater vs. Keene Industrial Insulation, Rt al Court of Common Fleas of Philadelphia County Case No. 1754 Filed: February, 1976 Amount sought: Attorney handling ease: Nesirov, Gelman, Jaffe & Cramer City of*suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania t,'iaherlv vs, Fibre'ooard Corporation, et 8l T/nited States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas - Beaumont Division Case No. B-/4-224-CA Filed: July 23, 1974 Amount sought: $500,000 general and special; $500,000 exemplary damages; plus costs and interest Attorney handling case: Orgain, Bell & flicker City of suit: Beaumont, Texas Status: settled Woods vs. Keene Industrial Insulation, et al Court of Common Picas of Philadelphia County Case No. 682 Piled: February, 1976 Amount sought: Attorney handling case: 1-iesirov, Caiman, Jaffe & Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania teldin vs. Keene Industrial Insulation, et al Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Case No. 920 Filed: February, 1976 Amount sought: &Attorney handling case: Kasirov, Gelman, Jaffe Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Cause vs. Combustion Engineering. Inc., et al Creanville County Court of Conracn Fleas, Greenville, South Carolina Cass No. Filed: July 22, 1976 Amount sought: $2,000,000 for personal injuries. Attorney handling case: Wyche, Burgess, Freeman & Parham City of suit: Greenville, South Carolina Status: Settled Thornton vs. Johns-llanvl.lle Corporation, et al Circuit Court of. the. City of Portsmouth, Virginia Case No. L-7S-5S0 Piled: July 29, 1976 Amount sought: $2,000,000. plus costs of suit, and such other and further relie.f as is just and proper. Attorney handling case: Jones, Blechman, Woltz & Kelly Cicy of suit: Portsmouth, Virginia Demarest vs. Johns-Manvllle Sales Corporation, et al Circuit Court, Wayne County, Michigan Case No. 76-626429-NP Filed: August 20, 1976 Amount sought: $2,000,000 on each of 4 counts for personal injury City of suit: sustained by plaintiff Detroit, Michigan Attorney handling case: Pykema, Gossett, Spsr.ce.r, Goodno'-v & Trigg Purser vs. Combustion Engineering, T.r.c.. at al Circuit Court for Knox County, Tennessee Case No, 3-442-76 Filed: August 19, 1976 Amount sought: $2,000,000, compensatory and punitive damages. City of suit: Knoxville, Tennessee Attorney handling case: Witt, Gaither, Richardson, Heaniss & Whitaker ) Nave. jruse Alfred vs. Cosbustlaa Enzineerins, tac., e.t.,31 Circuit Court tor Kncx Coun.tr>', Tennessee Cane No, 2-443-76 Filed: August IS, 1976 Affiount sought: $2,000,000, compensatory and punitive damages Citv of suit: Knoxville, Tennessee Attorney handling cnse: Witt, Gaither, Richardson, Henniss 6 Whitaker ?Arns vs. Ccmbustion Engineering, Inc., et al Court of CccicrTPleas for Greenville Coutny, S.C. Care No. Aroint sought: riled: August 23, 1S76 $1,000,000, ccnoensatory and punitive damages and costs for join, suffering, medical expense and loss of wages. Attorney handling case: VTyche, Burgess, Freeman & Parham City of*suit: Greenville, South Carolina Adams, Pauline vs. Ccrefcustion Engineering, Inc., et al Court of Cannon Pleas for Greenville County, South Carolina Case No. Anount sought: Filed: August. 23, 1976 $2,000,000, oarpensatory and punitive damages and costs for wrongful death of plaintiff1s intestate. Attorney handling case: Wyche, Burgess, Bnasman 4 Parham City of suit: Greenville, South Carolina Hatfield vs. Combustion Engineering, Inc., et al .... Circuit Court, KnoiT county, Knoxville, Tennessee Case No. 2-453-76 Filed: August 26, 1376 Amount sought: $2,000,000, compensatory and punitive damages, breach of warranty, personal injury due to long-term exposure to defective and dangerous asbestos, manufactured by GAF, during scope of employment. Attorney handling case: Witt., Gaither, Richardson, Henniss, City of suit: & Whitaker Knoxville, Tennessee Rogers vs. Combustion Engineering, Inc., et al Circuit Court, Knox County, Knoxville, Tennessee Case Ko. 1-456-76 Filed: August 26, 1976 Amount sought: $2,000,000, compensatory and punitive damages, breach of warranty, personal injury due to long-term exposure to defective and dangerous asbestos, manufactured by GAF, during scope of employment. Attorney handling case: Witt, Gaither, Richardson, Henniss, City of suit: 6 Whitaker Knoxville, Tennessee Smith vs. Johns-Manv.ille Corporation, et al Circuit Court of the city of Portsmouth, Virginia Case No. L-76-658 Filed: August 26, 1976 Amount sought: $500,000, compensatory damages and ounitive damages ,i.n the sum of $1,000,000, Attorney handling case: Jones, Blechman, Wcitr & City of suit: Portsmouth, Virginia plus costs Kelly Starnes, Silly Joe vs. Combustion Engineering, Inc., et al Grated States District Court- ior"the Northern Thstrict of Ctiio, Eastern Division Case No. C-76-832 Filed: August 20, 1976 Amount sought: $2,500,000, general, special, exemplarv and punitive damces, plus costs and interest. Attorney handling case: Baker, ifostetler Patterson City of suit: Cleveland, Chio Flerrdncr vs. Fibrahcerd PacerProducts Carreration. et al aSpcio'' Courto? California, City and County of San Francisco Case No. 710-399 Filed: August 25, 1975 Jfcount sought: General, special arid exemplary damages to be proven at trial, plus costs Attorney handling case: 4MsCutrhen, Coyle, Brtwr. Enarseri City of"suit: San Francisco, California Grice vs. Cargostion Engineering, Inc., et al United States District Court for the Northern District oi Ohio, Eastern Division Case No. C-76-833 Filed: August 20, 1976 Amount sought: $2,500,000 general, special, exemplary arid punitive damages, plus costs and interest Attorney handling case: Baker, Hostetler 4 Patterson City or" suit: Cleveland, Ohio S inpson vs Peas Corning Ffberqlas Corporation, et al U.S. Distflct Couit, Southern District oi: Texas, Houston Division Case No. 75-H-1499 Filed: September 13, 1976 Anount sought: $750,000-plus interest Jed costs for injuries sustained by plaintiff while working ns an insulator City' of suit: Houston, Texas Attorney handling case: Baker 4 Eotts Eartholanaw vs. Combustion Engineering, Inc., et al Court of Canaan Fleas, county of Greenville, South Carolina Case No. Filed: September 20, 1976 Amount sought: $2,000,000, actual and punitive damages, plus costs Attorney handling case: vyche, Burgess, Freeman 4 Parham City of suit; Greenville, S. C. Case No. CV76-3761 Filed: September 3, 1976 Amount sought: $500,000 damages, $500,000 for costs expended, $100,000 for deprivation of conpanionship and costs expended. Attorney handling case: Spencer, Feme, Britt 4 Brwna City of suit: Kansas City, Missouri Bumaardner vs. Confaustion Engineering, Inc., et al Court of Caiman Pieas, County of Greenville, S. C. Case No. Filed: September 20, 1975 Amount sought: $2,000,000, actual and punitive damages, plus costs Attorney' handling case: Wyche, Burgess, Freeman 4 Parham City of suit: Greenville, S, C. Heath vs. Combustion Snginecring, Inc., et al Court of Cannon Pleas, County of Greenville, S. C. Cass No. Filed: September 21, 1973 Amount sought: $2,000,000, actual and punitive damages, plus costs A.ttomey handling case; NVche, Burgess, freeman 4 Parham City of suit: Greenvi.lla, S. C. Kidd vs. Ccsbustion Encineering, Inc., et al Court of Carrcr! Pleas.^County" cif Greenville, S. C. Case No. Filed: September 17, 1976 Amount sought: $2,000,000, actual and punitive diiugas, plus costs Attorney handling case: Wyche, Burgess, Freeman 4 Parham City of suit: Greenville, S. c. Kbontr vs. Combustion Sncinaeginc. Inc., et al Court of Caiman Pleas, County of Greenville, S. C. Case No. Filed: Bepcamber 14, 1975 Amount souuht: 52,003.000, wrongful, death City of suit: Greenville, S. C." Glover vs. Johns-Mar.ville Corporation, at al Circuit Court of the City of Portsmouth, Virginia Case ISO. i.-76-V47 Filed: September 27, 1976 Amount sought: $750,000, crrpsnsatory dan-ages and punitive dan-ages in the sura of $1,500,000, plus costs UAttorney handling case: Jones, Biechman, V-toltc Kell/ City of suit: Portsmouth, Virginia Lauderback vs. Jbhns-Wanville Sales Corporation, at al United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division Case So. M-7S--69-CA Filed: September 23, 1976 Amount sought: $500,000, plus costs and interest for wrongful death of husband Attorney handling case: Strasburger, Price, Kelton, Martin & Unis City of suit: Marshall, Texas (Dallas) Barnett vs. Combustion Engineering, Inc., et al Court of Ccmron Pleas for Greenville County, S. C. Case Bo. Filed: September 27, 1976 Amount sought: $2,000,000, compensatory and punitive damages and costs for wrongful death of husband Attorney handling case: Wyche, Burgess, Fresivan ft Parham City of suit: Greenville, S. C. Davis vs. Confcustion Engineering, Inc., et al Court of Oomron Pleas for Greenville, . C. Case No. Filed: October 6, 1976 Amount sought: $2,000,000, actual and punitive damages Attorney handling case: Wyche, Burgess, Freeman & Barham City of suit: Greenville, S. C. Murray vs. Combustion Engineering, Inc., et al Court of Common Pleas for Charleston" County, S. C. Case No. Filed: October 1, 1976 Amount. sought: $2,000,000, compensatory and punitive damages and costs for wrongful death of husband t.Attorney handling case: Grisfcall, .Cabaniss, Vaughan Guerard City of suit: Charleston , 3. C. Smith vs. Combustion Engineering, Inc., et al Court of Cannon Pleas for Aiken County, S. C. Case No. Filed: September 27, 1975 Amount sought: $2,000,000, actual and punitive damages Attorney handling case: Wyche, Burgess, iYeemaxi & Parham City' of suit: Greenville, S. C. Turner vs. Combustion Engineering, Inc,, at al Court of Comrofr?lea:> for Greenville County, S. C. Orse No. Filed: October 6, 1976 Amount sought: 32,000,000, actual and punitive damages Attorney handling case: Wyche, Burgess, Freeman & Parham City of suit.: Greenville, 5. C. Evelyn White vs. Combustion Kngir.eorir.q, Inc., et ai Court of Ccanan Pleas for Greenville, 5. C. Case No. Filed: September 27, 1976 Amount sought: $2,000,000, compensatory and punitive damages, plus costs for wrongful death of husband Attorney handling case: Wyche, Burgess, Freeman (, Parham. City of suit: Greenville, S. C. John E. White vs. Cerbustion Engineering, Inc., et a1 Court of Co;stun Pleas for Grser.vxlle Count/, S. C. Case Me. Filed: October 6, 1976 Amount sought: $2,000,000, actual and punitive damages Attorney handling case: Wyche, Burgess, Freeman fi Parham City of suit: Greenville, S. C. ward vs. Johns-Manville Products Corporation, et ai U.S. district Court for the Eastern District "of"Texas, Marshall Division Case Mo. M-76-73-CA Filed: October 5, 1976 : Anount sought: $1,000,000, actual and exettplary damages Attorney handling case: Strastwrge.r, Price, Keltcn, Martin fi Unis City of suit: Dallas, Texas Sterken vs. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation, et al Unite<T~States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Galveston Division Case Mo. 76-G-lll Filed: October 12, 1976 Amount sought: 5500,000, plus interest and costs for injuries sustained to respiratory system while working with asbestos products manufactured and disr tributed by the defendants Attorney handling case: Baker & Botts Citv of suit: Galveston, Texas Bouchelle vs. Combustion Engineering, Inc., et al Court of Common Pleas for Aiken" County, S. C. Case So. Filed: October 8, 1975 Amount sought: $250,000, actual and punitive damages Attorney handling case: Wyche, Burgess, Freeman & Parham City of suit: Greenville, S. C. Morris vs. Combustion Engineering, Xnc., et al United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Charleston Division Case No. 76-1901 Filed: October 11, 1976 Amount sought: $2,000,000, compensatory and punitive damages Attorney handling case: Grimball, Cabaniss, Vaughan fi Guerard City of suit: Charleston, South Carolina Bateroore vs, Johns-Manville Corporation, et al Circuit Court of the City of Portsmouth, Virginia Case No. 1,-76-883 Filed: October 28, 1976 Amount sought: $1,000jOffi,punitive damages; $500,000, compensatory Attorney handling case: Jones, 31echman, Woltz fi Xelly City of suit: Portsmouth, Virginia Call vs. Combustion Engineering, Inc., et al Court of Comon Pleas for the County of Charleston, 5. C. ............... Case No. Filed: October 22, 1976 Amoung sought: $2,000,000, actual and punitive dautages, plus cost Attorney handling case: Grimball, Cabaniss, Vaughan S Guerard City of suit: Charleston, South Carolina Fearn vs. Forty-Eight .Insulation, Inc., et al Court or Conunon F1 e a so i"Aile gh e r.y County, Pennsylvania Case No. GD76-23408 Filed: October 13, 1976 Amount sought: $10,000, compensatory damages, $10,000 punitive damages Attorney handling case: Tucker Arensberg s Ferguson City of suit: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Herohman vs. John3-Manville Corporation, et al Circuit Court c?~tHe City "of Norfolk, Virginia Casa No. L7S-1706 Filed: October 22, 1S76 Amount sought: 5750,000, compensatory damages and $1,500,000, punitive damages Attorney handling case: Jones, Blechman, Woltz & Kelly City of suit: Norfolk, Virginia Johnson, Mary K. vs. GAF Corporation Superior Court of New Jersey, "Law Division, Hudson County Case No. Filed: October 27, 1976 Amount sought: to be proven at trial Attorney handling case: &Hannoch, Weisman, Stern Besser City of suit: Trenton, New Jersey Marzclf vs. Johns-Manvllle Corporation, et al State of New York Supreme Court',"""co'u'nty"'of Erie Case No. Filed: September 27, 197g Amount sought: 51,500,000, plus costs and disbursements Attorney handling case: Phillips, Lytle, Hitchcock, Blaine & Hubs Citv of suit: Buffalo, New York Oman vs. Johns-Manville Corporation, et al Circuit Court of the City of"""Newport" News Case No. 2S30-S Filed: September 24, 1976 Amount sought: $500,000, compensatory damages, $1,000,000, punitive damages, plus costs Attorney handling case: Jones, Blechman, Woltt S Kelly City of suit:. Newport News, Virginia Status: Dismissed F..Sedlock, Joseph vs. Combustion Engineering, Inc., et al United States District Court"! or "the" Northe rn District of Ohio, Eastern Division Case No. C-76-1093 Filed: October 12, 1976 Amount sought: $2,000,000, exemplary and punitive damages, $500,000, general and special damages, plus interest at 6% per annum Attorney handling case: Baker, Hostetler & Patterson City of suit: Cleveland, Ohio Stewart, Evelyn vs. Fibrebqard Paper Products Corporation, at al Superior Court" of the State of California for the"City "and County of San Francisco Case No. 7.13-284 Filed: October 20, 1976 Amount: sought: General, special, exemplary and punitive damages to be proven at trial, plus costs of Attorney handling case: &McCutch.en, Doyle, Brown E'nersen City of suit: San Francisco, California suit Turlev vs. Combustion Engineering, Inc., et al United*States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Gainesville Division Casa No. C76-1Q3 G Filed: November 3, 1976 Amount sought: $2,000,000, actual and punitive damages Attorney handling case: Sutherland, Asbill s Brennan City of"suit: Gainesville, Georgia Bailev, Esther vs. Johns-Manville Corporation, et al Uni ted "S ta te's ~D is tr i ct` Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division Case No. 76-155-NN Filed: November 12, 1976 Amount sought: $1,000,000, compensatory damages: $2,000,000, punitive damages, plus costs of suit and such other and further relief as is just and proper Attorney handling case: Jones, Blechman, Waltz s Kelly City of suit: Newport News, Virginia Status: Dismissed Grimes vs. Dwer.s-Corning Fiberglas Corporation, et al United States District "Court, Southern District or~Texas, Houston Division Case No. 76-K-1936 Filed: November 2.3, 1976 Amount sought: $250,000, together with interest thereon from date of judgment, plus cost3, general and special damages Attorney handling case: Baker & Botts City of suit: Houston, Texas Small vs. Johns-Manville International Corp,, et al United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division Case No. 7S-H-1907 Filed: November 17, 1976 Amount sought: $670,000, plus costs and interest for., injuries sustained Attorney handling case: Baker & Botts City of suit: Houston, Texas Walker vs. Johns-Manville Corporation, et al Circuit Court of the City of Newport News Case No. 2959-G Filed: Amount sought: $750,000, compensatory; $1,500,000, punitive damages Attorney handling case: Jones, Blechman, Woltz & Kelly City of suit: Newport News, Virginia Status: Dismissed Kosher vs. Johns-M anvills Products Corporation, et al Circuit Court for the County of Wayne Case No. 76-614243 Filed: May 9, 1976 Amount sought: $1,000,000, general and special damages, $1,000,000, exemplary damages, plus costs Attorney handling case: Karvey, Kruse & Westen, P,C. City of suit: Detroit, Michigan Shoup vs Johns-Mar.ville Products Corporation, et al Circuit Court for the bounty of 'Wayne Casa No. 76-606-823 ` Filed: March 2, 1976 Amount sought: $1,000,000, general and special damages; $1,000,000, exemplary damages, plus costs and interest at 5% per annum, plus disbursements Attorney handling case: Harvey, Kruse Westen, P.C. City cf suit: Detroit, Michigan Caines, Dorothy (Executrix) vs. Combustion Engineering, Inc., atCourt Common Pleas, County or Barnwell, South Carolina Cass No. Filed: October 27, 197S Amount sought: $2,000,000, actual, compensatory and punitive damages Attorney handling case: Wycha, Surpass, Freeman s Parham City of suit: Barnwell, South Carolina Drinkard, Harriet vs. Combustion Engineer.ir.g, Inc., et al United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division Case No. C76-1318 Filed: December IS, 1976 Amount sought: $2,500,000, exemplary and punitive damages, $ 500,000, general and .special damages, plus costs and interest Attorney handling case: Baker, Hostetler & Patterson City of suit: Cleveland, Ohio Cash, Ronald M. vs. Johns-Kanville Corporation, et al United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division Case No. 76-176-NN Filed: December 30, 1976 Amount sought: $1,000,000, compensatory damages $2,000,000, punitive damages, plus costs of suit, and such other and further relief as is just o.nd proper. Attorney handling case: Jones, Blechman, Woltz & Kelly City of suit: Newport News, Virginia Ellis, Donahue ys. Johns-ManvilXe Corporation, et al United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division Case No. 76-176-NN Filed: December 30, 1976 Amount sought: $1,000,000, compensatory damages $2,000,000, punitive damages, plus costs of suit, and such other and further relief as is just and proper. Attorney handling case: Jones, Blechman, Woltz & Kelly City of suit: Newport News, Virginia Gibbons, Willie A. vs. Johns-Manvilie Corporation, et al United States District Court for the"Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division Case No. 76-17S-NN Filed: December 30, 1976 Amount sought: $1,000,000, compensatory damages $2,000,000, punitive damages, plus costs of suit, and such other and further relief as is just and proper. Attorney handling case: &Jones, Blechman, Woltz Kelly City of suit: Newport News, Virginia Hoqge, Thomas J. vs. Johns-Manvllie Corporation, et al United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division Case No. 76-178-NN Filed: December 30, 1976 Amount sought: $1,000,000, compensatory damages $2,000,000, punitive damages, plus, .costs of suit, and such other and further relief as is just and proper. Attorney handling case: Jones, 3lechman, Woltz Kelly City of suit: Newport News, Virginia Roland, John Lae vs. Johns-Manville Corporation, st al United States District Court, foe "the Eastern. District of Virginia, Newport News Division Case No. 76-178-NN Filed: December 30, 1976 Amount sought: $1,000,000, compensatory damages $2,000,000, punitive damages, plus costs of suit, and such other and further relief as is just and proper. Attorney handling case: Jones, Biechman, Woltz 6 Kelly City of suit: Newport News, Virginia Status: Dismissed Sawyer, Thomas R. vs. Johns-Manville Corporation, et al United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division Case Nc. 76-178-NN Filed: December .30, 137S Amount sought: $1,000,000, compensatory damages $2,000,000, punitive damages, plus costs of suit, and such other and further relief as is just and proper. Attorney handling case: Jones, Biechman, Waltz s Xelly City of suit: Newport News, Virginia Status: Dismissed Stacey, Milton L. vs. Johns-Manville Corporation, et al United States District Court 'for~'t'ha Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division Case No. 76-178-NN Filed: December 30, 1976 Amount sought: $1,000,000, compensatory damages $2,000,000, punitive damages, plus costs of suit, and such other and further relief as is just and proper. Attorney handling case: Jones, Biechman, Woltz & Kelly City of suit: Newport News, Virginia Status: Dismissed Van Dvke, Robert B. vs. Johns-Manville Corporation, et al United States District Court for''the Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division Casa No. 76-178-KN Filed: December 30, 1976 Amount sought; $1,000,000, compensatory damages $2,000,000, punitive damages, plus costs of suit, and such other and further relief as is just and proper. Attorney handling case: Jones, Biechman, Woltz 4 Kelly City of suit: Newport News, Virginia Status: Dismissed Watson, Homer E. vs. Johns-Manville Corporation, et al United StateTs"B.istrict Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division Case No. 76-178-NN Filed: December 30, 1S76 Amount sought: $1,000,000, compensatory damages $2,000,000, punitive damages, plus costs of suit, and such other and further relief as is just and proper. Attorney handling case: Jones, Biechman, ivoitz & Kelly- City of suit: Newport News, Virginia Status: Dismissed White, John W. vs. Johns-Manville Corporation, et al United States jJXstrict Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division Case No. 76-178-NN Filed: December 30, 1576 Amount sought: $1,000,000, compensatory damages $2,000,000, punitive damages, plus costs of suit, and such other and further relief as is just and proper. Attorney handling case: Jones, Biechman, City of suit: Newport News, Virginia Status: Dismissed" Woltz i Kelly Kolloway, Maurice W. vs. Johr.s-Manville Corporation, at al iUnited 'States"'District Court tor the Eastern District o Virginia, Newport News Division Case No. 76-173-N51 Filed: December 30, 1975 Amount sought: $1,000,000, compensatory damages $2,000,000, punitive damages, plus costs of suit, and such other and further relief as is just and proper. Attorney handling case: Jones, Hlschman, Woltz & Kelly City of suit: Newport News, Virginia Jonas, Wilson W. vs. Johns-Kanville Corporation, et al United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division Case No. 76-178-NN Filed: December 30, 1976 Amount sought: $1,000,000, compensatory damages $2,000,000, punitive damages, plus costs of suit., and such other and further relief as is just and proper. Attorney handling case: Jones, Blechroan, Holtz Kelly City of suit: Newport News, Virginia Xiong, James T. vs. Johns-Manville Corporation, et al United States District Court for"the Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division Case No. 76--17B-NN Filed: December 30, 1976 Amount sought: $1,000,000, compensatory damages $2,000,000, punitive damages, plus costs of suit, and such ether and further relief as is just and proper. Attorney handling case: Jones, Slechman, Woltz & Kelly City of suit: Newport News, Virginia Overman, Percy C vs. Johns-Manvl11e Corporation, et al United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division Case No. 76-178-NN Filed: December 30, 1976 Amount sought: $1,000,000, compensatory damages $2,000,000, punitive damages, plus costs of suit, and such other and further relief as is just and proper. Attorney handling case: Jones, Blechman, Woltz S Kelly City cf suit: Newport News, Virginia Patrick, Q. W. vs. Johns-Manvilie Corporation, et al United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Newport New's Division Case No. 76-178-NN Filed: December 30, 1976 Amount sought: $1,000,000, compensatory damages $2,000,000, punitive damages, plus costs of suit, and such other and further relief as is just and proper. Attorney handling case: Jones, Slechman, Woltz s Kelly City of suit: Newport News, Virginia Reynolds, Hugh V. vs. Johns-Manvllle Corporation et al United States District Court for"the""Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division Case No. 76-178-NN Filed: December 30, 1976 Amount sought: $1,000,000, compensatory damages $2,000,000, punitive damages, plus costs of suit, and such other and further relief as is gust and proper. Attorney handling case: Jones, liiechman, Holtz & Kelly City of suit: Newport News, Virginia ,White, Walter J. vs. Johns-Manville Corporatian et al United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division Casa No. 76-17S-NN Filed: December 30, 1976 Amount sought: $1,000,000, compensatory damages $2,000,000, punitive damages, plus costs of suit, and such other and further relief as is just and proper. Attorney handling case: Jones, Blechraan, Waltz 5 KellyCity of*suit: Newport News, Virginia Status: Dismissed Ohde, Clarence L. vs, Philip Carey Manufacturing Corp., et al Circuit Court of Jackson County'" Missouri Case No. CV76-5247 Filed: December 31, 1.575 Amount sought: $1,000,000, punitive damages, plus costs Attorney handling case: Spencer, Fane, Dritt ft Browne City of suit: Kansas City, Missouri Isenhower, Max H. vs. Johns-Manville Corp., et al Circuit Court of the City of" Portsmouth, Virginia Case No. 1,-77-36 Filed: January 14, 1977 Amount sought: $500,000, compensatory damages; $1,000,000, punitive damages City of suit: Portsmouth, Virginia Attorney handling case: Jones, Biechmar., Woltz & Kelly Grugan vs. Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, et al Court o Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Case No. Filed: January 12, 1977 Amount sought: 51,000,000, compensatory damages; $2,000,000, punitive damages, plus costs Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffa ft Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pa. Fahey vs. Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, et al Court of Common P'leas of Philadelphia County Case No. Filed: January 12, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000, compensatory damages; punitive damages, plus costs Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffa ft City of suit: Philadelphia, Pa. $2,000,000, Cramer Barrett vs. Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, et al Court of Common Pleas c'F'phi'Tade Iphia County Casa No. Filed: January 12, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000, compensatory damages; $2,000,000, punitive damages, plus costs Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffe A Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pa. Ciar.frani vs. Johns-Manville Sales Corporation,, et al Court of Common Plea's'o'F'Phlladelphia County Case No. Filed: January .12, 1.977 Amount sought: $1,000,000, compensatory damages; $2,000,000, punitive damages, plus costs Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Gelmar., Jaffe ft Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pa, Whits, Nicholas vs. John5-Manvilie Sale:- C ornoration, etal Court cf Common Pleas or Philadelphia County Case No. riled: January 12, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000, compensatory damages; $2,000,000, punitive damages, plus costs Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffa f, Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pa. Wanner, Joseph J. vs. Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, et al Court of Common Pleas' of Philadelphia County Case No. Filed: January 12, 1977 Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Galman, Jaffa & Cramer Amount sought: $1,000,000, compensatory damages; $2,000,000, punitive damages, plus costs City of suit: Philadelphia, Pa. Ogborn, Charles vs. Johns-Manvilla Sales Corporation, et al Court of Common Fleas of Philadelphia County Case No. Filed: January 12, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000, compensatory damages; $2,000,000, punitive damages, plus costs City of suit: Philadelphia, Pa. Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffe Cramer Miller, Richard J. Sr. vs. Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, et al Court of Common Fisas of PKiladelphia county Case Ho. Filed: January' 12, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000, compensatory damages; $2,000,000, punitive damages, plus costs Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffe S Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pa. Wepoler, James H. vs. Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, et al Court of Common Pleas' of Philadelphia County Case No. Filed: January 12, 1977 Aunount sought: $1,000,000, compensatory damages; $2,000,000, punitive damages, plus costs Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffe S Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pa. Forman, Abe vs. Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, et al Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Case No. Filed: January 12, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000, compensatory damages; $2,000,000, punitive damages, plus costs Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffe & Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pa. Strittmatter, Albert A. vs. Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, Court of Common Pleas' of Philadelphia County" Case No. Filed; January 12, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000, compensatory damages; $2,000,000, punitive damages, plus costs Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffe s Cramer City cf suit: Philadelphia, Pa. et al Gilbert. Thomas H. vs. Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, et al Court of'common Pleas of Philadelphia County Case No. Filed: January 12, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000, compensatory damages: $2,000,000, punitive damages, plus costs Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffe fc Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Fa. Laspata, P.occo L. vs. Joh n s ~ M a nville Sales Corporation, e tal Court of Common Fisas or'PHTITdeiphia County....... Case No. Filed: January 12, 1977 Amount sought: 31,000,000, compensatory damages; $2,000,000, punitive damages, plus costs Attorney handling case: Mesirov, German, Jaffe & Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pa. Younkman, Richard D. vs. Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, et al Court of Common ?leas"of Phiiadelphia County Case No. Amount sought: Filed: January 12, 1977 $1,000,000, compensatory damages; 32,000,000, punitive damages, plus costs Attorney handling case: &Mesirov, German, Jaffe Cramer City of"suit: Philadelphia, Pa. Kimmelman, Raymond vs. Johns-Manviiie Sales Corporation, et ai Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Case No. Amount sought: Filed: January 12, 1977 51,000,000, compensatory damages; 52,000,000, punitive damages, plus costs Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffa & Cramer City of suit: Phiiadelphia, Pa. Klda, Stanley J. vs. John3-Manyille Sales Corporation, et al Court of Common ~?ieas of Philadelphia County Case No. Filed: January 12, 1977 Amount sought: 31,000,000, compensatory damages: 32,000,000, punitive damages, plus costs Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffe & Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pa. Voice, Amedeo vs. Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, et al Court of Common Pleas"of Philadelphia County Case Ko. Filed: January 12, 19 7 7 Amount sought: 51,000,000,.compensatory damages; $2,000,000, punitive damages, plus costs Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffe & Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pa. Ditkoff, Morris vs. Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, et al Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County" Case No. Filed: January 12, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000, compensatory damages; $2,000,000, punitive damages, plus costs Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffe S Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pa. Bergen, John vs. Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, et al Court cf Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Case No. Filed: January 12, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000, compensatory damages: $2,000,000, punitive damages, plus costs Attorney handling case: Mesirov, C-elman, Jaffe & Cramer City of suit: PhiiadelTihia, Pa. Martin, Peter vs. Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, et al Court or"Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Case No. Filed: January 12, 1977 Amount sought: SI,000,000, compensatory damages; $2,000,000, punitive damages, pi us costs Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffa s Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Fa. Tirocka, Werner C. vs. Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, ot al Court of Common Plaas of Philadelphia. County Case No. Filed: January 12, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000, compensatory damages; $2,000,000, punitive damages, plus costs Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffa & Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pa. Pi Seruio, Vito vs. Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, ct al Court"of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Case No. Filed: January 12, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000, compensatory damages: $2,000,000, punitive damages, plus costs Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffe $ Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pa. Smuzinskv, William vs. Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, et al Court discommon Pleas of Philadelphia County Case No. Filed: January 12, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000, compensatory damages; $2,000,000, punitive damages, plus co3ts Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffe & Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pa. Staiano, Carman vs. Johns-Manville Sales Corporatlon, et al Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Case No. Filed: January' 12, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000, compensatory damages; $2,000,000, punitive damages, plus costs Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffe & Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pa. Smith, Thomas J. vs. Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, et. al Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Case No. Filed: January 12, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000, compensatory damages; $2,000,000, punitive damages, plus costs Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffe & Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Fa. Inverso, Joseph M. vs. Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, et al Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Case No. Filed: January 12, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000, compensatory damages; $2,000,000, punitive damages, plus costs Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffe & Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pa. Maltese, Salvatore A. vs. Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, et Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Case No. Filed: January 12, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000, compensatory damages; $2,000,000, punitive damages, plus costs Attorney handling case: &Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffe Cramer City of suit: Philadelphia, Pa. al Lgpes, Antonio vs. Armstrong Cork Comoany, et al United States iorstrict Court for the Southern District of Florida Case ho. 76-.1411-civ-JLK Filed: January 11, 1977 Amount sought: $250,000, exemplary damages; $750,000, general and special damages; plus costs Attorney handling case: Fowler, White, Burnett, Hurley, Bar.ick City of suit: Miami, Florida S Knight Brooks, Franklin 0- vs. Johna^Menvilla Products Corporation, United States District Coart, Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division Case No. C77-252A Filed: February 11, 1977 Amount sought: $5,000,000, actual and punitive damages Attorney handling case: &Sutherland, Asbili Brennan City of suit: Atlanta, Georgia e: al Cohen, Dorothy vs. Comhus.ion Engineering, Inc., et al United States District Court for "the Eastern District of New Fork Case No. 77C 157 Filed: January 24, 1577 Amount nought: $500,000, general and special damages, $2,500,000, exemplary and punitive damages, plus costs and interest Attorney handling case: Kreindler, P.alkin S Goldberg City of suit: New Fork, New Fork Status: Dismissed Roach, Marie A. vs. Johns-Manville Corporation, et al Circuit Court, city "of St. Louis, Missouri Ca3e No. 65720 F Div, 1 Filed: February 15, 1977 Amount nought: $532,500, actual damages and $1,500,000, punitive damages, plus costs Attorney handling case: Spencer, Fane, Britt s Browne City of suit: St. Louis, Missouri Prim, Madeline vs. Combustion Engineering, Inc., et al United States District Court cr~tRe~6Tstrict of South Carolina Case No. 77-301 Filed: February 15, 1977 Amount sought: To be proven at trial Attorney handling case: Grimball, Cabaniss, Vaughan 5 Guerard City of suit; Charleston, S. C. Huggins, Ocis vs. Combustion Engineering, Inc,, et al Court of Common Pleas, County of Charleston, South Carolina Case Ho. Amount sought: Filed: February 15, 1977 $2,000,000, actual and punitive damages, plus costs Attorney handling case: Grimball, City of suit: Charleston, S. C. Cabaniss, Vaughan s Guerard Ruff, John S. vs. Combustion Engineering, Inc., et al Court of Common Pleas, County or Charleston," South Carolina Case No. Filed: February 15, 1977 Amount sought; $2,000,000, actual and punitive damages, plus costs Attorney handling case: Grimball, Cabaniss, Vaughan a Guerard City of suit: Charleston, S. C. Scott, Levy J. vs. Combustion Engineering, Inc., et al ~oTCourt of Common Pleas, County Charleston, South Carolina Case No. Filed: February 15, 1977 Amount sought: $2,000,000, actual and punitive damages, plus costs Attorney handling case: Grimball, City of suit: Charleston, S. C. Cabaniss, Vaughan 5 Guerard Turner, R, L. vs. Combustion Engineering, Inc. , et ai Court of Common Pieas, County of Charleston, S. C. Case No. Filed: February 15, 1977 Amount sought: $2,000,000, actual and punitive damages, plus costs Attorney handling case: Grimball, Cabaniss, Vaughan & Guerard City of suit: Charleston, South Carolina >.Wesberry, John R. vs. Standard Asbestos Manufacturing insulating Co., et al United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Case Ho. 76-H-11S Filed: January 19, 1976 Amount sought: $600,000, plus costs and interest Attorney handling case: 3aker & Sotts City of suit: Houston, Texas Houston Adkins, Doreen vs. Combustion Engineering, Xnc. , et al United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia at Huntington Case No. 77-3032 Filed: February 15, 1D77 Amount sought: $113,000, compensatory damages Attorney handling case: Spilman, Thomas, Battle & Klcstarmeyer City of suit: Huntington, West Virginia Schneider, George L. and Kate vs. Johns-Manvilie Products Corporation, et al Distract Court, Boulder County, Colorado Case NO. Filed: February 25, IS77 Amount sought: $750,000, compensatory damages; $25,000,000, exemplary damages, plus costs and interest (George Schneider); $250,000, compensatory damages, plus costs and interest (Kate Schneider) Attorney handling case: Davis, Graham & Stubbs City of suit: Denver, Colorado Swisher, Norma X,vs. Combustion Engineering, Inc., et al United States 'Dlstnct"Court for the Northern Di strict of Ohio, Eastern Division Case No. C77-162 Filed: February 17, 1977 Amount sought: $2,500,000 exemplary and punitive damages; $500,000, general and. special damages, plus %costs and interest at 6 per annum Attorney handling case: Baker, Hostetler & Patterson City of suit: Cleveland, Ohio Bradshaw, William T. and Hattie M. vs. Combustion Engineering, Inc., et al United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia at Huntington Case No. 77-3037 Filed: February 17, 1977 Amount sought: $500,000 (William); $250,000 (Hattie) Attorney handling case: Spilman, Thomas, 3attle & Xlcstsrmeyer City of suit: Huntington, West Virginia Neaca, Chester a.n d Margaret, vs C qmbo s t i o n _F.ngineer ing, Inc., et al United States District Court for the'Southern District of West Virginia at Huntington Case No. 77-3033 Filed: February IB, 1977 Amount sought: $500,000 (Chester); $250,000 (Margaret) Attorney handling case: Spilman, Thomas, Battle & Klostermeyer City of suit: Huntington, West Virginia Kin.u, Bov M. vs. Combustion Engineering, Inc., et al Court of Common Pleas of the County of Charleston, S. C. Case No. Amount sought: Filed: January 24, 1977 $2,000,000, compensatory and punitive damages, plus costs Attorney handling case; Grimball, Cabaniss, Vaughan & Guerard City of suit: Charleston, S. C. Bradley, John and Jewel us, Combustion Engineering, Inc., et al United" States' District Court for the Southern'District of West Virginia at Huntington Case No. 77-3046 Filed: February 23, 1977 Amount sought: $500,000 -(husband) ; $^5C*/G00 (wire) Attorney handling case: Spilman, Thomas, Battle 6 Elosterraeyer City of"suit: Huntington, West Virginia McBride, Donald T. and Bernadine vs. Combustion Engineering, Jnc., et al United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia at Huntington Case No. 77-3040 Filed: February 22, 1577 Amount sought: $500,000 (husband!: $250,000 (wife) Attorney handling case: Spilman, Thomas, Battle S Klsstermeyer City of suit: Huntington, West Virginia Stevens, Waldo and Emma vs. Combustion Engineering, Inc,, et al United States District Court" for thVT Southern District c" West Virginia at Huntington Case No. 77-3041 Filed: February 22, 1977 Amount sought: $500,000 (husband); 5250,000 (wife) Attorney handling case: Spilman, Thomas, Battle S Klastermeyer City of suit: Huntington, West Virginia Tuttle, Jack. vs. Johns-Manville Products Corporation, et al District Court in and for the City and County of Denver Case No. Amount sought: Filed: March 2, 1977 5250,000, actual damages and $250,000, punitive damages, costs and such other relief Attorney handling case: Davis, Graham S Stubbs City of suit: Denver, Colorado 3awqus, Gordon James vs. Jchns-Manville Sales Corporation, et al Circuit Court of Knox County, State of T ennossee,"Division I Case No. 1-128-77 Filed: March 7, 1977 Amount sought: $750,000, compensatory damages; $1,000,000 punitive damages, plus costs Attorney handling case: Witt, Gaither, Richardson, Kenniss Whitaker City of suit: Knoxvil.le, Tennessee Evans, Clyde J. vs. Johns-Manvilie Sales Corporation, et al Circuit Court of Knox Coup.tv",""State of Tennessee, Division I Case No. 1-126-77 Filed: March 7, 1977 Amount sought: $750,000 compensatory damages; $1,000,000 punitive damages, plus costs Attorney handling case: &Witt, Gaither, Richardson, Henniss Whitaker City of suit: Knoxville, Tennessee Huskins, Howard C. and Wife vs. Jchns-Manville Sales Corporation, et a Circuit Court, of Knox County, State of Tennessee, Division Til Case No. 3-126-77 Filed: March 7, 1977 Amount sought: $750, compensatory damages; $250,000 compensatory- damages (husband); $250,000 compensatory damages (wife $1,000,000 punitive damages, plus costs (both) City of suit: Knoxville, Tennessee McKee, Ralph and Martha X. vs. Johns-Manville Sales Corporation. et al ~" Circuit Court of Knox County, State of Tennessee, Division I Case No. 1-127-77 Filed: March 7, 1977 Amount sought: $750,000 compensatory damages (husband); $250,000 compensatory damages (wife); $1,000,000 punitive damages (both) Attorney handling case: Witt, Gaither, Richardson, City of*suit: Knoxville, Tennessee Henniss & Whitaker Starnes, John S. and Barbara G. vs, Johns-Manville Seles Corporation. et al Circuit Court of Knox County, State of Tennessee, Division IX Case No. 2-127-77 Filed: March 7, 1977 Amount sought: $750,000 compensatory damages (husband); $250,000 compensatory damages (wife); $1,000,000 punitive damages (both), plus costs Attorney handling case: Witt, Gaither, Richardson, Henniss & Whitaker City of suit: Knoxville, Tennessee Starnes, 0. K. and Jerriann M. vs. Johns-Manville Sales Corporation et. a I Circuit Court of Knox County, State of Tennessee, Division II Case Ho. 2-123-77 Filed: March 7, 1977 Amount sought: $750,000 compensatory damages (husband); $250,000 compensatory damages (wife); $1,000,000 punitive damages (both), plus costs Attorney handling case: uWitt, Gaither, Richardson, Henniss Whitaker City of suit: Knoxville, Tennessee Starnes, Roy Lewis and Lula B. vs. Johns-Manville Salas Corporation Circuit Court of'Knox County, State of Tennessee, Division III Case No. 3-127-77 Filed: March 7, 1977 Amount sought: $750,000 compensatory damages (husband); $250,000 compensatory damages (wife); $1,000,000 punitive damages (both), plus costs Attorney handling case: Witt, Gaither, Richardson, Henniss & Whitaker .... City of suit: Knoxville, Tennessee Thome.s, Earl vs. Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, et al Circuit Court of Knox County, State of ""Tennessee, Division III Case Ma. 3-128-77 Filed: March 7, 1977 Amount sought: $750,000 compensatory damages; $1,000,000 punitive damages, plus costs Attorney handling case: Witt, Gaither, Richardson, Henniss & Whitaker City of suit: Knoxville, Tennessee Tuck, Earle D. vs. Combustion Engineering, Inc., et al United States District Courtfor "the District of South Carolina, Charleston Division Case No. 77-0415 Filed: March 7, 1977 Amount sought: To be determined at trial Attorney handling case; Grimball, Cabaniss, Vaughan & Guerard City of suit: Charleston, South Carolina Turner, william A. vs. Johns-Manville Products Corporation, et al District Court in and for the City and County of Denver, State 67 Colorado Case Ho. Filed: March 4, 1977 Amount sought: $250,000 actual damages and $250,000 punitive damages, plus costs and other relief Attorney handling case: Davis, Graham & Stubbs City of suit: Denver, Colorado X.Vracrner, Larry vs. Johns-Manville Products Corporation, at al District Court" in and'Tor the County of. Houfder, State of Colorado Case Uo. Filed: March 4, 1977 Amount sought: $750,000 compensatory damages; $25,000,000 exemplary );damages {husband $250,000 (wife); plus interest, costs, etc. Attorney handling case: Dcavis, Graham 5 Stubbs City of suit: Boulder, Colorado Woody, Edwin James and Roberta vs. Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, e7t~"ai Circuit Court of Knox Countv, State of Tennessee, Division IX Case No. 2-126-77 ' Filed: March 7, 1977 Amount sought: $750,000 compensatory damages (husband); $250,000 compensatory damages (wife); $1,000,000 punitive damages (both), plus costs Attorney handling case: Witt, Gaither, Richardson, Henniss & Whitaker City of suit: Knoxville, Tennessee pudley, Margaret A. (Executrix), et al vs. Johns-Manville Corporation, et al Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Erie Casa No. Filed: February 22., 1377 Amount sought: $5,250,000 plus costs and disbursements Attorney handling case: &Phillips, Lytle, Hitchcock, Blaine Huber City Of suit: Buffalo, N.Y. Bull, Wilfred vs. Combustion Engineering, Inc., et al Court of Common Pleas of the State of South Carolina, County of Charleston Casa No. Filed: March 7, 1977 Amount sought: $500,000 actual and punitive damages Attorney handling case: Grimball, Cabaniss, Vaughan & Guerard City of suit: Charleston, South Carolina Kelly, Kelson C. vs. Johns-Manville Corporation, et al Supreme Court of the State of New Ycrlr, County of Erie Case No. Filed: January 21, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000 plus costs and disbursements Attorney handling case: Phillips, Lytle, Hitchcock, Blaine City of suit: Buffalo, New York & Huber Lawson, James vs. Johns-Manville Corporation, et al Supreme Court, State oF New York, County of Erie Case No. Filed: January 21, 1377 Amount sought: $1,000,000, together with costs and disbursements Attorney handling case: Phillips, Lytle, Hitchcock, Blaine & Huber City of suit: 3uffalO, New York 1 A""r M 1 ^ na ^ ^ r ^ rs <5 p XT v* )iw ( y A^ United States District Court for theNorthern District of Texas Dallas Division Case No. CA3-77-0333 Filed: March 14, 1977 Amount sought: $350,000 compensatory damages; $2,500 burial expenses; $1 SO,000 mental and physical pain and suffering ar.d mental anguish and for reasonable and necessary medical bills incurred. Attorney handling case: Strasburger, Price, Kelton, Martin & Dr.is City of suit: Dallas wwwmv; 'W*VAW^v...\VAV.V.WV.SV.V/ _Larson, L-loyd R. vs . Fifcraboard Pa ier Products Corporation, Superior Court of and County of State of Cal San Francisco r.ornia in and for the Ci ty Case No. 71.7-396 Filed: January 21, 1977 Amount sought: To be proven at trial Attorney handling case: McCutchen, Doyle, Brown 4 Ensrsen City of suit: San Francisco aI Ferris, Kathleer., Executrix of the Estate of Walter J. vs. Johns-ManVille Products Corporation, et al Court or Common Fleas of Philadelphia County Ferris, Ca3e No. Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Filed: July , 1976 Mesircv, Caiman, Jaffe & Cramer City or suit: Philadelphia, Pa. Pac'd. Parker, Ophelia, Individually And As Sols Heir of Harold T. Parker vs. JohnsLManviiTe Products Corporation, et af United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division Case No. CA 3-77-0372F Filed: March 18, 1977 Amount sought: $350,000 compensatory damages; $2,500 burial and funeral expenses: $150,000 mental and physical pain, mental anguish and medical bills, plus interest Attorney handling case: Strasburger, Price, Kelton, Martin & Unis City of suit: Dallas, Texa3 Stewart, John, Individually And As Executor Of the Estate of Otho C. Stewart, DeceasecTand Susan Simmer vs. Johns-Manviile Products Corporation, et al United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division Case No. CA 3-77-0373F Filed: March 18, 1977 Amount sought: $100,000 compensatory damages; $2,500 burial and funeral expanses; $150,000 mental and physical pain and suffering and mental anguish and medical bills .incurred Attorney' handling case: Strasburger, Price, Kelton, Martin 6 Unis City of suit: Dallas, Texas Jones, William T. vs. Johns-Manviile Corporation, et al Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Cane No. 76-11065 Filed: August 6, 1976 Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffe & Cramer Amount sought: Determined at trial City of suit: Media, Pa. Maher, Joseoh F. vs. Johns-Manville Corporation, et al Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Case Nc. 76-11065 Filed: August S, 1976 Amount sought: Determined at trial Attorney handling case: Mesircv, Gelman, Jaffe & Cramer City of suit: Media, Pa. Miles, Jackson Kenneth vs. Johns-Manviile Corporation, et al Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Case No. 76-11065 Filed: August 5, Amount sought: Determined at trial Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffe 4 City of suit: Media, Pa. 1976 Cramer Petillo, Daniel vs. Johns-Kanvillc Corporation, at aX Court o Common Pleas of Delaware County Case Ko. 76-11065 Filed: August 6, 1575 Amount sought: Determined at trial Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Gelmnn, Jaffe Cramer City of suit: Media, ?a. Pollnchak, Killian vs. Jchns-Manvilla Corporation, et al Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Case Ho. 76-11065 Filed: August 6, .1976 Attorney handling case: Mesirov, Geiman, Caffe 6 Cramer Amount sought: Determined at trial City of suit: Media, Pa. fiomjrm. p--finces Pxecufrnr under the I.nst Will and Testament Corporation/ et al Superior Court of the State of California in and for the City and County of San Francisco Case Mo. 720-331 Filed: March 17, 1977 ' Attorney handling case: &McCutchen, Doyle, Brown Enersen Amount sought: Determined at trial City of suit: San Francisco, Calif. Schnetke, Helen A., Executrix of the Estate of Ronald F. Schnetke, Dec'd. vs. Combustion Bngi'neeri'ngTlnc.-T et al United Stat.es-'5rs~tfTct Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Casa No. 77-765 Filed: March 3, 1577 Attorney handling case: &Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffe Cramer Amount sought: $500,000 general and special damages; $2,500,000 exemplary and punitive damages, plus costs and interest at 6% per annum City of suit: Philadelphia, Pa. Mitchell, Robert P. vs. Johns-Manvllle Sales Corporation, et al Circuit Court for the County"'of"wavne, State of Michigan Case No. 77-7010648-N? Filed: April 4, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000 general and special damages; $1,000,000 exemplary damages, plus costs and disbursements and interest on said judgment at 5% per annum Attorney handling case: Harvey, Kruse S VJesten City of suit: Detroit, Michigan Drigcs, Raymond vs. Standard Asbestos Manufacturing 6 Insulating Co., et al United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division Case Ko. H-77-533 Filed: April 4, Amount sought: $275,000, plus interest Attorney handling case: Baker Botts City of suit: Houston, Texas 1977 t Weiranch. Joseohins M. as general fiduciary of the estate of Alfred Frederick Wairauch, deceased "vs. Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, et al Circuit Court for the Countv of Wayne, State of Michigan Case No. 77-711 317 HP ' Filed: April 11, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000 general and special damages; $1,000,000 exemplary damages, plus costs, disbursements and interest at 5% per annum Attorney handling case: Harvey, Xruse 6 Westsn City of suit: Detroit, Michigan Harper. Charles K. , as administrator of the estate of Maxwell A. Harper") deceased" vs. Johns-Manville -Sales Corporation rTrcTiir. Courtfor the County of Wayne, State of Michigan Case No. 77-711 309 NP Filed: April 11, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000 general and special damages, $1,000,000 exemplary damages, plus costs, disbursements and interest at per annum Attorney handling case: Harvey, Kruse *< Wester City oi: suit: Detroit, Michigan Starnes, Billy Joe and wife, Carolyn Carlton Starnes vs. Johns - Many ille Sales Corporation, et. al Circuit Court ior Knox CountyT Tennessee Case No. 1-200-77 Filed: April 13, 1.977 .Amount sought: $750,000 compensatory damages (husband); $250,000 compensatory damages (wife); $1,000,000 punitive damages (both) Attorney handling case: Witt, Gaither, Richardson, Henniss s Whitaker City of suit: Knoxville, Tennessee Buff, William J. vs. Combustion Engineering, Inc., et al United States "District Court for the District of South Carolina, Charleston Division Case No. 77-685 Filed: April 15, 1977 Amount sought: To be determined at trial. Attorney handling case: Grimball, Cabaniss, Vaughan & Guerard City of suit: Charleston, S.C. Status: Settled Kaminski, Jerome vs. Combustion Engineering, Inc., et al United States Distri'ct~Court for the District of South Carolina, Charleston Division Case No. 77-683 Filed: April 15, 1977 Amount sought: To be determined at trial Attorney handling case: Grimball, Cananiss, Vaughan S Guerard City of suit: Charleston, S.C. Status; Settled Froman, Clifford vs. Armstrong Cork Company, et al United States District" Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division Case No. 76-2257 Filed: December 1.4, 1976 Amount sought: $750,000 general and special damages $250,000 exemplary damages, plus costs and interest Attorney handling case: Fowler, White, Burnett, Hurley, Banick S Knigt City of suit: Miami, Florida Ochoa, Onelio vs. Armstrong Cork Company, et al Un i ted Sta t.es'Dis tr ic t Court for the Southern'District of Florida, Miami Division Case No. 77-1046 Filed: March 30, 1977 Amount sought: $750,000 general and special damages $250,000 exemplary damages, plus costs and interest Attorney handling case: Fowler, White, Burnett, Hurley, Banick 6 Knigl City of suit: Miami, Florida , Adams, Doris Maxine, Executrix of the Estate of Edward Eee Adams ,...........................: . Virgin: at Huntington Case Nc. 77-3084 Filed: Anri! 14, 1977 .Amount sought: $113,000 compensatory damages Attorney handling case: Spilman, Thomas, Battle 5, Klostexmeyer City of suit: Huntington, W. Va. Pendley, Ethat Bowman, Executrix of the Estate of John Harold Pcndles'T"Deceased vs. Combustion Engl peering , Inc , efc al United States District Court tor the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division Case No. C77-632 .Piled: April 22, 1377 Amount sought.: To be determined at trial Attorney handling case: Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan City of suit: Atlanta, Georgia , Waters, Horace G., Jr. vs. Combustion Engineering Company, Inc., efc al United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division Case No. C77-S33A Amount sought: $2,000,000 Filed: compensatory April 22, 1977 and punitive damages and costs Attorney handling case: City of suit: Atlanta, Sutherland, Georgia Asbill S Brennan Rucker, Edna R., Individually, and for the use and benefit of Circuit Court of Knox County, Tennessee, Division II Case No. 2-220-77 Filed: April 22, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000, compensatory damages; $1,000,000, punitive damages, plus costs Attorney handling case: Witt, Gaither, Richardson, Rennies; & Whitaker City of suit: Knoxville, Tennessee Gatlin, Helen, Executrix of the Estate of John B. Gatlin, Deceased vs. Combustion Engineering, Inc. ,_ et. ad Court of Common Pleas, Coun'ty of Charleston, State of South Carolina Case No. Filed: April 7, 1977 Amount sought: $2,000,000 actual and punitive damages Attorney handling case: Grimball, Cabaniss, Vaughan s Guerard City of suit: Charleston, S.C. Status: Settled Faltesek, John vs. Standard Asbestos Manufacturing 5 Insulating Co. United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division Case No. H-77-636 Filed: May 4, 1977 Amount sought: $275,000 general and special damages, plus costs and interest Attorney handling case: Baker Botts Citv of suit: Houston, Texas White, Evelyn, Executrix of the Estate of .Salter P. White, Deceased vs. Combustion Engineering, Inc., et al (Refiled} - Survival Action Court of Common Pleas, County of Greenville, State of South Carolina Case No. Amount sought: Filed: April 25, 1977 $1,000,000 compensatory and punitive damages Attorney handling case: Wyche, Burgess, Freeman s Parham City of suit: Greenville, South Carolina Status: Settled Davis, Herbert Wilson, Jr. vs. Combustion Engineering, Incat at United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida Case No. 77-357-Civ-J-S Filed: May 3, 1977 Amount sought: To be determined at trial Attorney handling case: Fooler, White, Burnett, Hurley, fUmick City of suit: Miami s Knight william E. Welty vs. Fibreboard.Corporation, et al United "States District Court for'The Eastern"D.lstrict of Texas - Beaumont. Division Case No. B-7 7-236-CA Filed: Hay 19, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000 general and special damages, $500,000 exemplary damages, plus costs and disbursements and interest at 9% per annum Attorney handling case: Orqain, Bell & Tucker City of suit: Beaumont, Texas Elkins, Geneva, et al vs. Fibteboa.rd Corporation, et _al_ United States District Court for the Eastern District, of Texas - Beaumont Division Case No. F>-77-?.46-CA Filed: May 25, 1977 Amount sought: $600,000 general and special damages, exemplary damages, plus interest at 9%, plus costs Attorney handling case: Orgain, Bell & Tucker City of suit: Beaumont, Texas Earp, Ruby L. Individually, and for the use and benefit of the next of kin of Edgar L. Earp, Deceased Circuit Court of Knox County, Division III Case No. 3-277-77 Filed: May 20, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000, compensatory damages; $1,000,000, punitive damages Attorney handling case: Witt, Ga.ither, Richardson, & WhiLaker City of suit: Knoxville, Tennessee Henniss Treadway, .'John J. vs. The Celotex Corporation, CircuTE Court for Knox County, Tennessee Case No. 2-230-77 Filed: May 23, et al 1977 Amount sought: $750,000, compensatory damages; $1,000,000, punitive damages Attorney handling case: Witt, Gaither, Richardson, Henniss & Whitaker City of suit: Knoxvilie, Tennessee -` : . C. .Tohns-Manville Corporation, et al r.-.t 'Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division Case No. 77-0209-R Filed: May 25, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages; $2,000,000 punitive damages, plus costs Attorney handling case: Jones, EJlechman, Waltz & Kelly City of suit: Richmond, Virginia Doyle, Lewis M. v:;. Johns Manville Corporation, e.t al United States District Court" for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division Case No. 77-0289-R Filed: May 25, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages; $2,000,000 punitive damages, plus costs Attorney handling case: &Jones, Blecnman, Woltz Kelly City of suit: Richmond, Virginia Fisher, Gilbert T. vs. Johns-Manville Corporation, et al United States District Court for Lite Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division Case No. 77-0289-R Filed: May 23, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages; $2,000,000 punitive damages, plus Attorney handling case: Jones, Blechman, Woltz s. costs Kelly City of suit: Richmond, Virginia  ~ 1 an A , Sr vs. Johns-Many! lie Corporation , strict Court For the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division Case No. 77-0289-R Filed: May 25, 1.977 Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages; $2,000,000 punitive damages, plus costs Attorney handling case: Jones, Blechman, Woitz & Kelly City of suit: Richmond, Virginia et al Hopkins, Charles M. vs. Johns-Manville Corporation, et al United States District "Court for the Eastern District''of Virginia, Richmond Division Case No. 77-0289-R Filed: May 25, .1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages; $2,000,000 punitive damages, plus costs Attorney handling case: Jones, Blechman, Woitz & Kelly City of suit: Richmond, Virginia Johnson, Melvin J. vs. Johns-Manville Corporation, et al United States District Court for the Eastern District of.' Virginia, Richmond Division Case No. 77-0289-R Filed: May 25, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages; $2,000,000 punitive damages, plus costs Attorney handling case: Jones, Blechman, VJoltz & Kelly City of suit.: Richmond, Virginia Myrick, Wilson A. vs. Johns-Manville Corporation, et al United"states District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division Case No. 77-0289-R Filed; May 25, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages? $2,000,000 punitive damages, plus costs Attorney handling case: Jones, Blechman, Wo.ltz & Kelly City of suit: Richmond, Virginia Tench, Nelson 7,. vs. Johns-Manville Corporation, et al United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division Case No. 77-0289-R Filed: May 25, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages; $2,000,000 punitive damages, plus Attorney handling case: &Jones, Blechman, Woitz City of suit: Richmond, Virginia costs Kelly Waymack, George R., Jr. vs. Johns-Manville Corporation, et ai United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division Case No. 77-0239-R Filed: May 25, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages; $2,000,000 punitive damages, plus costs Attorney handling case: Jones, Blechman, 'Woitz & Kelly City of suit: Richmond, Virginia 'Williams, Gler. vs. Johns-Manville Products Corporation, et a 1 United States District'"Court"for the Eastern District of. Texas Case No. M-77--46-CA Filed: June 2, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000 actual and exemplary damages Attorney handling case: Strasburger s Price City of suit: Dallas, Texas Hobson, Lionel J. vs. Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, et al Superior Court"'of the State oF'calitorr.ia in and for the City and County of San Francisco Case No. 723-539 Filed: May 25, 1977 Amount sought: To be determined at trial Attorney handling case: KMcCutchen, Doyle, Brown Enersen City of suit: Sari Francisco, California Luque, F.mil j. vs. Fibreboard Paper Products .Corporation, et a! Superior Court of the State of California in and for the City and County of San Francisco Case No. 723-664 Filed: May 27, 1977 Amount sought: To be determined at trial Attorney handling case: McCutchen, Doyle, Drown & Enersen City of suit: San Francisco, California Arnold, James P. vs. Johns-Manville Corporation, et al Commonwealth of Massachusetts Superior Court, County- of Suffolk Case No. 21888 Filed: June 0, 1977 Amount sought: 5300,000 plus costs and interest Attorney handling case: Hale & Dorr City of suit: Boston, Massachusetts Wagner, Joan Guenther, as Executrix of the Estate of Charles Wagner. also known as Bud Wagner, Deceased v. Johns-Manvrlla Corporation, et al Superior Court of New Case No. L~36979 76 Jersey Law Division-Essex County ...........Filed: June ~?,""I977 Amount sought: To be determined at trial Attorney handling case: Hannoch, Weisman, Stern S> Besser City of suit: Jersey City, New Jersey Austin, Donald Boy and Lorena M. Austin v. Combustion Engineering, Inc., at al United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia at Huntington Case No. 77-3138 ` Filed: June 8, 1977 Amount sought: 5500,000 (husband): $250,000 (wife) Attorney handling case: &Spilman, Thomas, Battle Klostermeyer City of suit: Huntington, West Virginia v.Demahy, Francis J. Fibreboard Corporation, et al Uni.ted States District Court, for the Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division Case No. B-77-289-CA Filed: June 14, 1977 Amount sought: $500,000, general and special damages, plus legal interests and costs Attorney handling case: Orgain, Bell > Tucker City of suit: Beaumont, Texas gchmidt, Mary K., Administratrix of the Estate of Donald J. Schmidt Deceased v. Johns--Manvillo Sales Corporation, et al"......... circuit Court for the County of Wayne, State o"F"iiichigan Cane No. 77--718937N? Filed: June 15, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000 wrongful death, plus interest on said judgment until paid at the rate of 5% per annum Attoi riey handling case: Dyke-na, Gossett, City of suit: Detroit, Michigan Spencer, Goounow r. Trigg Graham, nnri s A.. Administratrix of the Estate of William O'. UHlilsf States District Court for the District of Rhode Island Case No. 75-0030 Filed: June 22, 1377 Amount sought: $200,000 for wrongful death of plaintiff's husband, plus interest and costs Attorney handling case: Hanson, Curran, Bowen s Parks City of suit: Providence, Rhode Inland Wood, Kenneth Eugene vs. Johns-Manville Gales Corporation, ct al District Court in and for the City and County of Denver, State of Colorado Case No. C-72795 Amount sought: $250,000 actual Filed: June 30, 1977 damages; $250,000 punitive damages Attorney handling case: Davis, Graham & Stubbs City of suit: Denver, Colorado Ferino, Thomas D. vs. Johns-Hanv.ilJ.e Sales Corporation, et al District Court in arid for the City and County of Denver, State of Colorado Case No. C-72796 Filed: June 30, 1977 Amount nought: $500,000 actual and punitive damages, plus costs Attorney handling case: Davis, Graham & Stubbs City of suit: Denver, Colorado Rushing, Leroy, Jr. vs. Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, et al District. Court in and for tffe^iTy'~3li3'-Cbunty-of Deliver, State of Colorado Case No. C-72798 Amount sought: $500,000 actual Attorney handling case: Davis, City of suit: Denver, Colorado Filed: June 30, 1977 and punitive damages, plus Graham & Stubbs costs Berry, Mary_Lou, Administratrix of the Estate of Clyde E. Berry, Jr., Deceased vs. Johns-Manviile Sales Corporation CircuXt~Court"'fbr""t.he' County of Wayne, State of Mich roan Case No. 77-720527 Filed: June 29, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000 general and special damages; $2,000,000 exemplary damages, plus costs and interest Attorney handling case: &Dykemn, Gossett, Spencer, Goodnow Trigg City of suit: Detroit, Michigan Matthews, Alma Ruth N., Executrix of the Estate of Rufus Matthews, Deceased vs. Johns-Manville Products CorporationXet a1 Court of Common Pleas, County of Charleston, South Carolina Case No. Amount sought: Filed: June 20, 1977 $2,000,000 actual and punitive damages Attorney handling case: Grimball, City of suit: Charleston, S.C. Status: Settled Cabaniss, Vaughan Guerard Carpenter, Lois , et al v. Johns-Manville p-rodin-t-s f'nr-nnraHTM, Marshall Division Cane No. K-77-68-CA Filed: July 22, 1977 Amount sought: $250,000 actual and exemplary'damages Attorney handling case: Strasburger ;; Price City of suit: Dallas, Texas B-iorquist, Donald C- vs. Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, et al Unit.ad States DistrictT'Court i'or'the District on Minnesota - Fifth Division Case No, 5-77-67 Amount sought: $509,000 $100,000 Filed: August 5, 1977 general and special damages; exemplary damages, plus costs and interest Attorney handling case: City of suit: Minneapolis, Minnesota Matthews, John L. vs. Johns-Manvllle Products Corporation, et al Court or Common I'lelTs for the County of Greenville, South Carolina Case Ko. Filed: August 9, 1977 Amount sought: $2,000,000 actual, punitive and compensatory damages Attorney handling case: Wyche, Burgess, Freeman & Parham City'of suit: Greenville, South Carolina G1:a'txisu - -- ---- Dennis, Mary .'J., Executrix of the Estate of Russell A. Dennis, Deceased' vs. Jchns-Manville Corporation, et al oTsUnited States tri'c't"'`ourt for the Bastern"7>istrict of Virginia, Norfolk Division Case No. 77-S21-N Filed: August 4, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages; $2,000,000 punitive damages, plus costs Attorney handling case; Jones, Blechraan, Wolt.z $ Kelly City of suit: Norfolk, Virginia .Marlin, Sadie-Paulina, Individually and Bof the next of Min of Howard . Marlin, Sales-"Corporation, et al for the use Deceased v. and benefit Johns-ManyFile ICircuit Court of Knox County, State of Tennessee, Division Case Mo. 1-434-77 Filed: August 9, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000 plus costs for wrongful death of husband Attorney handling case: Witt, Gaither, Henn.iss .9 Whitaker City of suit: Knoxville, Tennessee l"i Case No. 2-434-77 Filed: August 9, 1977 Amount sought: $750,000 compensatory damages; $1,000,000 punitive damages, plus costs Attorney handling case: Witt, Gaither, Henniss & Whitaker City of suit: Knoxville, Tennessee .. . of Texas, Beaumont Division Case No. B-77-37S-CA Filed: August 15, 1977 Amount sought: $600,000 general and special damages; $500,000 exemplary damages, plus costs and interest at 9% Attorney handling case: Orgain, Bell fi Tucker City of suit: Beaumont, Texas Hill, Reginald Guy and Mary Lorcna Hill v. Combustion Engineering, Iric~ et al ............. .......... ............... United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virgin at Huntington Case No. 77-3211 Amount sought: $1,500,000 Filed: August 22, (husband): $500,000 (wife) 1977 Attorney handling case: Spilman, Thomas, City of suit: Huntington, West: Virginia Battle & Kloafcernuayer Moyers, Harley, and wife, l-.nth P. Moyers v. Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, et a]. Circuit Court, for Knox County, Tennessee Case No. 2-462-77 Filed: August 22, 1977 Amount sought: $750,000 compensatory damages (husband),- $250,000 compensatory damages (wife), plus $1,000,000 punitive damages (both) Attorney handling case: Witt, Gaither, Henniss C, Whitaker City of suit: Knoxville, Tennessee Gunter, Joe and wife, Mary Jane Gunter v. Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, et al Circuit Court for Knox County, Tennessee Case No. 3-462-77 Filed: August 22, 1977 Amount sought: $750,000 compensatory damages (husband); $250,000 compensatory damages (-wife), plus $1,000,000 punitive damages (both) Attorney handling case: Witt, Gaither, Henniss & Whitaker City of suit: Knoxville, Tennessee Churm, Logan Jarrett and wife, Sally 0. Chuna v. Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, et al Circuit Court for Knox County, Tennessee Case No. 2-463-77 Filed: August 22, 1977 Amount sought: $750,000 compensatory damages (husband); $250,000 compensatory damages (wife), plus $1,000,000 punitive damages (both) Attorney handling case: Witt, Gaither, Henniss f< Whitaker City of suit: Knoxville, Tenncseee Barbee, James Melton and wi1e Sarah Sullivan Barbee v. Manville Sales Corporation, "et~ ai.~ Circuit Court for Knox'Count.y, Tennessee Johns- Case No. 3-433-77 Filed: July 6, 1977 Amount sought: $750,000 compensatory damages (both); $250,000 compensatory damages (wife); $1,000,000 punitive damages, plus costs (both) Attorney handling case: Witt, Gaither, Henniss S Whitaker City of suit: Knoxville, Tennessee Penery, Carl H. and wife,.Ruth K. Penery v. Johns-Manville Case No. 3-434-77 Filed: August 9, 1977 Amount sought: $750,000 compensatory damages (each); $250,000 compensatory damages (wife); $1,000,000 punitive damages, plus costs (both) Attorney handling case: Witt, Gaither, Kenniss & Whitaker City of suit: Knoxville, Tenneseee Adams, Balias Ford, Executrix of the Estate of Bervia V. Adams, South Carolina Case Mo. Filed: August 23, 1977 Amount sought: $2,000,000 compensatory and punitive damages Attorney handling case: Wyche, Burgess, Freeman & Parham City of suit: Greenville, South Carolina Status: Settled Derrick, Pate W., Administratrix of Deceased v. ; ' : Court of Com- ' Ca ro1 i na Case No. t + i* . C ') fU\f\ nftft tr s> the Estate of John C. Derrick, Filed: August 23, 1977 V'* 4- < << Durham, David C. v. Johns-Manvillr. Corporation, et al Unittio States District Court "for the Eastern District of Virginia Norfolk Division Case No. .77-135-N C/P #77-1 Filed: August 31, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages $2,000,000 punitive damages Attorney handing case: Jones, Blechman, Woltz s Kelly City of suit: Norfolk, Virginia Hudson, Willie M. v. Johns-Manv.i.lle Corp.,et al United States District "'court "for'"'the Eastern District of Virginia Norfolk Division Case No. 77-135-N C/P #77-1 Filed: August 31, .1977 Amount sought.: $1,000,000 compensatory damages $2,000,000 punitive damages Attorney handling case: Jones, Blechman, Woltz 4 Kelly City of suit: Norfolk, Virginia Coates, James P. v, Johns-Manvllle Corp., et al United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Norfolk Division Case No. 77-135-N C/P #77-1 Filed: August 31, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages $2,000,000 punitive damages Attorney handling case: Jones, Blechman, Woltz 4 Kelly City of suit: Norfolk, Virginia Weaver, Robert H. v. Johns-Manvilie Corp-, et al UniteS" States District Court for the Ea's"tern District of Virginia Norfolk Division Case No. 77-135-N C/P #77-1 Filed: August 31, Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages $2,000,0v0 punitive damages Attorney handling case: Jones, Blechman, Woltz 4 Kelly City of suit: Norfolk, Virginia 1977 Clceone, Silvester J. vsJohns-Manville Corp - ,__et__l United States District."Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Norfolk Division Case No. 77-135-N C/P #77-1 Filed: August 3.1, Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages $2,000,000 punitive damages Attorney handling case: Jones, Blechman, Woltz 4 Kelly City of suit: Norfolk, Virginia 1977 West, James E. v. Johns-Manville Coro., et al United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Norfolk Division Case No. 77-135-N C/P #77-1 Filed: August 31, Amount sought: $.1,000,000 compensatory damages 1977 $2,000,000 punitive damages Attorney handling case: Jones, Blechman, Woltz 4 Kelly City of suit: Norfolk, Virginia Burke, Robert A. Jr. v. Johns-Manville Corp., et al United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Norfolk Division Case No. 77-135-N C/P #77-1 Filed: August 3.1, .1.97? Amount: sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages $2,000,000 punitive damages Attorney handling cose; Jones, Blechman, Woltz S Kelly City of suit: Norfolk, Virginia Reutlinger, Clarence v. Johns-Manville Corp., et at United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Norfolk Division Case No. 77-135-N C/P If77-1 Piled: August 31, 137 7 Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages $2,000,000 punitive damages Attorney handling cast:: Jones, Blechman, Woltz 5, Kelly City of suit: Norfolk, Virginia Ward, Rafael t,. v. Johns-Manville Corp., et al United States Distriet~Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Norfolk Division Case No. 77--13$--N C/P #77-1 Filed: August 3.1, Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages $2,000,000 punitive damages Attorney handling case: Jones, Blechman, Woltz 5, Kelly City of suit: Norfolk, Virginia 1977 Braswell, Clyde D. v. Johns-Manville Corp., et al United States District Court for the"'Eastern District of Virginia Norfolk Division Case No. 77-135-N C/R #77-1 Piled: August 31, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages $2,000,000 punitive damages Attorney handling case: Jones, Blechman, Woltz & Kelly City of suit: Norfolk, Virginia White, Milton v. Johns-Manville Corp., et al United 5tates~bistrict Court for "the Eastern District of Virginia Norfolk Division Case No. 77-135-N C/P #77-1 Filed: August 31, 19/7 Amount sought; $1,000,000 compensatory damages $2,000,000 punitive damages Attorney handling case: Jones, Blechman, Woltz & Kelly City of suit: Norfolk, Virginia Plgg, James L. v- Johns-Hanville Corp., et. al United'States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Norfolk Division Case No. 77-135-N C/P #77-1 Filed: August 31, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages $2,000,000 punitive damages Attorney handling case: Jones, Blechman, Woltz S Kelly City of suit: Norfolk, Virginia Bsacham, Janes E. v. Johns-Manvi11e Corp., et al United States""District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Norfolk Division Case No. 77-135-N C/IJ #77-1 Filed: August 3.1, .1977 Amount sought: $.1,000,000 compensatory damages $2,000,000 punitive damages Attorney handling case: Jones, Blechman, Woltz . Kelly City of suit; Norfolk, Virginia Hewitt, Benjamin F- v. Johns-Manvi11e Corp., et al United States "District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Norfolk Division Case Ho. 77-135-N C/P #77-1 Filed: August 3.1, Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages $2,000,000 punitive damages Attorney handling case: Jones, Blechman, Woltz & Kelly City of suit: Norfolk, Virginia .1977 ..Tones, Elbert W.___y- Johns-Manville Corp., t:t al United-States'"District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Norfolk Division Case Mo. 77-135-N C/E #77-1 filed: August 31, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages $2,000,000 punitive damages .Attorney handling case: Jones, Blechman, Woltz & Kelly City of suit: Norfolk, Virginia lutz, Edward N. v. Johns-Manville Corp., et al United"States District Court for"the Eastern District of Virginia Norfolk Division Case No. 77-135-N C/P #77-1 Filed; August 31, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages $2,000,000 punitive damages Attorney handling case: Jones, Blec'nman, Woltz Kelly City of suit: Norfolk, Virginia Golden, Arthur J. v. Johns-Manville Corp., et ai United States'"District Court, for the Eastern District of Virginia Norfolk Division Case No. 77-135-N C/P #77-1 Filed: August 31, Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages $2,000,000 punitive damages Attorney handling case: Jones, Blechman, Woltz Kelly City of suit: Norfolk, Virginia 1977 White, James F. v. Johns-Manville Corp., et al United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Norfolk Division Case No. 77-135-N C/P #77-1 Filed: August 31, Amount sought; $1,000,000 compensatory damages $2,000,000 punitive damages Attorney handling case: Jones, Blechman, Woltz & Kelly City of suit: Norfolk, Virginia 1977 Whiddon, Hayes I,, v. Johns-Manville Corp., et al United States" District"Court for' the Easter'n'Dxstrict of Virginia Norfolk Division Case No. 77-135-N C/P #77-1 Filed: August 31, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages $2,000,000 punitive damages Attorney handling case: Jones, Blechman, Woltz & Kelly City of suit: Norfolk, Virginia White, Doug1as M. v. Johns-Manville Corp., et al United States District Court for "the Eastern District of Virginia Norfolk. Division Case No. 77-135-N C/P #77-1 Filed: August 31, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages $2,000,000 punitive damages Attorney handling case: Jones, Blechman, Woltz Kelly City of suit: Norfolk, Virginia Slayton, Xrvin B. v. Johns-Manville Corp., et al United states District "court for the Eastern"District Norfolk Division of Virginia Case No. 77-135-N C/P #77-1 Filed: August 31, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages $2,000,000 punitive damages Attorney handling case: Jones, Blechman, Woltz & Kelly City of suit: Norfolk, Virginia Brace, James M. v. Johns-Manville Coro., et al United 'States' District Court for "the Eastern District of Virginia Norfolk Division Case Ho. 7 7-135--N C/P #77-1 Filed: August 31, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages $2,000,000 punitive damages Attorney handling case: Jones, Blechman, Welts s, Kelly City of suit: Norfolk, Virginia Frame, Will.ie J. v. Johns-Manville Corp., et al United~States District Court Tor the'~Kastern District of Virginia Norfolk Division Case No. 77-135-W C/P #77-1 Filed: August 31, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages $2,000,000 punitive damages Attorney handling case: Jones, Blechman, Walt* Kelly City of suit: Norfolk, Virginia Groves, Linwood L. v. Johns-Manville Corp., et. al United States District Court for"the Eastern District of Virginia Norfolk Division Case Mo. 77-135-N C/P #77-1 Filed: August 31, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages $2,000,000 punitive damages Attorney handling case: Jones, Blechman, Wolt.z s Kelly City of suit: Norfolk, Virginia Butler, Columbus T. v. Johns-Manville Corp., et al United States District Court'for the Eastern District of Virginia Norfolk Division Case No. 77-135-N C/P #77-1 Filed: August 3.1, 1377 Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages $2,000,000 punitive damages Attorney handling case: Jones, Blechman, Wo.lt* 5 Kelly City of suit: Norfolk, Virginia Hobbs, Wallace L. v. Johna-Manville Corp., et a.l United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Norfolk Division Case No. 77-135-N C/P #77-1 Filed: August 31, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages $2,000,000 punitive damages Attorney handling case: Jones, Blechman, Woltz & Kelly City of suit: Norfolk, Virginia Nichols, Horace F. v. Johns-Manville Corp., et al United States'District Court for "the Eastern District of Virginia Norfolk Division Case No. 77-135-N C/P #77-1 Filed: August Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages $2,000,000 punitive damages 31, 1977 Attorney handling case: Jones, Blechman, Woltz & Kelly City of suit: Norfolk, Virginia Bardley, Joseph J. v. Johns-Manville Corp., et a1 United States District Court, for the Ear,tern District of Virginia Norfolk Division Case No. 77-135-N C/F #77-1 Filed: August 31, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages $2,000,000 punitive damages Attorney handling Case: Jones, Blechman, Woltz >, Kelly City of suit: Norfolk, Virginia Baqley, William A. v. Johns-Manville Corp., et al United States"District Court for~t.he Eastern"Dlstrict o Virginia Norfolk Division Case No. 77-135-H C./P 577 --1 Filed: August .'31, 3377 Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages $2,000,000 punitive damages Attorney handling case: Jones, Bleehman, Woltz & Kelly City of suit: Norfolk, Virginia Knrvatt, William J., Sr. v. Johns-Manville Corp., et al United States District Court for the"Ear.tern District of Virginia Norfolk. Division Case No. 77-135-N C/P #77-1 Filed: August 31, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages $2,000,000 punitive damages Attorney handling case: Jones, Bleehman, Woltz & Kelly City of suit: Norfolk, Virginia X.ane, Maurice H. v. Johns-Manville Corp., et al United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Norfolk Division Case NO. 77-135-N C/P #77-1 Filed: August 31, Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages $2,000,000 punitive damages Attorney handling case: Jones, Bleehman, Woltz S Kelly City of suit: Norfolk, Virginia 1977 .Miltier, Joseph v. Johns-Manville Corp., et al United Stales District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Norfolk Division Case No. 77-135-N C/P #77-1 Filed: August 31, Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages $2,000,000 punitive damages Attorney handling case: &Jones, Bleehman, Woltz Kelly City of suit: Norfolk, Virginia 1977 Harcum, George E. v. Johns-Manville Corp., et al United States Disti'Ict. Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Norfolk Division Case No. 77-135-N C/P #77-1 Filed: August 31, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages $2,000,000 punitive damages Attorney handling case: Jones, Bleehman, Woltz & Kelly City of suit: Norfolk, Virginia Taylor, Richard C. v. Johns-Manville Corp., et al United States District Court for the Eastern District-, of Virginia Norfolk Division Case No. 77-135-N C/P #77-1 Filed: August 31, 1377 Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages $2,000,000 punitive damages Attorney handling case: Jones, Bleehman, Wcltz Kelly City of suit: Norfolk, Virginia Gravitt, Barksdale E. y._ Johns-Manvillo Corp., et ai United States District Court-fcr the Eastern District of Virginia Norfolk Division Case No. 77-135-N C/P #77-1 Filed: August Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages $2,000,000 punitive damages 31, 1977 Attorney handling ease: Jones, Bleehman, Woltz S Kelly City of suit: Norfolk, Virginia vBarnes, Edwin E. Johns-Manville Corp. , a.l United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Norfolk Division Case No. 77-135--N C/P #77-1 Filed: August 31, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages $2,000,000 punitive damages Attorney handling case: Jones, Blechman, Wol.t.z & Kelly City of suit: Norfolk, Virginia Hart, Joseph R- v. Johns-Mar.ville Corp., et al United Staten"District"Court""'for the Eastern" District of Virginia Norfolk Division Case No. 77-135-N C/P #77-1 Filed: August 31, Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages $2,000,000 punitive damages Attorney handling case: Jones, Blechman, Woltz fi Kelly City of suit: Norfolk, Virginia 1977 Aldridge, Robert L. v. Johns-Manville Corp., et a.1 United States Distri`ct"Co'urt for the Eastern "District of Virginia Norfolk Division Case No. 77-135-N c/P #77-1 Filed: August 31, Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages $2,000,000 punitive damages Attorney handling case: Jones, Blechman, Woltz fi Kelly City of suit: Norfolk, Virginia 1977 1'ysor, Clyde v. Johns-Manvilie Corp. , et al United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Norfolk Division Case No. 77-135-N C/P #77-1 Filed: August 31, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages $2,000,000 punitive damages Attorney handling case: Jones, Blechman, Woltz & Kelly City of suit: Norfolk, Virginia Dupree, Herbert R, Sr. v. Johns-Manyi11e_ Corp., et al United States Distric't""caurt for the Eastern District of Virginia Norfolk Division Case No. 77-135-N C/P #77-1 Filed: August 31, Amount sought: $.1,000,000 compensatory damages $2,000,000 punitive damages Attorney handling case: Jones, Blechman, Woltz fi Kelly City of suit: Norfolk, Virginia 1977 Broaddus, William v. Johns-Manville Corp., et al United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Norfolk Division Case No. 77-135-N C/P #77-1 Filed: August Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages 31, 1977 $2,000,000 punitive damages Attorney handling case: Jones, Blechman, Woltz fi Kelly City of suit: Norfolk, Virginia Mann, Charles W. v. Johns-Manville Corp., et al United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Norfolk Division Case No. 77-135-N C/P #77-1 Filed: August 31, 1.977 Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages $2,000,000 punitive damages Attorney handling case: Jones, Blechman, Woltz fi Kelly City of suit.: Norfolk, Virginia Foley, John D. and Mary Ruth Foley v. Calotex Corporation, eh a! Circuit Court cii Jackson County, Missouri Case Mo. CV77-2870 Filed: August 24, 1977 Amount sought: $500,000 plus costs (husband); $1,000,000 punitive damages (husband); $100,000 plus costs $1,000,000 punitive damages (wife) Attorney handling case: Spencer, Fane, Britt s Browne City of suit: Kansas City, Missouri (vrie) Jackson, Helen May, Personal Representative of the Estate of George VoTney Jackson-, Deceased v. Johns-Mariville Sales Corporation, et al United States District Court for the Western District - Southern Division, State of Michigan Case Mo. 77-410CA Filed: August 31, 1977 Amount sought: $500,000 general and special damages; $500,000 exemplary damages, plus costs and attorney fees Attorney handling case: Cholette, Perkins and Buchanan City of suit: Battle Creek, Michigan Towler, Wade H. v. Standard Asbestos Manufacturing and,.Insulating Co., et al United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division Case No. B--77--425--CA Filed: August 29, 1.977 Amount sought: $475,000 plus costs of court incurred and interest from date of judgment until paid Attorney handling case: Orgain, Bell s. Tucker City of suit: Beaumont, Texas Winteorne, John R. v- Johns-Manv.ille Corp., et al United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Norfolk Division Case No. 77-273-N CP #77-1 Filed: August 12, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages; $2,000,000 punitive damages, plus costs of suit Attorney handling case: Jones, B.lechman, Wolts & Kelly- City of suit: Norfolk, Virginia Hall, Lucille O., Executrix of the Estate of Thomas K. Hall, v. V b: i- .v Virginia at Huntington :................... ' : ' : - . j- st Case Ho. 77-3216 Filed: September 1, 1977 Amount sought: $2,000,000 compensatory and punitive damages Attorney handling case: Spilman, Thomas, Battle & Klostermeyer City of suit: Huntington, W. Va. Eller, Radford v. Johns-Manvilln Products Corporation, et_jil United States District Court for the District of-SouthT'V.uiror.i.na, Charleston Division Case No. CA-77-1771 Filed: September 2, 1977 Amount, sought: To be determined at trial Attorney handling case: Grimball, Cabaniss, Vaughan & Guerard City of suit; Charleston, South Carolina Status: Settled Thomas, Wayne It. v. Combustion Engineering, Inc., et al Court of Common"Pleas, State of South Carolina"' County of Charleston Case No. Filed: September 2, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000 actual and punitive damages Attorney- handling case: Grimball, Cabaniss, Vaughan & Guerard City of suit: Charleston, South Carolina Status: Settled Robertson. James H. v. Johns-Manville Corp., et al OnTtecT""States Pis tr ies Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Norfolk Division Case No. 77-60.1-N Filed: September 21, 1977 Amount sought: 51,000,000 compensatory damages; $2,000,000 punitive damages, pins costs of suit Attorney handling case: Jones, Blechman, Wo It?, s Kelly City of suit: Norfolk, Virginia Knick, Rachel K., Administratrix of the Estate of Earl B. Knick, Deceased v. Johns-Hanvilie Corp., et al United States District Court foir the Eastern District of Virginia Norfolk Division Case No. 77-602-N Filed: September 21, .1.977 Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages; $2,000,000 . punitive damages, plus costs of suit Attorney handling case: Jones, Blechman, Woltz S Kelly City of suit: Norfolk, Virginia Ar.zak, Loretta, Personal Representative of the Estate and Survivors of William John Anzak, Deceased v. Armstrong Cork Company, et al United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida Miami Division Case No. 77-2346-Civ.-NCR Filed: August 10, 1977 Amount sought: $750,000 general and special damages; $250,000 for exemplary damages, plus costs and interest on said judgment Attorney handling case; Fowler, White, Burnett, Hurley, Banicfc City of suit: & Knight Miami, Florida Heitzman, Alberta, Administratrix of the Estate of Herman ileitzmn Case No. S477 1217 Filed: October 17, 1977 Amount sought: $100,000 (wrongful death), plus costs Attorney handling case: Wooden, Stark, McLaughlin $ Sterner City of suit: Indianapolis, Indiana Scott, Helen I.. Administratrix of the Estate of Robert J. Scott, ......-- V.-- u..U ......'rvj w' ** t .* I?-. ........ .i I. Case No. S577 .1271 Filed; October 17, 1977 Amount sought: $.1.00,000 (wrongful death), plus costs Attorney handling case: Wooden, Stark, McLaughlin fi Sterner City of suit: Indianapolis, Indiana Steele, Merle C. v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, et. al Superior Court of the State of~California in and for the City and County of San Francisco Case No. 723-364 Filed: Amount sought: To be determined at trial Attorney handling case: McCutchen, Doyle, City of suit: San Francisco, California October 14, 1977 Brown & Enersen Yost., Lois, Administratrix of the Estate of Paul .v. Oweris-Cornihq Fiberg las Corporation, et a 3. Superior Co'urt of the County'of Marlon, State of Yost, Deceased Indiana Case No. S477 1217 Filed: October Amount sought: Attorney handling case: Wooden, Stark, McLaughlin City of suit: Indianapolis, Indiana 17, 1977 6 Sterner McGreevey, Martin J. v. Combustion .Engineering, Xnc1 United States District Eastern Division Case Mo. 1088 Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Filed: October 13, 19,7 Amount sought: $2,300,000 exemplary and punitive damages,$300,000 general and special damages, plus interest and costs Attorney handling case: Baker, Hostetler & Patterson City of suit: Cleveland, Ohio Bennett, Ray v. Combustion Engineering, Inc , et al United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Augusta Division Case No. CV177-166 Filed: October 20, 1977 Amount sought: $2,000,000 actual and punitive and compensatory damages, plus costs Attorney handling case: Hull, Towi.ll, City of suit: Augusta, Georgia Norman, Barrett & Johnson Her.dri><,_ Lolj : n. AdmTnistratir; >. ........................ me Southern District of Georgia, Augusta Division Case No. CV177-167 Filed: October 20, 1977 Aiiiaunt sought: To be determined at trial Attorney handling case: Hull, Towill, Norman, Barrett & Johnson City of suit: Augusta, Georgia Lykins, Charles Oscar and Evelyn S. Lykins v. Combustion Engineering, Inc, et al United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia at Huntington Case No. 77-3264 Filed: October 21, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages; $300,000 punitive damages (husband); $500,000 compensatory damages; $250,000 punitive damages (wife) Attorney handling case: Spilman, Thomas, Battle & Klostermeyer City of suit: Huntington, West Virginia Ross, Joel and Margaret Louise v. Combustion Engineering, Inc., et al United States District Court~"for the Southern District of West Virginia at Huntington Case No. 77-3269 Filed: October 28, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages; $.300,000 punitive damages (husband); $500,000 compensatory damages; $250,000 punitive damages (wife) Attorney handling case: Spilman, Thomas, Battle & Klostermeyer City of su.it: Huntington, West Virginia Greene, Betty J. and Charles F. Greene v. Combustion Engineering, Inc., et~ al United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division Case No. F77-.11G Filed: November 4, 1977 Amount sought: $600,000 for costs expended; $2,500,000 exemplary and punitive damages Attorney handling case: Wooden, Start, McLaughlin 4 Sterner City of suit: Fort Wayne, Indiana Blalock, Harold Wavne and wife, Brenda Faye v".'~7fnh'na-ManvUle Sales Corporation, et al Circuit Court, for Knox County, Teri'riessee Brown Blalock Case; No. 1-365-77 riled: July 5, 19/7 Amount sought: $750,000 compensatory damages (husband); $250,000 compensatory damages (wife); $1,000,000 punitive damages, plus costs (both) Attorney handling case: Witt, Gaither, Kenniss s. `Whitaker City of suit.: Knoxville, Tennessee Holton, William Ralph and wife, Oneda Ann V, Holton v. i;.!:.-................ ... . >. . stern District of Tennessee, Southern Division Case. No. 1-77-294 Filed: November 18, 1977 Amount sought: $1,500,000 compensatory damages (husband); $500,000 compensatory damages (wife); $.1,000,000 punitive damages, plus costs (bath) Attorney handling case: Witt, Gaither, Henr.iss X Whitaker City of suit: Knoxville, Tennessee Derringer, George W. v. Fibreboard Corporation, et al United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division Case No, B-77-579-CA Filed: November 18, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000 general and special damages; $500,000 exemplary damages, plus costs, 9texpenses arid interest at per annum Attorney handling case: Orgain, Bell R Tucker City of suit: Beaumont, Texas Brown, Ernest Henry v. Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, et al Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama Case No. CV-77-C3422 Filed: November 7, 1977 Amount sought: $500,000 Attorney handling case: Caban.iss, Johnston, Gardner, Dumas & O'Neal City of suit: Birmingham, Alabama Dss Ja.rdlns, Emma, Administratrix of the Estate of Douir. Des jardins. Deceased Circuit Court for the County of Wayne, State of Michigan Case No. 77-737-328 Filed: November 23, 1977 Amount sought: To be determined at trial City of suit: Detroit, Michigan Attorney handling case: Spencer, Fane, Britt Browne Pauley, John W. and Oreda P. Pauley v. Combustion Engineering, Inc., et al United States West Virginia District Court at Huntington for the Southern District of Case No. 77-3277 Filed: November 3, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000 compensatory damages; $500,000 punitive damages (husband); $500,000 compensatory City of suit: damages; $250,000 punitive damages Huntington, West Virginia (wife) Attorney handling case: Spilman, Thomas, Battle s Klostermeyer rtorrov;, Karv- Anne: v. The Cast; No, CV77--385S Amount sought: $200,000 Celotex Corporation/ at &-1 , Missouri Filedr November 22, plus costs 1977 Attorney handling case: Spencer, Fane, Britt & Browne Citv of suit: Kansas City, Missouri Herbert, Berov v. Fibrebcard Corporation, et al United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas - Beaumont Division Case No. B-77-595-CA Filed: December 2, .1577 Amount sought: $500,000 exemplary damages; $1,000,000 general and special, plus costs and disbursements and interest Attorney handling case: City of suit: Beaumont, at 9% per annum &Orgain, Bell Tucker Texas Matthews, Howard v. Fibreboard Corporation, et al United States Dlstrict Court for the Eastern~Disbrict of Texas Beaumont Division Case No. B-77-5S4-CA Filed: December 1, 1977 Amount sought: $1,000,000 general and special damages; $500,000 exemplary damages, plus costs, disbursements and interest at 9% per annum City of suit: Beaumont, Texas Attorney handling case: bOrgain, Kell Tucker Loudy, Robert & Carrie Steadman Loudy, his wife, v. JohnsManvilli Sales Corporation, et al Circuit "Court for Knox County, Tennessee Case No. 1-669-77 Filed: November IB, 1977 Amount sought: $.1,500,000 compensatory damages {husband); $500,000 compensatory damages (wife); $3,000,000 punitive damages (both), plus costs K^grSly-RiSaii^Sii^'wM^aSfth.er, Henniss & Whitaker Holton, Thomas and wife, Frances Xathleene Holton v. Johns- Case No. 3-669-77 Filed: November 18, 1977 Amount sought: $1,500,000 compensatory damages (husband); $500,000 compensatory damages (wife); $3,000,000 punitive damages (both), plus costs Attorney handling case: Witt, Gaither, Henniss s Whitaker City of suit: Knoxville, Tennessee Holton, John K. and wife, Josephine Holton v. Sales Corporation, et al Circuit Court for Knox County, Tennessee .Johns-Mat:vilie Case No. 2-669-77 Filed; November 18, 1977 Amount sought: $1,500,000 compensatory damages (husband); $500,000 compensatory damages (wife); $3,000,000 punitive damages (both), plus costs Attorney handling case: Witt, Gaither, Henniss & Whitaker City of suit: Knoxville, Tennessee wwmw*v>---.................................. . Childress, non Edward and wife, Mac ion Price Childress v. joima-Manvilie Sales Corporation, t al circuit''"Court, for Davidson County, Tennessee Case No. C-3540 Filed: November 29, .1.977 Amount sought.: $1,500,000 compensatory damages {husband); $500,000 compensatory damages (wife); $3,000,000 punitive damages (both), plus costs Attorney handling case: Witt, Gaither. Henniss f. Whitaker City of suit: Nashville, Tennessee Cathey, Elmar Lee and wife, Martha Jo Cathey v. Johns-Hanvilie Case No. C-3538 Filed: November 29, 1977 Amount sought: $1,500,000 compensatory damages (husband); Attorney $500,000 compensatory damages (wife); $3,000,000 punitive damages (both), plus costs handling case: Witt, Gaither, Henniss & Whitaker City cf suit: Nashville, Tennessee Oliver, Horace K. and wife, Dorothy Thomas Oliver v. Johns- Case No. C-3541 Filed: November 29, 1977 Amount sought: $1,500,000 compensatory damages (husband) ,- $500,000 compensatory damages (wife); $3,000,000 punitive damages (both), plus costs Attorney handling case: Witt, Gaither, Henniss $ Whitaker City of suit: Nashville, Tennessee Overton, Robert Wesley and wife, Merrill is. Overton v. Johns - : . i: . ; v : .' Case No. C-3542 Filed: November 29, 1977 Amount sought: $1,500,000 compensatory damages (husband); $500,000 compensatory damages (wife); $3,000,000 punitive damages (both, plus costs Attorney handling case: Witt, Gaither, Henniss & Whitaker City of suit: Nashville, Tennessee Murphy , Claude K. and wi f. e, Jean v i r g inia Murphy v. JohnsManviile Sales Corporatioh", et al Circuit Court for Davidson County, Tennessee Case No. C-3543 Filed: November 29, 1977 Amount sought: $1,500,000 compensatory damages (husband); $500,000 compensatory damages (wife): $3,000,000 punitive damages (both), plus costs Attorney handling case: Witt, Gaither, Henniss fi Whitaker City of suit: Nashville, Tennessee Mackie, James V. and wife, Dorothy Grace Hackle v. Johris- atManville- Sales Corporation, "al Circuit Court for Davidson County, Tennessee Case No. C-3539 Piled: November 29, 1977 Amount sought: $1,500,000 compensatory damages (husband); $500,000 compensatory damages (wife); $3,000,000 punitive damages (both), plus costs Attorney handling case: Witt, Gaither, Henniss s Whitaker City of suit: Nashville, Tennessee TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. W.E. Cooke, "Fibrosis of the Lungs Due to Inhalation of Asbestos Dust." 2. V/.E. Cooke, "Pulmonary Asbesfcosis." 3. Thomas Oliver, "Clinical Aspects of Pulmonary Asbestosis." Stuart McDonald, "Histology of Pulmonary Asbestosis." 4. F.V/. Simson, "Pulmonary Asbestosis in South Africa." 5. M.J. Stewart, "The Immediate Diagnosis of Pulmonary Asbestosis at Necropsy." 6. K.E. Seiler, "A Case of Pneumoconiosis." 7. W. Burton Wood, "Pulmonary Asbestosis." 8. S. Rocahouse Gloyne, "The Presence of the Asbestos Fibre in the Lesions of Asbestos Workers." 9. A.C. Haddov/, "Clinical Aspects of Pulmonary Asbestosis." 10. W.E. Cooke, "Asbestos Dust and the Curious Bodies Found in Pulmonary Asbestosis." 11. M.J. Stewart, "A Method of Examining the Sputum for Asbestosis Bodies. " 12. Kenneth M. Lynch and William Atmar Smith, "Pulmonary Asbestos II." 13. M.J. Stewart, "Asbestosis Bodies in the Lungs of Guinea Pigs after Three to Five Months Exposure in an Asbestos Factory." 14. S. Reodhouse Gloyne, "The Reaction of Tissues to the Asbestos Fibre with Reference to Pulmonary Asbestosis." 15- W. Burton Wood, "A Case of Pulmonary Asbestosis: Death from Tuberculosis Two Years after First Exposure to the Dust." 16. E.R.A. Merewefcher, "The Occurrence of Pulmonary Fibrosis and Other Pulmonary Affections in Asbestos Workers." 17. E.R.A. Herewether, "The Occurrence of Pulmonary Fibrosis and Other Pulmonary Affections in. Asbestos Workers." (conclusion) *r 11 ;> *::> 1 Lynch and Smith, "Asbestosis. " Journal of American Medical Association, (excerpt) 19. H.E. Seiler, "A Case of Pulmonary Asbestosis." 20. Harold L. Stewart, Carl J. Bucher and Ernest H. Coleman, "Asbestosis." 21. W. Burton Wood, "Pulmonary Asbestosis Complicated by Pulmonary (Tuberculosis. " 22. J. Donnelly, "Pulmonary Asbestosis." 23. S.R.A. Herewether, "A Memorandum on Asbestosis." 24. S. Roodhouse C-loyne, "Morbid Anatomy and Histology of Asbestosis." 25. Dan S. Egberg, "Pulmonary Asbestosis." 26. J. Donnelly, "Pulmonary Asbestosis: Incidence and Prognosis." 27- William . Smith, "Survey of Seme Current British and European Studies of Occupational Tumor Problems." 28. S. Roodhouse Gloyne, "Pneumoconiosis." 29- Richard Doll, "Mortality from Lung Cancer in Asbestos Workers." 30. Daniel C. Braun and T. David Truan, "An Epidemiological Study of Lung Cancer in Asbestos Miners." 31. Irving J. Selikoff, Richard A. Bader, Mortimer E. Bader, Jacob Churg, and E. Cuyler Hammond, "Asbestosis and Neoplasia. 32. Maxwell Borow, Alfred Constcn, Lawrence L. Livornese and Norbert Schalefc, "Mesothelioma and its Association with Asbestosis." 33- M- Kleinfeld, J. Kessite, and 0. Xooyman, "Mortality Experience in a Group of Asbestos Workers..." 34. Irving J. Selikoff, "Address to the Delegates of the Twenty First Convention of the International Association of Heat and Frost Insulatoi's and Asbestos Workers." 35 R. Bellsau and E.A. Ga.er.sler, "Mesothelioma and Asbestosis H 36 Irving J. Selikoff, E. Cuyler Hammond, and Jacob Churg, "Asbestos Exposure, Smoking, r.d ;eoplas.La. '! Paul Gross, Robert T.P. deTre ille and Martin M. Haller, "Pulmonary Ferruginous Eodies in City Dv.'ellers. " 38. Vasil Persaud, Eric M. Bateson, and Clarence D. Banksy, "Pleural Mesothelioma Associated with Massive Hepatic Calcification and Unusual Mebastases." 39. Irving J. Selikoff, "Partnership for prevention." 40. David Kofcelchuck, "Priorities in Preventive Health." ill. Committee on Biologic Effects of Atmospheric Pollutants, "Asbestos." "2. Margaret R. Becklake, "Physical and Chemical Irritants." 43. Irving J. Selikoff, Harry Heimann, and E. Cuyler Hammond, "Late Effects of Indirect Occupational Exposure to A.sbestos in U.S. Shipyards in World War II. I. Population at Risk." 44, I.J. Selikoff, E.C. Hammond and J. Churg, "Mortality f Experience of Asbestos Insulation Workers, 1912-1971." 5 - Raymond L.H. Murphy, Jr., Benjamin G. Ferris, Jr., William A. Burgess,. Jane Vlorcester, and Edward A. Gaensler, "Effects of Low Concentrations of Asbestos." 46. I.J. Selikoff, E.C. Hammond & H. Seidman, "Cancer Risk of Insulation Workers in the United States." 47- H. Bohlig and E. Hain, "Cancer in Relation to Environmental Exposure." 43. K.V. Lindell, "Industrial Uses of Asbestos." P.E. Enterline & H. Weill, "Asbestosis in A.sbestos Cement Workers." 49- A. Morgan & L.J. Cralley, "Chemical Characteristics of.Asbestos and Associated Trace Elements." 50. V/.J. Hichclson & F.L. Pundsack, "Asbestos in the Environment." ( u* w 51- Arthur H. Danger, Ivan 5. Rubin, Irving J. Selikoff and Fred I>. Pooley, "Chemical Characterize';: on of u'ncoated Asbesto Fibers from the Lungs of Asbestos Worke s by Electron Micropro Analysis." Margaret R. Becklake, Gisele Fcurnier-Massay, , Charles E. Rossiter, and J. Corbett McDonald, "Lung Function in Chrysoti'le Asbestos Mine and Mill Workers of Quebec." 53. Minnesota Public Interest Research Group, "Hazards of Asbestos to Human Health.". 54. Irving J. Selikoff, E. Cuyler Hammond, and Jacob Churg, "Carcinogenicity of Amosite Asbestos." 55- Raymond L.K. Murphy, Jr., Edward A. Gaensler, Ralph A. Redding, Roger Belleau, Patrick J. Keelan, Arthur A. Smith, Ann M. Goff, and Benjamin G. Ferris, Jr., "Low Exposure to Asbestos." 56. E.C. Hammond and I.J. Selikoff, "Biological Effects of Asbestos." 57- Leslie Bartosiew.icz, "Improved Techniques of Identification and Determination of Airborne Asbestos." 58. G.W. Gibbs & R.S.J. Du Toit, "Environmental Data In Mining." 59- Charlotte Fenton, "Asbestos Toxicity." 60. !<1. Kavrath and J. Dobias, "Development of Pleural Hyalinosis in Long Term Studies of Persons Exposed to Asbestos Dust." 61. Muriel L. Rev.-house, "Asbestos .in the Work Place and the Community." 62. Health Policy Advisory Center, "Your Job or Your Life." 63. W. Raymond Parkas, "Asbestos-Related Disorders." 6H. Paul Gross and Russell A. Harley, Jr., "The Locus of Pathogenicitj of Asbestos Dust." 65. Paul Gross and Russell A. Harley, Jr., "Asbestos-Induced Intrathoracic Tissue Reactions." 66. Maxwell Borov;,. Alfred Conston, Lawrence Livornese and Norbert Schalet, "Mesothelioma Following Exposure to Asbestos: A Review of 72 Cases." Philip S. Enterline and Vivian Henderson, oe of Asbestos in the Asbestos In in S' Tt A. J. For, D.C. Lindars and RR... Ovr/en, "A SSuurvey of Occupational Cancer in the Rubber and Cablemaking Industries: Results of Five-Year Analysis, 1957-71." 69. Hilton C. Lewinsohn, "Early Malignant Changes in Pleural Plaques Due to Asbestos Exposure: A Case Report.*' 70. W.C. Cooper& J. Hiedema, "Asbestosis in the Manufacture of Insulating Materials." 71. C.A. Soutaz*, G. Simon and M. Turner-Warwiek, "The Radiology of Asbestos-Induced Disease of the Lungs." ?2. Benjamin Castleman, Robert E. Scully, and Betty U. McNeely, "Ca.se Records of the Massachusetts General Hospital." 73- Robert A. Green and Donald G. Dimcheff, "Massive Bilateral Upper Lobe Fibrosis Secondary to Asbestos Exposure." 7`1. Peter Rosen, Angela Savino and Myron Melamed, "Ferruginous (Asbestos) Bodies and Primary Carcinoma of the Colon." 75- R.J. Richards, P.M. Hext, G. Blundell, W.<T. Henderson and B.E. Volcani, "Ultrastructural Changes in Lung Fibroblast Cultures Exposed to Chrysotile Asbestos." 76. L.M Shabad, L.N.. Pylev, L.V. Xrivosheeva, T.F. Kulagina and 3. A Nemenko, "Experimental Studies on Asbestos Carcinogen!cit 77- Robert C. Tait & Douglas W. Smith, "Roles for E. Coli DMA Polymerases I, II, and III in DMA Replication." 78. Medical Whodunit, "The Case of the Burly Use Man." 79. The Listener, "The Right to Know an Investigation . into Secrecy." 80. Patrick L. Brovm, "Asbestosis." 81. J.M.G. Davis, "Histogenesis and Fine Structure of Peritoneal Tumors Produced in Animals by Injections of Asbestos." 82. Herman Libshitz, Martin S'. Wershba, G. William Atkinson, and Martha E. Southard, ''Asbestosis and Carcinoma of the Larynx. 83 William N. Horn and Philip Asbestos-Related Diseases." Spectrum oi Kun-Young Kang and Yoshizumi Sera, "T Lymphocytes In Asbestos Journal of Occupational Medicine, "Letter." oo. Philip Davies, Anthony C. Allison, Jill Ackerman, Ann Butterfield and Susan Williams, "Asbestos Induces Selective Release o.f Lysosomal Enzymes fx'om Mononuclear Phagocytes." 87. J.A. Merchant, P.T. Klouda, C.A. Soutar, W. Raymond Parkes, Sylvia D. Lawler and Margaret Turner-V/arwick, "The HL-A System in Asbestos Workers." 83. J.K. Scott and R. Hunt, "The Diagnosis of Asbestosis." 89- F.M. Engelbrechfc and B.F. Burger, "Kesothelial Reaction to Asbestos and Other Irritants after Intraperitcneal Injection. 90. A. Solomon and I. Webster, "The Visceral Pleura in Asbestosis 91. Robert A. Curtis and Philip J. 3ierbaum, "Technological Feasibility of the 2 Fibers/cc Asbestos Standard in Asbestos Textile Facilities." 92. G. Knight, "Overlap Problems In Counting Fibers." 93. Lawrence V. Crsiz, Harry J. Sttinger and Charles I. Farichild "Calibration Standards for Counting Asbestos." 94- AIHA-ACGIH Aerosol Hazards Evaluation Committee, "Recommended Procedures for Sampling and Counting Asbestos Fibers." 95- Hans Weill, Morton M. Ziskir.d, Carmel Waggenspack and Charles E. Rossiter, "Lung Function Consequences ofDust Exposure in Asbestos Cement Manufacturing Plants." 96. Asbestos Information Committee, "Asbestosis." 97- Barry Castlem.an, Lucille A. Camarota, Albert J. Fritsch, Susan Mazzocchi, and Robert G. Crawley, "The Hazards of Asbestos for Brake Mechanics." 98. A.M. Rchl, A M. Langsr, I.J. Selikoff and W.J. Nicholson, "Exposure to Asbestos in the Use of Consumer Spackling, Patching and Taping Compounds." t 99. Colin F. Harwood, David K. Oe trsich, Paul Siabert and John \ D. Stoekham, "Asbestos Enissi ns from Baghouse Controlled Sources. " 100. Author Unknown, "Environmental Pathology." .101 High Carley Hospital, "Asbestos Related Disease in Barrow- in-Furness . " 102. Nicholas Mahan and Herbert L. Eckert, "Depression of Viral Interferon Induction in Cell Honaiayers by Asbestos Fibers." 103. Auli Tcivanen, Karja Salmi valid., and Gabor Hainan, "Pulmonary Asbeatosis and Autoimmunity." 10*1. Philip E. Entei'line, "Pitfalls in Epidemiological Research." 105- Zuzana Fligiel and Mamoru Kaneko, "Malignant Mesothelioma of the Tunica Vaginalis Propria Testis in a Patient with Asbestos Exposure." 106. I. Leonard Bernstein and John Moteff, "Possible Asbestos Hazards in Clinical Allergy." 107. Harrison, "Environmental Lung Disease." ( 108. Nancy Tait, "Asbestos Kills."