Document Lg28L5gmZoY0JyxKY62XQ1aO5

ABEX CORPORATION Summary of Interrogatories: Kane v. Johns-Manville Coro., et al. Case No. C 258 940 Superior Court of the State of California County of Los Angeles 1916 American Brake Shoe and Foundry Co. Incorporated in Delaware in 1916 1926 American Brake Materials Corp. Incorporated by American Brake Shoe & Foundry Co. 1933 American Brake Materials Corp. Changed name to American Brakeblok Corp. 1937 American Brakeblok Corp. merges with American Brake Shoe and Foundry Co. and became a division of American Brake Shoe & Foundry Co. 1943 American Brake & Shoe Foundry Co. changed name to American Brake Shoe Company 1966 American Brake Shoe Company changed name to ABEX Corp. 1965 Abex International, S.A., incorporated in Switzerland; corporate headquarters in Geneva. Abex manufactured products containing asbestos fibers: From 1926 to 1927 in Lancaster, New York From 1926 to 1959 in Detroit, Michigan - From 1947 to Present in Winchester, Virginia From 1957 to 1977 in Chicago, Illinois (railroad) From 1974 to Present in Salisbury, North Carolina Asbestos purchased from: Asbestos Corp., Ltd. Thetford Mines Quebec, CAnada Bell Asbestos Mines, Ltd. Thetford Mines Quebec, Canada Lake Asbestos Black Lake Quebec, Canada Johns-Manville Corp. Quebec, Canada Vermont Asbestos Group, Inc. Hyde Park, Vermont Warnings - mid-1972 and mid-1974 American Brake Materials Brakeblock American Brakeblock Abex Brake Shoe Esline Stopper American Eagle Crossing Guard Protector 121 Super Brakes 1930 to 1971 1936 to 1971 1938 to present 1941 to present 1943 to present 1965 to present 1966 to present 1974 to 1980 1975 to present 1975 to present 1975 to present Private names: Paccar, Trailmobile, Great Dane, Mac Truck Above products contained 25-65% chrysotile asbestos by weight Asbestos products were shipped in kraft or corrugated cardboard boxes. Could be preprinted or plain color with labels affixed. Printed material contained the particular trade name and/or logo as applicable as well as a cautionary phrase regarding asbestos. In 1936 American Brake Shoe & Foundry agreed to contribute monies to a study to be conducted by Dr. LeRoy Gardner at Saranac Laboratory, Saranac Lake, New York. In 1973 American Brake Shoe & Foundry Com apparently committed $250.00 per annum for three years by way of contribution. Chief Medical Officers: 1941 to 1961: Lloyd E. Hamlin (Dec'd) 1961 to 1976: Charles C. Blackwell, Jr., MD. 1976 to 1982: Frederick W. Knoch, M.D. (Dec'd) 1983 to present: Dennis Egnatz, M.D. Medical Directors reported to Corporate Vice President of Personnel & Industrial Relations from 1944 to 1981 Medical Directors reported to Corporate Vice President of Human Resources from 1981 Plant Physicians: Harvey E. Melton, M.D. - Friction Products in Winchester, Harold H. Newman - Friction Products in Salisbury, N.C. from 1975 to 1980 John M. Blount Friction Products in Salisbury, N.C. from 1980 to present R.D. Phillips - Railroad Products, Chicago, Illinois VA -2- Industrial Hygienists J.B. Littlefield - 1941-45 H.J. Webert - 1943-54 R.H. Anderson - 1945-46 H.J. Gotmer - 1946-1966 W.A. Hamlin - 1948 - 1948 A. Edwards - 1949-54 R.A. Myles - 1951-51 D. Carlson - 1952-1955 J.S. Holtaway - 1955-66 J.T. Siedlecki - 1955-60 J. B. Mahoney - 1961-66 N. J. Merczak - 1967-1970 S. Gotceitas - 1969-70 F. L. Stanley - 1970-71 F. T. Szuxn - 1971-75 M. D. Gidley - 1972-76 K. J. Krotz - 1974-77 W. P. Osen - 1975-76 T. Antonson - 1976-1977 C. H. Borcherding - 1976-77 L. G. Wessa - 1977 J. B. Mahoney - 1977-78 R. H. Carpenter-Vance - 1978-80 E. L. Miller - 1979 Memberships in Health Organizations 1950 - Dr. Hamlin, Medical Director, attended the Industrial Hygiene Foundation meeting and held a position on the IHF Committee for a three year term beginning in 1952. Herbert J. Weber attended meetings as early as 1945. No one attended the 1955 IHF meeting in Pittsburgh and transcription of these meeting were never sent to Abex. Abex became aware of articles published by W.C. Dressen establishing tlv's for airborne asbestos particles, not fibers, in 1972. Does not provide respirators, but face masks have been made available since early 1970s. Brake linings and brake assemblies were sold as follows: 50% to all Chrysler Corp. passengers cars from 1950 through 1960. 10% of rear brakes to Chevrolet passengers cars from August 1952 to July 1954. -3- 100% of all models of Cadillac passenger cars from August 1955 to July 1965; and 50% (rears only) from August, 12956 to July, 1983. 25% to Buick on all power-braked equipment cars from June, 1956 to August, 1957 100% to Chevrolet 3/4 ton trucks (-20 models) from August 1969 to Jly 1980; 50% (rears only) from August 1970 to June, 1978 Claims and Insurance info attached as exhibit July 13, 1984 (/s/) -4- * 1 i^tAV..o>^incea HILLSINGER & COSTANZO PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 2 3099 AILBHIflC BOULEVARD SEVENTH FLOOR 3 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA BOO T O (2(3) 366-9441 4 1 L (SfACE CEUOVV FOR FILING STAMP ONLY) 5 Attorneys for Defendant ABEX CORPORATION 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 10 11 LAWRENCE KANE, 12 Plaintiff, 13 vs . 14 JOHNS-MANVILLE CORPORATION, 15 a corporation, et al., 16 Defendants- 17 AND ALL RELATED CASES. 18 JUL H i93c ) CASE NO. C 258 940^0^ o-^,llY, ) ) RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES ) PROPOUNDED TO DEFENDANT, ABEX ) CORPORATION, BY PLAINTIFF ) ) (First Set) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 19 TO PLAINTIFF AND TO HIS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, GREENE, 20 O'REILLY, AGNEW & BROILLET: 21 Defendant ABEX CORPORATION, whose investigation and discov 22 ery are not complete, and whose responses are to be without 23 prejudice to producing at the time of trial, any subsequently 24 discovered facts, witnesses and/or evidence, responds to the 25 plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories as follows. 26 /// 27 III ' 2S III , , ) i j i t h INTERROGATORY NO. 1: State the name, present address, and capacity of title of the individual signing these Interrogatories on behalf of the answering defendant. RESPONSE: A. H. Casey, Jr., Abex Corporation, Six Landmark Square, Stamford, Connecticut 06904, is verifying the answers to inter rogatories . INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please state the address of your principal place of business and whether you have assumed the assets and/or liabilities of any predecessor corporation or entity. Answer these Interrogatories for each such acquired company which manufactured products con taining asbestos. RESPONSE: OBJECTION. Interrogatory No. 2 is objected to on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous and unintelli gible. Without waiving said objection, and in the spirit of liberal discovery, defendant responds that the American Brake Shoe and Foundry Company, a Delaware Corporation, was incorpo rated in 1916. In 1926, The American Brake Shoe and Foundry Company caused to be incorporated a New York Corporation entitled American Brake Materials Corporation. In 1933, American Brake Materials Corporation changed its name to American Brakeblok Corporation. In 1937, American Brakeblok Corporation merged with the American Brake Shoe and Foundry Company and was thereafter operated as the American Brakeblok Division of that company. Ill , . - 1 In 1943, The American Brake Shoe and Foundry Company changed 2 its name to American Brake Shoe Company. In 1966, American Brake 3 Shoe Company changed its name to Abex Corporation. 4 INTERROGATORY NO. 3: 5 Has defendant, at any time from 1930 to the present, engaged 6 in the manufacture of products containing asbestos fibers? 7 RESPONSE: 8 Yes. 9 INTERROGATORY NO. 4: 10 If the answer to Interrogatory No. 3 is yes, please state: 11 (a) Where the asbestos-containing product Csic] were 12 manufactured; 13 (b) How long the defendant has manufactured and/or 14 distributed asbestos-containing materials; 15 (c) Whether defendant has supplied manufactured asbes 16 tos materials to any other defendant herein since 1930; 17 (d) The dates of the transactions referred to in sub 18 section (c ) ; 19 (e) The compensation paid for the manufactured asbes 20 tos materials; 21 (f) Whether any warnings, cautions, caveats ordirec- i 22 tions accompanied the materials referred to in (c); and j .I 23 (g) The date the warnings, cautions, caveats or direc- j 24 tions referred to in (f) first appeared. 25 RESPONSE: 26 (a) 1926-1927, Lancaster, New York ' 27 1926-1959, 4600 Merritt Avenue, Detroit, Michigan j n2O I 28 19^7-Present, Winchester, Virginia <mo '.!6> j so - I 7> 1 1957-1977, Chicago, Illinois; (Railroad Products 2 Division ) 3 1974-Present, Salisbury, North Carolina. 4 (b) Please refer to response to subpart (a), above. 5 (c) OBJECTION. Subpart (c) is objected to on the 6 grounds that the subject interrogatories are propounded under the 7 case caption of Lawrence Kane V. Johns-Manville Corporation, 8 etc. , et al. "And All Related Cases." This defendant does not 9 know whit the phrase "other defendants" refers to and it cer 10 tainly does not know the identity of "all defendants" in all n actions maintained by the plaintiff firm. Without waiving said 12 objection, and in the spirit of liberal discovery, this defendant 13 will respond that it has sold friction materials to various vehi 14 cle manufacturers and others. 15 (d) OBJECTION. Subpart (d) is objected to on the 16 grounds that it is overly broad, burdensome, vexatious and har 17 assing. The burden and expense to this defendant to compile the 18 information sought is not outweighed by the questionable evi 19 dentiary value of the information sought. Further, the inter 20 rogatory in its present form requests a compilation or abstract 2) of records which does not exist. Finally, sales records re 22 specting such information have been maintained only since 1976 by 23 Abex Corporation . 24 (e) OBJECTION. Subpart (e) to Interrogatory No. 4 is 25 objected to on the grounds it is vague, ambiguous and unintelli 26 gible with respect to the term "compensation paid." 27 (f) OBJECTION. Subpart (f) is objected to on the nZO 23 grounds that it is. vague, ambiguous and unintelligible with 1 respect to the terms "warnings," "cautions," "caveats" or "direc 2 tions." Without waiving said objection, and in the spirit of 3 liberal discovery, this defendant will respond that with respect 4 to cautions concerning asbestos, all asbestos-containing products 5 manufactured, distributed or supplied by this defendant since 6 1972, did have warning labels complying with the OSHA mandate. 7 (g) Please refer to objection and response contained 8 in subpart (f). 9 INTERROGATORY NO. 5: 10 If the answer to Interrogatory No. 3 is no, please 11 state: 12 (a) From what sources has defendant obtained asbes 13 tos-containing products since 1930? 14 (b) Whether any warnings, cautions, caveats or direc 15 tions accompanied the material referred to in (a); 16 (c) The nature and extent of said warnings, cautions, 17 caveats or directions accompanying said asbestos materials; 18 (d) Approximately what date said warnings, cautions, 19 caveats or directions first appears [sic] on the manufactured 20 asbestos materials. 21 RESPONSE: 22 Not applicable. 23 INTERROGATORY NO. 6: 24 Has defendant, at any time from 1930 to the present, engaged 25 in the mining and/or milling of material containing asbestos 26 fibers ? 27 RESPONSE: ' *ZO 28 ' No. ABO r. 61 ' j | i i 5- 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 7: 2 If the answer to Interrogatory No. 6 is yes, please state: 3 (a) Where the asbestos was mined and milled; 4 (b) How long the defendant has mined and milled asbes 5 tos ; 6 (c) Whether the defendant has supplied this mined 7 and/or milled asbestos to any defendant herein since 1930? 8 (d) The date of each transactions Csic]; 9 v (e) The dollar and tonnage amount of each sale; 10 (f) Whether any warnings, cautions, caveats or direc 11 tions accompanied the materials referred to in (c); and 12 (g) The dates any warnings, cautions, caveats or di 13 rections referred to in subsection (f) first accompanied defen 14 dant's asbestos-containing products. 15 RESPONSE: 16 Not applicable. 17 INTERROGATORY NO. 8: 18 If your answer to Interrogatory No. 6 is no, please state: 19 (a) From what sources has defendant obtained mined 20 asbestos since 1930? 21 (b) Have any warnings, cautions, caveats or directions 22 accompanied the material referred to in (a); 23 (c) The nature and extent of the warnings, cautions, 24 caveats or directions referred to in (b); 25 (d) Approximately what date said warnings, cautions, 26 caveats or directions first appeared on the mined asbestos. 27 /// Njo 3' 28 /// no' ' ' 60 1 RESPONSE: 2 (a) Asbestos Corporation, Ltd., Thetford Mines, Que 3 bec, Canada; Bell Asbestos Mines, Ltd., Thetford Mines, Quebec, 4 Canada; Lake Asbestos, Black Lake, Quebec, Canada; Johns5 Manville Corporation, Quebec, Canada; and Vermont Asbestos Group, 6 Inc., Hyde Park, Vermont; 7 (b) Yes. 8 (c) and (d) Defendant does not have records which 9 reflect- such information; however, it presently recalls that it 10 believes cautionary warnings did accompany asbestos purchased 11 from the Canadian Mines beginning in mid-1972 and from Vermont 12 Asbestos Group beginning in mid-1974. Current cautionary 13 instructions are as follows: 14 Bell Asbestos Mines, Ltd: WARNING. Contains asbestos fibers. 15 Avoid creating dust. Breathing asbestos dust may cause cancer and 16 other fatal diseases. Smoking greatly increases the lung cancer 17 risk. [Note: The cautionary instruction also appears in 18 French.] 19 Asbestos Corporation, Ltd.: CAUTION. Contains asbestos fibers. 20 Avoid creating dust. Breathing asbestos dust may cause serious 21 bodily harm. [Note.- The cautionary instruction also appears in 22 French.] 23 Johns-Manville Corporation: CAUTION. Contains asbestos fibers. 24 Avoid creating dust- Breathing asbestos dust may cause serious 25 bodily harm. Smoking greatly increases the risk of serious 26 bodily harm. [Note: The cautionary instruction also appears in 27 five other languages.] NZO 0* 28 Afl O '16 i /// ] INTERROGATORY NO. 9: 2 Has defendant, at any time from 1930 to the present, engaged 3 in the processing, marketing and/or sale of products containing 4 asbestos fibers? ' 5 RESPONSE: 6 Yes. 7 INTERROGATORY NO. 10: 8 If the answer to Interrogatory No. 3, No. 6 or No. 9 is 9 affirmative, please state as to each affirmative answer: 10 (a) The trade or brand name of each product mined, 11 manufactured, and/or marketed; 12 13 14 market; (b) The dates each product was placed on the market; (c) The dates each product was withdrawn from the 15 (d) A description of the chemical composition of each 16 product, including the type of asbestos contained in each such 17 product (i.e., amosite, chrysotile, crocidolite) and the quanti 18 tative percentage of asbestos in each product; 19 (e) A description of the physical appearance of each 20 product; 21 (f) A detailed description of the intended uses of 22 each product; 23 (g) The name of the manufacturers of each product; 24 (h) The mining or milling concern from which the raw 25 asbestos was obtained. 26 RESPONSE: 27 (a), (b) and (c): *28o /// >'6> 60 -8- 1 YEAR OF REG. CURRENT 2 trademark OR FIRST USE STATUS 3 American Brake Materials 1930 Abandoned 1971 4 Brakeblok 1936 Abandoned 1971 5 American Brakeblok 1938 Active 6 Abex 1941 Active 7 Brake Snoe 1943 Active 8 Esline 1965 Active ? Stoppe rv 1966 Active 10 Americin Eagle 1974 Abandoned 1980 11 Crossing Guard 1975 Active 12 Protector 1975 Active 13 121 Super Brakes 1975 Active 14 Additionally, there were private brand names applied to 15 certain products, such as Paccar, Trailmobile, Great Dane, Mac 16 Truck, and possibly others. 17 (d) OBJECTION. Subpart (d) to Interrogatory No. 10 is 18 objected to on the grounds that it is overly broad, burdensome, 19 and requests information which is proprietary in nature. Further, 20 the interrogatory seeks information which is not reasonably cal 21 culated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without 22 waiving said objection, and in the spirit of liberal discovery, 23 defendant responds that the friction materials, referenced above, 24 contained chrysotile asbestos, 25-65% by weight, depending on the 25 product. 26 (e) OBJECTION. Subpart (e) to Interrogatory No. 10 is 27 objected to on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, am iw;c 3 28 biguous, unintelligible, burdensome and seeks information, which 4.0 O 60 1 is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissi 2 ble evidence. Without waiving said objection, and in the spirit 3 of liberal discovery, defendant responds that the products were 4 of various shapes and sizes, with colors ranging from tan to 5 black. 6 (f) Defendant incorporates its objection to subpart 7 (e), supra. Without waiving said objection, and in the spirit 8 of liberal discovery, defendant responds that generally the 9 intended use was to provide a means for braking. 10 'g) OBJECTION. Subpart (g) is objected to on the 11 grounds it is vague, ambiguous, unintelligible, overly oroad, 12 burdensome and vexatious. 13 (h) OBJECTION. Subpart (h) is objected to on the 14 grounds that it is overly broad, burdensome, vexatious and har 15 assing and seeks a compilation of records which does not exist. 16 INTERROGATORY NO. 11: 17 Does defendant hold the rights to any patent pertaining to 18 the products listed in the preceding Interrogatory? ` 19 RESPONSE: 20 Yes. 2! INTERROGATORY NO. 12: j j 22 If the answer to the preceding Interrogatory is affirmative, I 23 please state: 24 (a) The number of each patent; i 25 (b) The date each patent was issued; 26 (c) The number of each patent application that is 27 pending. ' NZO 28 /// nfei . j i i 60 -10- - J^ 1 RESPONSE: 2 (a) and (b) The following are unexpired patents (as of 3 October, 1983) covering friction products containing asbestos: 4 U.S. PATENT 5 NO* 6 3,334,163 ISSUE DATE 08/01/67 INVENTORS R.H. Gilbert TITLE Method of molding 7 friction elements 8 3,448,071 9 3,477, 983 06/03/69 11/11/69 E.C. Keller E.C. Keller Brake Pad Friction elements 10 3,492,262 01/27/70 A.M. Griffith Friction elements 11 3,505,446 C4/07/70 A.M. Griffith Friction elements 12 3,673,276 13 06/27/72 E.C. Keller R.E. Spokes Friction elements 14 3,751,330 08/07/73 R.H. Gilbert Railroad Brake Shoes 15 3,998,573 12/21/76 R.H. Gilbert The Manufacture of 16 A.M. Griffith friction elements 17 (c) As of October, 1983, there were no patent 18 applications on file assigned to Abex Corporation covering 19 products containing asbestos. 20 INTERROGATORY NO. 13: 21 Have any of the products listed in Interrogatory No. 10 22 above been altered in chemical composition, asbestos type or 23 content since first being marketed? 24 RESPONSE: 25 There has been no difference in the use of chrysotile 26 asbestos. There may have been changes in phenolic resins and 27 fillers. NZ O Dv 23 /// *ao "6' -j h I INTERROGATORY NO. 14: 2 If the answer to Interrogatory No. 13 is affirmative, please 3 state: 4 (a) The trade name of each product; 5 (b) The date each product was altered; 6 (c) The nature of the alteration; 7 (d) The reason for the alteration. 8 RESPONSE: 9 OBJECTION. Interrogatory No. 14 is objected to on the 10 grounds that it is overly broad, burdensome and requests informa 11 tion which is proprietary in nature. Further, the burden and 12 expense to this defendant to compile the information sought is 13 not outweighed by the questionable evidentiary value of the in 14 formation sought. 15 INTERROGATORY NO. 15: 16 Do any written materials of any kind or character exist 17 relating to the testing of said products? 18 RESPONSE: 19 OBJECTION. Interrogatory No. 15 is objected to on the 20 grounds that it is overly broad, burdensome, vexatious, harass 21 ing, vague, ambiguous and unintelligible. The burden and expense 22 to this responding defendant to compile the requested information 23 is not outweighed by the questionable evidentiary value of the 24 information sought. 25 INTERROGATORY NO. 16: 26 Did defendant make any design changes as a result of the 27 tests referred to in Interrogatory No. 15? NZQ 0 28 Ill 60 -12- 1 RESPONSE: 2 Not applicable by virtue of the objection interposed in 3 response to Interrogatory No- 15. 4 INTERROGATORY NO. 17: 5 If the answer to Interrogatory No. 16 is affirmative, please 6 state: 7 (a) The nature of the change made; 8 (b) The name, address, and job classification of each 9 person ordering the change in design. 10 RESPONSE: 11 Not applicable by virtue of the objection interposed in 12 response to Interrogatory Nos. 15 and 16. . 13 INTERROGATORY NO. 18: 14 Has defendant, at any time since 1930, published and/or 15 distributed any brochures, sales literature, pamphlets, or other 16 written materials of any kind that contain any warnings, cau 17 tions, caveats or directions concerning the possibility of injury 18 resulting form the use of the products listed in Interrogatory 19 No. 10, above? If so, identify each brochure, sales literature, 20 pamphlet or other written material and the date of publication 2! and distribution. 22 RESPONSE: 23 Yes. Since 1972, all asbestos-containing products were 24 accompanied by warning labels affixed to the package in which the 25 product was contained. Additionally, documents falling within 26 the scope of this interrogatory were produced by defendant at the 27 deposition' of Charles Mallory in 'Washington, D.C. on June 11, NZO >* 28 1984. AR O nfil 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 19: 2 Has defendant received notice (excluding Workers' Com 3 pensation claims) of any person claiming injuries sustained as a 4 result of exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured, 5 sold or distributed by it? 6 RESPONSE: 7 Yes . 8 INTERROGATORY NO. 20: 9 Ifvanswer to Interrogatory No. 19 is affirmative, please 10 state: 11 (a) The names of all parties involved in the 12 claim(s); . 13 (b) The date defendant received notice of each 14 claim(s); 15 (c) The injuries allegedly sustained by each claimant; 16 (d) The court in which each claim was made. 17 RESPONSE: 18 Please see attached Exhibit "A" for listing of cases. 19 INTERROGATORY NO. 21: 20 Does defendant have any records indicating that any of its 21 asbestos-containing products were sold or distributed to any of 22 the defendants named herein? 23 RESPONSE: 24 OBJECTION. Interrogatory No. 21 is objected to on the 25 grounds set forth in response to Interrogatory No. 4(c), supra. 25 The interrogatory is further objected to on the grounds that it 27 is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. Without waiving said 28 objection, and in the spirit of liberal discovery, this defendant 60 -U- responds that it has records regarding sales dating back to 1976, but no summary, compilation or abstract currently exists. Defen dant is in the process of attempting to abstract the sales re cords which do exist, which it contemplates will be accomplished 5 by late 1984. 6 INTERROGATORY NO. 22; 7 If the answer to Interrogatory No. 21 is affirmative, please 8 state: 9 v (a) The name, address and job classification of each 10 individual who currently has possession of such 11 records; 12 (b) The names of each defendant named herein to whom 13 your products have been sold or distributed; 14 (c) The dates of each such sale; 15 (d) The amount and type of materials sold or distrib 16 uted; 17 (e) Whether defendant manufactured asbestos-containing i 18 products for any other business entity but placed 19 labels or logos not belonging to said defendant on said 20 products; and 21 (f) If response to (e) above is in the affirmative, | 22 list each such business entity referred to said subsec- j I 23 tion (sic). j 24 -R--E---S--P---O---N---S--E---:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ji 25 OBJECTION. Interrogatory No. 22 is objected to on the 26 grounds set forth in response to Interrogatory No. 21. The in- j 27 terrogatory is further objected to on the grounds that it seeks a i NZO | 28 compilation or abstract of records which does not exist. ; " 6' -1 5 - I 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 23: 2 Does defendant have policies of insurance that cover the 3 claims that have been made by plaintiff herein? 4 RESPONSE: 5 OBJECTION. Interrogatory No. 23 is objected to on the 6 grounds that this defendant does not know to whom the term 7 "plaintiff herein" applies, inasmuch as these interrogatories 8 have been sent under the case caption of Lawrence Kane v. 9 Johns-Manville, etc., et al., "And All Related Cases." Without 10 waiving said objection, and in the spirit ox liberal discovery, 11 defendant refers the plaintiff to Exhibit "l" attached to these 12 responses to Interrogatories for a listing of all applicable 13 insurance carriers and corresponding coverage limits. 14 INTERROGATORY NO. 24: 15 If response to Interrogatory No. 23 is affirmative, please 16 list the name of each insurance carrier referred to in the pre 17 ceding interrogatory, the amount of such coverage, and the effec 18 tive dates of each policy? 19 RESPONSE: 20 Please refer to response to Interrogatory No. 23. 21 INTERROGATORY NO. 25: 22 Is there any dispute as to insurance coverage with respect 23 to claims made by plaintiff? 24 RESPONSE: 25 Please see objection to Interrogatory Nos. 23 and 24, supra. 26 Without waiving said objection, and in the spirit of liberal 27 discovery,- defendant responds that Abex Corporation is litigating 28 coverage issues with its insurance carriers, .Maryland Casualty * O 60 -16- 1 Insurance Company, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and The 2 Travellers Insurance Company. 3 INTERROGATORY NO. 26: 4 Does defendant possess knowledge which would enable asbes 5 tos-containing products to be manufactured or treated so as to 6 eliminate potential health hazards to workers using said prod 7 ucts ? 8 RESPONSE: 9 O'EJECTION. Interrogatory No. 26 is objected to on the 10 ground;; that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous and unintelli 11 gible . 12 INTERROGATORY NO. 27: 13 Please describe in detail the type of packages in which 14 defendant has sold or distributed asbestos-containing material, 15 listing the dates each type of package was used, and a descrip 16 tion of any printed material or trademarks that appeared thereon. 17 RESPONSE: 18 OBJECTION. Interrogatory No. 27 is objected to on - the 19 grounds that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, 20 harassing, and seeks information which is not reasonably calcu 21 lated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, 22 the interrogatory as framed would require this defendant to pro 23 vide a detailed description of each and every type of package it 24 used for each and every one of its products manufactured for 25 several decades. Without waiving said objection, and in the 26 spirit of liberal discovery, this defendant will respond that 27 generally,- its asbestos-containing products were shipped in NZO 28 kraft or corrugated cardboard boxes. These boxes may be AQ U6' -17- .' 1 1 pre-printed or of plain color with labels affixed. The printed 2 material includes the particular trade name and/or logo as appli 3 cable, as well as a cautionary phrase regarding asbestos. 4 INTERROGATORY NO. 28; 5 Did defendant receive any reports or communications from any 6 insurance carrier with regard to the hazards incident to the use 7 of asbestos-containing products? If so, please state the name of 8 the person(s) who has possession of said reports, the location of 9 the repprts and a summary of the contents of the reports, includ 10 ing the name of each insurance company, its address, and the 11 agent delivering such information. 12 RESPONSE: 13 OBJECTION. Interrogatory No. 28 is objected to on the 14 grounds that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and seeks 15 information which is subject to the attorney-client privilege 16 and/or attorney work product privilege as it might relate to 17 matters in litigation or matters relating to the contemplation of 18 litigation. 19 INTERROGATORY NO. 29: 20 Has any other defendant named herein ever furnished the 21 answering defendant with information as to the state of medical 22 knowledge regarding the connection between asbestos exposure and 23 the development of pulmonary diseases, including cancer and 24 asbestosis ? 25 RESPONSE: 26 OBJECTION. Defendant incorporates it objection to Inter 27 rogatory No. 4(c), supra, as though set forth in full herein. NiO 28 Ill *90 1l6i . -ia- ) INTERROGATORY NO. 30; If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the af firmative, please state: (a) The nature and content of the information referred 5 to in the preceding interrogatory; 6 (b) When the defendant was furnished the information; 7 (c) From whom the defendant received the information. 8 RESPONSE: 9 Not applicable. 10 INTERROGATORY NO. 31: 11 Has any other defendant herein furnished the answering de 12 fendant with the results of any research, tests, medical studies 13 or experiments regarding any connection between asbestos exposure 14 and the development of pulmonary disease, including lung cancer 15 and asbestosis, since 1930? 16 RESPONSE: 17 Defendant incorporates its objection set forth in response 18 to Interrogatory No. 4(c), supra. 19 INTERROGATORY NO. 32: 20 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the af 21 firmative, please state: 22 (a) When the defendant received the above-described 23 information; 24 (b) From whom the defendant received the information; 25 (c) Describe the nature and content of each document 26 or communication. 27 RESPONSE: *20 28 Not applicable. * SJ o -19- 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 33: 2 Please state if the defendant ever conducted, sponsored or 3 contributed financially to any research or studies to determine 4 if the inhalation of asbestos fibers may be harmful. If so, 5 please state: 6 (a) By whom the research was conducted; 7 (b) The dates the research study was conducted; 8 (c) The results of the research or study. 9 RESPONSE; 10 OBJECTION. Interrogatory No. 33 is objected to on the 11 grounds that it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. Without 12 waiving said objection, and in the spirit of liberal discovery, 13 defendant responds that it appears that in or about 1936, Ameri 14 can Brake Shoe and Foundry Company agreed to contribute monies to 15 a study to be conducted by Dr. LeRoy Gardner at Saranac Labora 16 tory, Saranac Lake, New York, and in 1973, American Brake Shoe 17 and Foundry Company apparently committed $250 per annum for three 18 years by way of contribution. 19 INTERROGATORY NO. 34: 20 Please state the names, addresses, dates of employment and 21 official title of the defendant's chief medical officers from 22 1930 until the present. 23 RESPONSE: 24 (1) 1941 to 1961: Lloyd E. Hamlin, M.D. (Deceased); 25 (2) 1961 to 1976: Charles C. Blackwell, Jr., M.D., 26 East Doubletree Ranch Road, Paradise Valley, Arizona 85253; i 27 (3) 1976 to 1982: Frederick W. Knoch, M.D. (Deceased); NZO 28 ADO /// '' 6 ' . -20- 1 (4) 1983 to dates Dennis Egnatz, M.D., 121 Lakewood 2 Circle, Burr Ridge, Illinois 60521. 3 INTERROGATORY NO. 35; 4 Please state the name, address, title and dates of employ 5 ment of the immediate superior(s) of the individuals identified 6 in the preceding interrogatory. 7 RESPONSE: 8 From 1944 to February, 1981, the Medical Director reported 9 to the corporate Vice President of Personnel and Industrial Rela 10 tions. From 1981 to the present, the Medical Director has re 11 ported to the corporate Vice President of Human Resources. 12 INTERROGATORY NO. 36: 13 Please describe in detail the duties and responsibilities of 14 the defendant's chief medical officer. 15 RESPONSE: 16 The Medical Director directs company-wide employee health 17 and safety programs. He provides guidance to corporate manage 18 ment. The Medical Director's position is administrative and his 19 responsibilities include employee health, safety, industrial 20 hygiene, loss prevention, and employee assistance. He directly 21 supervises a staff of non-medical personnel and functionally 22 supervises occupational health nurses throughout the company. He 23 also approves the appointment of, and coordinates the activities 24 of, independent medical practitioners conducting physical exami 25 nations or providing medical care locally. 26 INTERROGATORY NO. 37: 27 Please state the names and addresses of all physicians em NZO 0** 28 ployed, retained or otherwise engaged by the defendant at any of A*0 H6' -- Pi -- 1 defendant's asbestos-containing mechanical parts for the years 2 1930 to 1972. 3 RESPONSE: 4 Based upon information available at this time, defendant 5 responds that it does not believe so. 6 INTERROGATORY NO. 110: 7 Please list the names and addresses of all insurance carri 8 ers which provided Workers' Compensation coverage for occupa 9 tional diseases for defendant's employees, including automobile 10 repair employees, between the years of 1930 and 1972. 11 RESPONSE: 12 OBJECTION. Interrogatory No. 110 is objected to on the 13 grounds that it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. The 14 burden and expense to this defendant to compile the information 15 sought is not outweighed by the questionable probative value of 16 the information sought. The information requested is not rele 17 vant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 18 admissible evidence. 19 INTERROGATORY NO. Ill: 20 At any time during the period 1948 to 1978, has defendant 21 manufactured automobile undercoat sealer? If so, please state: 22 (a) The trade or brand name(s) under which the 23 undercoat sealer was marketed; 24 (b) The years during, which the undercoat sealer, under 25 each trade or brand name, was manufactured; 26 (c) The dates each product listed in (a) was withdrawn 27 from the market; N2O 23 III 1AP9 '' 6 ' -50- 1 its facilities from the years 1930 until the present time. 2 RESPONSE: 3 OBJECTION. Interrogatory No. 37 is objected to on the 4 grounds that it is overly broad, burdensome, and oppressive. 5 Without waiving said objection, and in the spirit of liberal 6 discovery, this defendant responds that the following are plant 7 physicians for those plants which use or have used asbestos in 8 the recent past: 9 (1J Friction Products Division, Winchester, Virginia: 10 Harvey E. Melton, M.D., 522 Amherst Street, Winchester, Virginia 11 22601. Dr. Melton has been plant physician for many years; 12 (2) Friction Products Division, Salisbury, North Carolina: 13 Harold H. Newman, M.D., 516 Mocksville Avenue, Salisbury, North 14 Carolina 28144; Dr. Newman was the plant physician from 1975 to 15 1980. John M. .Blount, M.D., 1927 West Innes, Salisbury, North 16 Carolina 28144, has been the plant physician from 1980 to the 17 present; 18 (3) Railroad Products Division, Chicago, Illinois: R. D. 19 Phillips, M.D., Zayas Clinic, 4206 West 26th Street, Chicago, 20 Illinois 60623. 21 INTERROGATORY NO. 38: 22 Please list the names and addresses of all persons employed 23 by defendant from 1930 until the present time who functioned as 24 industrial hygienists. (As contemplated by these Interroga 25 tories, an industrial hygienist is one that performs engineering 26 or health studies to identify and evaluate potential occupational 27 health hazards and suggests methods of dealing with same.) In NZO 28 clude in your answer to the foregoing: 'Mil O -22- I 1 (a) The facility or office to which the individuals 2 were assigned; 3 (b) A detailed description of their duties and respon 4 sibilities. 5 RESPONSE; 6 7 8 9 10 11 1941-1945 1943-1954 1945-1946 1946-1966 1948-1948 1949-1954 J. B. Littlefield ' H. J. Webert R. H. Anderson H. J. Gotraer W. A. Hamlin A. Edwards 12 1951-1951 R. A. Myles 13 1952-1955 D. Carlson 14 1955-1966 J. S. Holtaway 15 were located at 2501 South Blue Island Avem 16 i, Illinois. 17 1955-1960 J. T. Siedlecki 18 1961-1966 J. B. Mahoney 19 1967-1974 C. H. Borcherding 20 1967-1970 N. J. Merczak 21 1969-1970 S. Gotceitas 22 1970-1971 F. L. Stanley 23 1972-1975 F. T. Szum 24 1972-1976 M. D. Gidley 25 1974-1977 K. J. Krotz 26 1975-1976 W. P. Osen 27 1976-1977 T. Antonson n; o o*. 23 1976-1977 C. H. Borcherding rgi -23- ' - 1 2 3 4 .5 6 7 8 9 10 n 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27Offices * a cosiANio HL Ca-o-.f.o- 28nTh FLOOR ~*|R 0C>L/LvaO ZS. C* 9OOi0 -1161 G ADDRESS BOX 60958 NAi. AN N LES. C* 90060 lea-944' /// 1977- LL.. GG.. WWeessssaa 1977-1978 J. B. Mahoney 1978-1980 R. H. Carpenter- Vance 1979- E. L. Miller The above were located at 4550 West 26th Street, Chicago, Illinois- (b) Duties and Responsibilities: ,, (1) Manager Industrial Hygiene: Solve industrial health problems by recognizing, evaluating, and controlling health hazards in all of the Abex plants. Provide the corporation's medical direc- tor with up-to-date knowledge concerning the health history of employees' jobs as to assure that workers are either properly placed in jobs according to physical capacities, or help corre- late a worker's disease or complaint with the known potential hazard of his/her job. . (2) Industrial Hygienist: To identify and evalu- ate, by air sampling and observation, the poten- tial and/or real occupational disease exposures present in Abex plants, inform local and divi- sional management of these exposures, and recom- mend control measures for their elimination or reduction with the ultimate goal to protect the health and well-being of present and future work forces at their place of employment. 7 -24- ] INTERROGATORY NO. 39: 2 Please state if the defendant's medical officers or indus 3 trial hygienists ever made any recommendations and/or suggestions 4 to the defendant pertaining to the risks or hazards to persons 5 involved in the manufacturing or use of products containing as 6 bestos? If so, please state: 7 (a) Where were such recommendations and/or suggestions 8 made? 9 (b) To whom were such recommendations and/or sugges 10 tions made? 11 t,c) By whom were these recommendations and/o. sugges 12 tions made? 13 (d) The substance of the recommendations and/or sug 14 gestions made. 15 RESPONSE: 16 OBJECTION. Interrogatory No. 39 is objected to on the 17 grounds that it is overly broad, burdensome, oppressive, harass 18 ing and seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to 19 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 20 INTERROGATORY NO. 40: ' 21 Please state the names of trade association periodicals to 22 which defendant subscribed from 1930 to 1972. 23 RESPONSE: 24 OBJECTION. Interrogatory No. 40 is objected to on the 25 grounds that it is overly broad, burdensome, oppressive, harass 26 ing and seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to 27 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. N;O 23 Ill O 60 -25- ] INTERROGATORY NO. 41; 2 Please state the names of all organizations, groups, 3 inter-company or industrial organizations that defendant has been 4 a member of which conducted studies or research on the relation 5 ship between exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products 6 and asbestosis and lung cancer from 1930 to 1972. 7 RESPONSE: ' 8 OBJECTION. Defendant refers the plaintiff to the objection 9 set forth in response to Interrogatory No. 40, supra, and incor 10 porates the same by reference herein as though fully set forth. 11 INTERROGATORY NO. 42: 12 Please state the name, address and amount spent or contrib 13 uted by the defendant annually from 1930 until 1972 for research 14 specifically directed to the relationship between exposure to 15 asbestos-containing products and asbestosis, lung cancer or any 16 other pulmonary disease. 17 RESPONSE: 18 OBJECTION. Defendant refers the plaintiff to the objection 19 set forth in Response to Interrogatory No. 40, supra, and incor 20 porates the same by reference herein as though fully set forth. 21 INTERROGATORY NO. 43: 22 Please state the name, address and amount annually contrib 23 uted by the defendant from 1930 to 1972 to any independent medi 24 cal research group or groups studying the relationship between 25 exposure to asbestos and pulmonary disease. 26 RESPONSE: 27 III N^O 28 III AflO i: 61 -26- I \ > OBJECTION. Defendant refers the plaintiff to the objection set forth in Response to Interrogatory No. 40, supra, and incor porates the same by reference herein as though fully set forth. Without waiving said objection and, in the spirit of liberal 5 discovery, defendant responds that it appears that in or about 6 1936, American Brake Shoe and Foundry Company agreed to contribute 7 monies to a study to be conducted by Dr. Leftoy Gardner at Saranac 8 Laboratory, Saranac Lake, New York, and in 1937, American 9 Brake Slioe and Foundry Company committed $250 per annum for three 10 years by way of contribution. 11 INTERROGATORY NO. 44: 12 Please state whether the defendant had a department, divi 13 sion or section devoted to scientific and/or medical research 14 during the period from 1930 until the present time. 15 RESPONSE; 16 OBJECTION. Interrogatory No. 44 is objected to on the 17 grounds that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous and unintelli 18 gible. Without waiving said objection and, in the spirit of 19 liberal discovery, this defendant will respond that it did not 20 have a department, division or section specifically devoted to 21 medical research during the indicated time period. 22 INTERROGATORY NO. 45; 23 Please state the scientific or medical periodicals to which 24 the defendant, its medical department or industrial hygiene divi 25 sion subscribed during the period between 1930 and 1972 specify 26 ing the date said subscriptions were begun. 27 RESPONSE: N20 28 OBJECTION. Defendant refers the plaintiff to the objection j60 i 1 set forth in Response to Interrogatory No. 40, supra, and incor 2 porates the same by reference herein as though fully set forth. 3 INTERROGATORY NO. 46: 4 Please state whether any of the distributors of defendant's 5 asbestos-containing products were provided with any special in 6 structions, oral or written, in regard to utilizing said products 7 in a manner so as to avoid exposing workers' to dust. If so, 8 please state: 9 v (a) When these instructions were given; 10 (b) By whom these instructions were given; II (c) Whether the instructions oral or written; 12 (d) The precise content of the instructions; 13 (e) If the instructions were written, please attach a 14 copy of the instructions. 15 RESPONSE: 16 OBJECTION. Interrrogatory No. 46 is objected to on the 17 grounds that it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. 18 INTERROGATORY NO. 47: 19 Please state whether any employee of the defendant has ever 20 made a claim for asbestosis under the Occupational Disease or 21 Workers' Compensation Statute of any state. If so, include in 22 your answer: 23 (a) The date that the defendant first received notice 24 of any claim for asbestosis under the Occupational Disease or 25 Workers' Compensation Statute of any state and state [sic]; and 26 (b) The total number of claims filed for the years 27 1930 to 1072. NZO 28 /// *Q "S' 60 -29- .) ] RESPONSE: 2 (a) One claim was made on 3/3/80 and one on 8/11/82, 3 for alleged asbestos related injuries. 4 (b) No claims for asbestosis were filed during the 5 years 1930 to 1972. 6 INTERROGATORY NO. 48: 7 Has the defendant ever been a member of the Asbestos Textile 8 Institute ("ATI")? If so, please list the years of membership. 9 RESPONSE: 10 No. 11 INTERROGATORY NO. 49: 12 Please state whether any representative, agent or employee 13 of the defendant corporation was a member of the Air Hygiene 14 Committee of the ATI. If so, please include in your answer a 15 list of the years of membership. 16 RESPONSE: 17 Not to our knowledge. 18 INTERROGATORY NO. 50: 19 Please state whether any representative, agent or employee 20 ever attended any meetings of the Air Hygiene Committee of the 21 ATI. 22 RESPONSE: 23 OBJECTION. Interrogatory No. 50 is objected to on the 24 grounds that it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. Without 25 waiving said objection, and in the spirit of liberal discovery, 26 defendant responds that it does not believe so. 27 /// 28 /// A0 "6i 60 -?R- 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 51: 2 Please state whether the defendant received copies of tran 3 scribed minutes of any committee meetings, general meetings or 4 Board of Director meetings of the ATI and the date said tran 5 scripts were received. 6 RESPONSE: 7 No. ' 8 INTERROGATORY NO. 52: 9 Ha the defendant ever been a member of the Industrial Hy 10 giene Foundation ("IHF") or the Industrial Health Foundation. If 11 so, please state the years of membership. 12 RESPONSE: 13 At this time, there is no direct evidence that Abex Corpora 14 tion was a member of the Industrial Hygiene Foundation or Indus 15 trial Health Foundation. In 1950, Dr. Hamlin, Medical Director, 16 did attend the Industrial Hygiene Foundation meeting and held a 17 position on the Industrial Hygiene Foundation Medical Committee 18 for a three--year term beginning in 1952. The Industrial 19 Hygienist, Herbert J. Weber, attended Industrial Hygiene 20 Foundation meetings as early as 1945. 21 INTERROGATORY NO. 53: 22 Please state the name, address and telephone number of any 23 representative., agent or employee of the defendant who was in 24 attendance at the twentieth annual meeting of the IHF in 25 November, 1955, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 26 RESPONSE: 27 None,-to our knowledge. s za 28 /// I11 6 60 I -30- 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 51: 2 Please state whether the defendant received copies of tran 3 scribed minutes of any committee meetings, general meetings or 4 Board of Director meetings of the ATI and the date said tran 5 scripts were received. 6 RESPONSE: 7 No. 8 INTERROGATORY NO. 52: 9 Has the defendant ever been a member of the Industrial Hy 10 giene Foundation ("IHF") or the Industrial Fealth Foundation. If 11 so, please state the years of membership. 12 RESPONSE: . 13 At this time, there is no direct evidence that Abex Corpora 14 tion was a member of the Industrial Hygiene Foundation or Indus 15 trial Health Foundation. In 1950, Dr. Hamlin, Medical Director, 16 did attend the Industrial Hygiene Foundation meeting and held a 17 position on the Industrial Hygiene Foundation Medical Committee 18 for a three-year term beginning in 1952. The Industrial 19 Hygienist, Herbert J. Weber, attended Industrial Hygiene 20 Foundation meetings as early as 1945. 21 INTERROGATORY NO. 53: 22 Please state the name, address and telephone number of any 23 representative, agent or employee of the defendant who was in 24 attendance at the twentieth annual meeting of the IHF in 25 November, 1955, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 26 RESPONSE: r 27 MZO o*. 28 Ill None,- to our knowledge. ' , 60 -3 0- 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 54: 2 Please state whether defendant ever received the Industrial 3 Hygiene Digest published monthly by the IHF. If so, please list 4 the dates of receipt of said publication. 5 RESPONSE: 6 There are no records of Abex Corporation having received the 7 Industrial Hygiene Digest. 8 INTERROGATORY NO. 55: 9 P\ease state whether defendant ever requested officials at 10 the IHN to: 11 (a) Perform a search of the medical literature to 12 determine whether there existed any reported cases of workers 13 with asbestosis and/or lung cancer discussing the potential haz 14 ards incident to use of asbestos-containing products; 15 (b) Perform any studies or research into potential 16 health hazards incident to the use of asbestos-containing prod 17 ucts ; 18 (c) Review governmental publications of Great Britain 19 to determine whether any research was conducted by the British 20 Government into potential health hazards associated with the use 21 of products containing asbestos; 22 (d) Review governmental publications of Great Britain 23 to determine whether the Chief Inspector of Factories or any 24 other British Government agency had issued any regulations or 25 published any findings relative to potential health hazards inci 26 dent to the use of products containing asbestos. 27 RESPONSE: - MZO : 28 Not to our knowledge. ARD "6' 63 ; -31- 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 56; 2 Has the defendant sponsored, since 1930, any meetings, semi 3 nars, conferences, or conventions where the subject of occupa 4 tional health and/or exposure to asbestos was discussed? 5 RESPONSE: 6 OBJECTION. Interrogatory No, 56 is objected to on the 7 grounds tha_ it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome and 8 seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to the dis 9 covery of admissible evidence. Without waiving said objection 10 and, in the spirit of liberal discovery, defendant will respond 11 that it does hold safety meetings at its plants. 12 INTERROGATORY NO. 57: . 13 If the answer to Interrogatory No. 56 is in the affirmative, 14 please state; 15 (a) The date and place of such meeting, seminar, con 16 ference or convention; 17 (b) The name and address of the speakers. 18 RESPONSE: 19 OBJECTION. Interrogatory No. 57 is objected to on the 20 grounds set forth in response to Interrogatory No. 56, which 21 objection is incorporated herein as though fully set forth. 22 INTERROGATORY NO. 58: 23 Has the defendant ever warned any labor union or its repre 24 sentative of the potential health hazards associated with the use 25 of products containing asbestos? 26 Ill 27 /// NZO 28 *D III '' 6 . 60 I -- \ /-- 1 RESPONSE: 2 OBJECTION. Interrogatory No. 58 is objected to on the 3 grounds that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous and unintelli 4 gible . 5 INTERROGATORY NO. 59: 6 If the answer to the preceding Interrogatory is in the af 7 firmative, state: 8 (a) The name of the union and/or its representative; 9 (b) The date and place of said warning; 10 (c) The content and nature of said warning; 11 (d) The individual giving said warning. 12 RESPONSE: . 13 Not applicable. 14 INTERROGATORY NO. 60: 15 Has the defendant at any time give [sic] any advice, publi 16 cation, warning, order, directive, requirement or recommendation, 17 written or oral, including by U.S. mail, which purported to ad 18 vise the users of its asbestos-containing products of the poten 19 tial health hazards associated with exposure to the asbestos 20 contents of said products. 21 RESPONSE: 22 OBJECTION. Interrogatory No. 60 is objected to on the 23 grounds that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome, 24 oppressive and harassing. 25 INTERROGATORY NO. 61: 26 State whether defendant has subscribed to or received copies 27 of the Asbestos Worker magazine. If so, please state the dates *ZO 28 of sbuscription or receipt of this magazine. *PD 60 1 -3 3- 1 RESPONSE: 2 No. 3 INTERROGATORY NO. 62: 4 Please state whether defendant ever subscribed to the Asbes 5 tos magazine and list the dates of subscription. 6 RESPONSE: 7 No. 8 INTERROGATORY NO. 63: 9 Please identify all booklets, manuals, journals and publica 10 tions provided to the recipients of any asbestos-containing prod 11 ucts manufactured, sold or distributed by defendant regarding the 12 proper use and application of products. Include in your answer 13 the dates said information was provided. 14 RESPONSE: 15 OBJECTION. Interrogatory No. 63 is objected to on the 16 grounds that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome and 17 seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to 18 the discovery of admissible evidence. 19 INTERROGATORY NO. 64: 20 Please identify and describe in detail all tests and experi 21 ments conducted by defendant to determine whether or not asbestos 22 contained within its asbestos-containing products would become 23 airborne with normal use. Include in your answer the dates, 24 results and conclusions of each test and/or experiment. 25 RESPONSE: 26 OBJECTION. Interrogatory No. 64 is objected to on the 27 grounds that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous and NZO 28 unintelligible. '1 5 I I INTERROGATORY NO. 65: 2 At any time prior to 1972 were any tests or studies con 3 ducted or sponsored by defendant to determine: 4 (a) The level of airborne dust or fiber concentration 5 incident to: 6 (i) Arching, sanding, clipping, grinding or bev 7 eling defendant's asbestos-containing products; 8 (ii) Placing the products on/in motor vehicles and 9 other machinery requiring such products; 10 (iii) Tearing down the product during repair and 11 maintenance functions; 12 (b) Whether long-term (5 years or.more) exposure to 13 products containing asbestos below 5 million particles per cubic 14 foot (mppcf) might cause asbestosis or expose the user of said 15 product to an increased statistical risk of developing: 16 (i) Bronchogenic cancer; 17 (ii) Mesothelioma (pleural or 18 (iii) Gastrointestinal cancer; 19 (iv) Asbestosis. 20 RESPONSE: 21 No . 22 INTERROGATORY NO. 66: 23 Was the concentration of the airborne asbestos fibers prior 24 to 1972 at job sites at which defendant's asbestos-containing 25 products were used within the prescribed threshold limit values? 26 If so, state the source of the information and the date said 27 information was obtained. NZO 0 > 28 Ill A30 '1 6' 60 -35- I RESPONSE: 2 OBJECTION. Interrogatory No. 66 is objected to on the 3 grounds that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous and unintelli 4 gible, particularly with reference to the terms "threshold limit 5 values" and "job sites". 6 INTERROGATORY NO. 67: 7 Please state the date and source from which' defendant re 8 ceived its first notice of threshold limit values ("TLV") per9 tainingv to the concentration of airborne asbestos fibers. 10 RESPONSE: 11 December 7, 1971, 29 CFR 1910.93a. NIOSH Occupational Expo 12 sure to Asbestos, page V-9, regarding prescribed TLVs. 13 INTERROGATORY NO. 68: 14 Describe what action was taken by defendant prior to 1972, 15 to determine whether the concentration of airborne asbestos fi 16 bers during normal use, application or repair of its asbes 17 tos-containing products was below the TLV. Include in your 18 answer the date the above-described actions were taken by defen 19 dant. 20 RESPONSE: 21 OBJECTION. Interrogatory No. 68 is objected to on the 22 grounds that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous and unintelli 23 gible . 24 INTERROGATORY NO. 69: 25 Describe the manner in which defendant recommended that its 26 asbestos-containing proc ucts be cut, ground, sawed, beveled, 27 fabricated; mixed and/or prepared for use since 1930 by its us NZO 2~8 ers. AR3 -36- 1 RESPONSE: 2 OBJECTION. Interrogatory No. 69 is objected to on the 3 grounds that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous and unintelli 4 gible. Without waiving said objection, and in the spirit of 5 liberal discovery, defendant refers the plaintiff to Exhibit "C" 6 appended to these answers to interrogatories. 7 INTERROGATORY NO. 70; 8 Please state the manner in which the asbestos-containing 9 products manufactured by defendant were arched since 1930. 10 RESPONSE: 11 OBJECTION. Interrogatory No. 70 is objected to on the 12 grounds that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous and unintelli 13 gible with respect to the use of the undefined word "arched." 14 Additionally, the interrogatory calls for information which is 15 not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 16 evidence. 17 INTERROGATORY NO. 71: 18 Is defendant aware of articles authored by W. C. Dressen in 19 Public Health Bulletin No. 241 of 1938, establishing threshold 20 limit values for airborne asbestos fibers? If so, when did de 21 fendant first learn of the above-mentioned article? 22 RESPONSE: 23 Articles by W. C. Dressen established threshold limit values 24 for airborne asbestos particles, not specifically fibers. ABEX 25 became aware of the articles published in the "Criteria for a 26 Recommended Standard Occupational Exposure to Asbestos" from the 27 U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health WO 28 /// ' -37- i 1 Service, Health Services and Mental Health Administration, Na 2 tional Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1972. 3 INTERROGATORY NO. 72: 4 Please state when defendant obtained any information con 5 cerning the likelihood of asbestos being hazardous to one's 6 health. Include in your answer how defendant first obtained this 7 information. 8 RESPONSE; 9 OBJECTION. Interrogatory No. 72 is objected to on the 10 grounds that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous and unintelli 11 gible . 12 INTERROGATORY NO. 73; . 13 Please state whether or not defendant ever maintained a 14 library or collection of medical information pertaining to ef 15 fects of asbestos upon human health. If so, please state; 16 (a) The location of said library or collection; 17 (b) The person(s) who maintained it; 18 (c) The bibliography of medical articles, materials, 19 and other reports that are or were a part of said library on said 20 subject, including journals, publications, reports and all memo 21 randa published and received by defendant since 1930. 22 RESPONSE; 23 OBJECTION. Interrogatory No. 73 is objected to on the 24 grounds that it is overly broad, burdensome, and oppressive and 25 seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to 26 the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving said ob 27 jection, and in the spirit of liberal discovery, defendant will 28 respond that there are several books in the medical director's ASJO 1*61 60 -38- ^i 1 library regarding asbestos, pneumoconioses and dust control, as 2 well as a general information file on asbestos. 3 INTERROGATORY NO. 74: 4 Please state whether or not any governmental agency has ever 5 written letters of warning to defendant pertaining to the likeli 6 hood of injury to persons being exposed to asbestos and asbes7 tos-cc.itaining products. 8 RESPONSE: 9 IBJECTION. Interrogatory No. 74 is objected to on the 10 grounds that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous and unintelli 11 gible, and seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to 12 the discovery of admissible evidence. 13 INTERROGATORY NO. 75: 14 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is affirmative, 15 please state the name and address of the agency, the date of the 16 letters of warning and who possesses a copy of said documents? 17 RESPONSE: 18 Not applicable. 19 INTERROGATORY NO. 76: 20 Please state the date defendant received information per 2! taining to the association between inhalation of asbestos fibers 22 and the development of cancer and asbestosis. Include in your 23 answer to the preceding the source of said information. 24 RESPONSE: 25 OBJECTION. Interrogatory No. 76 is objected to on the 26 grounds that it is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible in ts 27 present fotm with respect to the undefined phrase "association O'- 23 between inhalation of asbestos fibers and the development of 60 -39- I 1 cancer and asbestosis." Further, the interrogatory in its pres 2 ent form seeks a medical opinion which this defendant is incapa 3 ble of rendering. 4 INTERROGATORY NO. 77; 5 Has defendant ever subscribed to or received the United 6 States Public Health Bulletin service? If your answer is in the 7 affirmative., please state the dates defendant received the Public 1 8 Health Service Bulletin. 9 RESPONSE: 10 NO. 11 INTERROGATORY NO. 78: 12 Please state the date defendant first notified its employees 13 working in manufacturing plants and factories of the need to wear 14 and use respirators. I j 15 RESPONSE: 16 OBJECTION. Interrogatory No. 78 is objected to on the j ti 17 grounds that it is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous. Without 18 waiving said objection, and in the spirit of liberal discovery, 19 defendant responds that it does not afford respirators toits I j 20 workers who handle asbestos, but face masks have been made avail- i 21 able since the early 1970's. j i 22 INTERROGATORY NO. 79: ; 23 Please state the date when defendant first notified users of j 1 24 its asbestos-containing products of the need to wear respirators. | 25 RESPONSE: . 26 Defendant incorporates its objection and responsesetforth 1 J j 1 27 in response to Interrogatory No. 69, above. NZO 28 /// *.<30 '6' ; ; 0- ^ : I INTERROGATORY NO.80: 2 Please state whether or not defendant has ever published any 3 written materials, warning its employees about the potential 4 health hazards of inhaling asbestos by use or exposure to asbes 5 tos-containing products of this defendant. If so, please state 6 the date and year that said written materials were distributed to 7 defendant's employees, and the name of the author of the materi 8 als . 9 RESPONSE: 10 The warning previously mentioned was published and, further 11 documents falling within the scope of the interrogatory were 12 produced at the deposition of Charles Mallory in Washington, D.C. 13 on June 11, 1984. 14 INTERROGATORY NO. 81: 15 Does defendant contend plaintiff knew of the dangers of the 16 inhalation of asbestos fibers? If so, please state how plaintiff 17 would have acquired said knowledge. 18 RESPONSE: 19 OBJECTION. Interrogatory No. 81 is objected to on the 20 grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible. Plain 21 tiff does not know to which "plaintiff" the interrogatory refers. 22 INTERROGATORY NO. 82: 23 Please state whether any officers, agents, servants or em 24 ployees of the defendant has ever testified before any governmen 25 tal body regarding the potential health hazards of the inhalation 26 of asbestos. If so, please state: 27 {a) When and where such testimony was given; KZO 28 (b) Summary of said testimony; AD ' 6' 60 -41- ] (c) If said testimony was recorded. 2 RESPONSE: 3 Not to our knowledge. 4 INTERROGATORY NO. 83: 5 Please state the names and addresses of all distributors and 6 companies to which the defendant sold or distributed asbestos or 7 asbestos-containing products for the years 1930 to 1972. 8 RESPONSE: 9 OBJECTION. Interrogatory No. 83 is objected to on the 10 grounds that it is overly broad, burdensome, oppressive and calls n for a compilation or abstract of records which does not exist. 12 The burden and expense to this responding defendant to compile 13 the information sought, is not outweighed by the questionable 14 evidentiary value of the information sought. Additionally, this 15 defendant has maintained sales records only since 1976, there 16 fore, this defendant has no way of knowing with certainty to whom 17 its products may have been distributed over the several decades. 18 Without waiving said objection, and in the spirit of liberal 19 discovery, those companies to whom defendant sold asbestos-con 20 taining products are reflected in response to Interrogatory No. 21 122, in addition to NAPA. 22 INTERROGATORY NO. 84: 23 Please state whether defendant has knowledge of any material 24 which could be or is being used for the same purpose as asbestos. 25 Include in your answer when defendant discovered that said mate 26 rial could be used as a substitute for asbestos. 27 RESPONSE: MZO o- 28 OBJECTION. '6i Interrogatory No. 84 is objected to on the 60 -42- I grounds that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous and unintelli2 gible and this responding defendant does not know to which "use" 3 the plaintiff refers. 4 INTERROGATORY NO. B5: 5 Please state whether this defendant has distributed any 6 catalogs, brochures, pamphlets or other advertising materials 7 regarding its asbestos-containing products between 1930 and 1972. 8 RESPONSE: 9 Yes. 10 INTERROGATORY NO. 86: 11 Does defendant advertise its asbestos-containing products by 12 any media whatsoever. 13 RESPONSE: 14 Yes. 15 INTERROGATORY NO. 87: 16 Please state whether defendant sold any asbestos-containing 17 products to any United States governmental agency between 1930 to 18 1972. If so: 19 - (a) List the name and address of each such agency; 20 (b) The dates of each sale; 21 (c) The final government destination of each product 22 sold; 23 (d) The type and serial or model number of products 24 sold or distributed to said agencies. 25 RESPONSE: 26 OBJECTION. Interrogatory No. 87 is objected to on the grounds 27 set forth in response to Interrogatory No. 83, supra, and the N2D o*. 28 same is incorporated herein as though fully set forth. Without '16' 7 ' i ; ! i i -43- ] waiving said objection, and in the spirit of liberal discovery, 2 defendant responds that it does not believe that it has ever 3 directly sold to any United States governmental agency. 4 INTERROGATORY NO. B8: 5 Please state whether or not defendant's automotive repair 6 employees, in the course of repairing automobiles, use or have 7 used routers, saws, sanders, grinders, or any type device to 8 shape, form, cut or fabricate asbestos-containing material. 9 RESPONSE: 10 Defendant submits that it is not engaged in the business of 11 automotive repair and therefore, the interrogatory is not appli 12 cable . 13 INTERROGATORY NO. 89: 14 If the answer to Interrogatory No. 88 above is affirmative, 15 please state whether any vacuum systems, dust control devices, 16 watering-down systems, or any systems designed to reduce dust in 17 the air were at any time used by defendant's automobile repair 18 employees. 19 RESPONSE: 20 Not applicable. 21 INTERROGATORY NO. 90: 22 If the answer to Interrogatory No. 89 above is affirmative, 23 please state: 24 (a) The date that such a device was first listed; 25 (b) The type of system or device used; 26 (c) Whether such a system is presently used by defen27 dant's automobile repair employees. fZO 28 HI 4.A o '6 -AA- 1 RESPONSE: 2 Not applicable. 3 INTERROGATORY NO. 91: 4 Please state the name and address of any brake and/or clutch 5 repair facility owned and operated by defendant between the years 6 1930 and 1983. 7 RESPONSE: 8 None. 9 INTERROGATORY NO. 92: 10 Please list the automobile repair facilities owned and/or 11 operated by defendant that are open to the public. 12 RESPONSE: . 13 None . 14 INTERROGATORY NO. 93: 15 Please list the automobile repair facilities owned and/or 16 operated by defendant for the repair of defendant's corporate 17 vehicles only. 18 RESPONSE: 19 None . 20 INTERROGATORY NO. 94: 21 Please state whether or not on any occasion defendant pro 22 vided respirators to its automobile repair employees. 23 RESPONSE: 24 Not applicable. 25 INTERROGATORY NO. 95: 26 If your answer to Interrogatory No. 94 above is affirmative, 27 please state which automobile repair employees were provided with N *O 28 resoirators . *30 '' 6 CO -45- 1 RESPONSE: 2 Not applicable. 3 INTERROGATORY NO. 96: 4 Please describe in detail the respirators provided. Include 5 in your answer, the dates each type of respirator was used. 6 RESPONSE: 7 Not applicable. 8 INTERROGATORY NO. 97: 9 Please state whether defendant has ever required its automo 10 bile repair employees to have physical examinations at any time n during their employment. 12 RESPONSE: . 13 Not applicable. 14 INTERROGATORY NO. 98: 15 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is affirmative, 16 please state if the results of any such examination revealed that 17 any employee of defendant developed evidence of asbestosis or 18 other pulmonary disease, including cancer. 19 RESPONSE: 20 Not applicable. 21 INTERROGATORY NO. 99: 22 Please state whether defendant has ever been a member of or 23 associated with the Asbestos Research Council of England. 24 RESPONSE: 25 No. 26 INTERROGATORY NO. 100: 27 Please state whether defendant has sold or distributed any NZO 3*. 28 asbestos-containing products to English firms or corporations for A D '; 6' 60 -46- 1 1 any year between 1930 to 1972. 2 RESPONSE: 3 Based upon information available at this time, defendant 4 responds that it does not believe so. 5 INTERROGATORY NO. 101: 6 Please state whether defendant possessed any ownership in 7 terest in any firm or corporation involved in the mining, proc 8 essing or sale of raw asbestos, any asbestos-containing products 9 which w^re domiciled, headquartered or doing business in the 10 British Isles for any year from 1930 to 1972. 11 RESPONSE: 12 OBJECTION. Interrogatory No. 101 is objected to on the 13 grounds that it is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible. 14 INTERROGATORY NO. 102: 15 Please state whether any business or corporation described above 16 possessed any ownership interest in defendant from 1930 to 1972. 17 RESPONSE: 18 Not applicable. 19 INTERROGATORY NO. 103: 20 Please state when the first claim for Workers' Compensation 21 was filed by any of the defendant's automobile repair employees 22 or factory workers in which it was alleged that said claimant had 23 developed: ' 24 (a) Asbestosis; 25 (b) Lung cancer; 26 (c) Masothelioma. 27 For each such claimant, list the date the claim was filed, the 28 claimant's name and the state in which the claim was filed. 6. 60 -47- 1 RESPONSE: 2 Not applicable. 3 INTERROGATORY NO. 104: 4 Please state whether the defendant entered into any agree 5 ments with any British or German concerns which manufactured 6 asbestos-containing products from 1930 to 1972. 7 RESPONSE: 8 OBJECTION. Interrogatory No. 104 is objected to on the 9 grounds,.that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous and unintelli 10 gible with respect to the use of the undefined term "agreements." 11 As presently framed, this defendant cannot respond to the inter 12 rogatory. 13 INTERROGATORY NO. 105: 14 If the answer to the above interrogatory is affirmative, 15 please list: 16 (a) The name, address and phone number of each such 17 British or German concern; 18 (b) The year the agreement was entered into and the 19 date said agreement terminated; 20 (c) The products exchanged or involved in said agree 21 ment, including: 22 (i) The percent composition of asbestos; 23 (ii) The intended use of the product; 24 ( iii) Whether the products were marketed in the 25 United States. 26 RESPONSE: 27 Not applicable, given the objection to Interrogatory No. n2O 28 104. Afl O i'6' i j 60 -4B- 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 106; 2 Please state whether the defendant at any time between 1930 3 and 1972 had an International Division. 4 RESPONSE: 5 Yes . 6 INTERROGATORY NO. 107: 7 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is affirmative, 8 please state when the International Division was created and 9 where it has been headquartered from its inception. 10 RESPONSE: 11 Abex International, S.A., headquartered in Geneva, was 12 incorporated in 1965 in Switzerland. . 13 INTERROGATORY NO. 108: 14 Please state whether the defendant has ever had a division 15 which exported raw asbestos or asbestos-containing products. If 16 so, please state whether said division supplied any British manu 17 facturer of motor vehicles or machinery products with any compo 18 nent parts which contained asbestos between the years 1930 and 19 1972. - 20 RESPONSE: 21 The answer is "no" as to raw asbestos. As to asbestos- 22 containing products, based upon information available at this 23 . time, defendant responds that it does not believe it has sold to 24 any British manufacturer of motor vehicles or machinery products. 25 INTERROGATORY NO. 109: 26 Please state whether defendant sold or distributed any as 27 bestos-containing products to any British repair business or NZO 0 28 entity engaged in mechanical repair, or distribution of this CO -49- 1 (d) The quantitative percentage of each chemical com 2 ponent of the undercoat sealer under each trade or brand name; 3 (e) If asbestos was included in the composition of the 4 undercoat sealer which you manufactured under any trade or brand 5 name, please state; 6 (i) The type of asbestos fiber (i.e., amosite, 7 chrysotile, crocidolite) used in the undercoat 8 sealer under each trade or brand name; 9 - (ii) The quantitative percentage of asbestos 10 fiber used in the undercoat sealer under each 11 trade or brand name; 12 (iii) The years during which asbestos fiber was 13 included in the composition of the undercoat 14 sealer under each trade or brand name; 15 (f) The location of the facility (facilities) where 16 the undercoat sealer was manufactured. 17 RESPONSE; 18 No. . 19 INTERROGATORY NO.112; 20 At any time during the period 1948 to 1978, has defendant 21 distributed automobile undercoat sealer? If so, please state 22 (a) The trade or brand name(s) under the which the 23 undercoat sealer was marketed; 24 (b) The years during which the undercoat sealer, under 25 each trade or brand name, was distributed; 26 (c) The dates each product were withdrawn from the ' 27 market, if such is the case; NZO 28 III ; I I 6c \\ ' '. 1 (d) The quantitative percentage of each chemical com 2 ponent of the undercoat sealer under each trade or brand name; 3 (e) If asbestos was included in the composition of the 4 undercoat sealer which you distributed under any trade or brand 5 name, please state: 6 (i) The type of asbestos fiber (i.e., amosite, 7 chrysotile, crocidolite) used in the undercoat 8 sealer under each trade or brand name; 9 v (ii) The quantitative percentage of asbestos 10 fiber used in the undercoat sealer under each 11 trade or brand name; 12 (iii) The years during which.asbestos fiber was 13 included in the composition of the undercoat 14 sealer under each trade or brand name. 15 RESPONSE: 16 No . 17 INTERROGATORY NO. 113: 18 Identify all distributors of defendant's automobile 19 undercoat sealer in and for the State of California, and for each 20 distributor, state: 21 (a) The date(s) defendant's automobile undercoat 22 sealer was sold or delivered to said distributor; 23 (b) The quantity and type, including trade or brand 24 name (s), of defendant's automobile undercoat sealer sold or 25 delivered to said distributor. 26 RESPONSE: 27 Not applicable. *10 28 Ill Afl O 60 -5 2- ^' 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 114: 2 Has defendant directly or indirectly sold or distributed its 3 automobile undercoat sealer to any of the following: 4 (a) Chrysler-Plymouth Corp.; 5 (b) Ford Motor Company; 6 (c) General Motors; 7 (d) American Motors; 8 (e) Nissan Motors; 9 " (f) Mitsubishi Motor Car Division; !0 (g) Volkswagon; 11 (h) British Leyland; 12 (i) Sears & Roebuck. 13 RESPONSE: 14 Not applicable. 15 INTERROGATORY NO. 115: 16 If your answer to any part of Interrogatory No. 114 is af 17 firmative, include as a part of your answer: 18 (a) The date(s) during which defendant's automobile 19 undercoat sealer was sold or distributed to each entity; 20 (b) The quantity and type, including trade or brand 21 name, of defendant's automobile undercoat sealer sold or distrib 22 uted to each entity; 23 (c) The identity of each employee or ex-employee 24 having knowledge of the sales and distributions to each entity. 25 RESPONSE: 26 Not applicable. 27 INTERROGATORY NO. 116: n ZO ' 28 Does defendant have or possess any data or information I'6' 60 -53- \' 1 regarding any shipments, sales or distributions of automobile 2 undercoat sealer by a manufacturer or distributor, other than 3 itself, to any of the following entities: 4 (a) Chrysler-Plymouth Corp.; 5 (b) Ford Motor Company; 6 (c) General Motors; 7 (d) American Motors; 8 (e) Nissan Motors; 9 v (f) Mitsubishi Motor Car Division; 10 (g) Volkswagon; 11 (h) British Leyland; 12 (i) Sears & Roebuck. 13 RESPONSE: 14 No. 15 INTERROGATORY NO. 117: 16 If the answer to any part of Interrogatory No. 116 is 17 affirmative, please state: 18 (a) The identities of each manufacturer or distributor 19 and the above-named entity which received the automobile 20 undercoat sealer; 21 (b) The date(s) of each shipment, sale or distribution 22 of automobile undercoat sealer for which defendant has data or 23 information; 24 (c) The quantity and type, including trade or brand 25 name, of the automobile undercoat sealer shipped, sold or dis tributed to each of the above-named entities. 27 RESPONSE: NZ o 42*80 Mot applicable. GC ~\ 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 118: 2 At any time during the period 1948 to 1978, has defendant 3 manufactured automobile brake linings or brake assemblies? If 4 so, please state: 5 (a) The trade or brand name(s) under which the brake 6 linings or brake assemblies were marketed; 7 (b) The years during which the b'-ake linings or brake 8 assemblies, under each trade or brand name, were manufactured; 9 (c) The date each product was withdrawn from the mar 10 ket, if such is the case; 11 (d) The quantitative percentage of each chemical com 12 ponent of the brake linings under each trade.or brand name; 13 (e) If asbestos was included in the composition of the 14 brake linings which defendant manufactured under any trade or 15 brand name, please state: 16 (i) The type of asbestos fiber (i.e., amosite, 17 chrysotile, crocidolite) used in the brake linings under each 18 trade or brand name; 19 ` (ii) The quantitative percentage of asbestos fiber 20 used in the brake linings under each trade or brand name; 21 (iii) The years during which asbestos fiber was .I i 22 included in the composition of the brake linings under each trade 23 or brand name; 24 (f) The location of the facility (facilities) where 25 the brake linings or brake assemblies were manufactured. 26 RESPONSE: 27 Yes. fZO 1 i o** 23 (a) OBJECTION. This responding defendant objects to ; 1'6' 60 -55- 1 subparts (a) through (f) on the grounds that the information 2 requested has been provided in response to preceding interroga 3 tories, namely Interrogatory Nos. 3, 4, 9, 10, et seq. Addition 4 ally, defendant does not manufacture brake assemblies. 5 INTERROGATORY NO. 119; 6 At any time during the period 1948 to 1978, did defendant 7 distribute automobile brake linings or brake assemblies? If so, 8 please state; 9 v (a) The trade or brand name(s) under which the brake 10 linings or brake assemblies were marketed; 11 (b) The years during which the brake linings or brake 12 assemblies, under each trade or brand name, were manufactured; 13 (c) The date each product was withdrawn from the mar 14 ket, if such is the case; 15 (d) The quantitative percentage of each chemical com 16 ponent of the brake linings under each trade or brand name; 17 (e) If asbestos was included in the composition of the 18 brake linings which defendant manufactured under any trade or 19 brand name, please state: 20 (i) The type of asbestos fiber (i.e., amosite, 21 chrysotile, crocidolite) used in the brake linings under each 22 trade or brand name; 23 (ii) The quantitative percentage of asbestos fiber 24 used in the brake linings under each trade or brand name; 25 (iii) The years during which asbestos fiber was 26 included in the composition of the brake linings under each trade 27 or brand name; NZO 23 III 'A9D 16- 1 (f) The location of the facility (facilities) where 2 the brake linings or brake assemblies were manufactured. 3 RESPONSE: 4 Please refer to Response to Interrogatory No. 118. 5 INTERROGATORY NO. 120: 6 Indentify all distributors of defendant's automobile brake 7 linings or brake assemblies in and for the State of California, 8 and for each distributor, state: 9 *- (a) The date(s) defendant's automobile brak 2 linings 10 or brake assemblies were sold or delivered to said distributor; 11 (b) The quantity and type, including trade or brand 12 name(s), of defendant's automobile braking linings or brake as 13 semblies sold or delivered to said distributor. 14 RESPONSE: 15 OBJECTION. Interrogatory No. 120 is objected to on the 16 grounds that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome and 17 calls for information which is not reasonably calculated to lead 18 to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, the interroga 19 tories calls for a compilation or abstract of records which does 20 not exist. This defendant has records pertaining to sales dating 21 back only to 1976. 22 INTERROGATORY NO. 121: 23 Has defendant directly or indirectly sold or distributed its 24 automobile brake linings or brake assemblies to any of the fol 25 lowing : 26 (a) Chrysler-Plymouth Corp. ; 27 (b) Ford Motor Company; N2o 23 (c) General Motors; D 60 -57- \ I (d) American Motors; 2 (e) Nissan Motors; 3 (f) Mitsubishi Motor Car Division; 4 (g) Volkswagon; 5 (h) British Leyland; 6 (i) Sears & Roebuck. 7 RESPONSE: 8 (a) Yes; 9 . (b) No; )0 (c) Yes; 11 (d) At the present time, it is not believed so; 12 (e) No.- 13 (f) No; 14 (g) No.15 (h) No; 16 17 /// 18 /// 19 Hi 20 /// 21 Hi 22 Hi 23 /// 24 Hi (i) No. 25 m 26 Hi 27 Hi n;o 28 Hi AR3 60 | i "a 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 122: 2 If the answer to any part of Interrogatory No. 123 is af 3 firmative, please: 4 (a) State the date(s) during which defendant's automo 5 bile brake linings or brake assemblies were sold or distributed 6 to each entity; 7 (b) State the quantity and type, including trade or 8 brand name, of defendant's automobile brake linings or brake 9 assemblies sold or distributed to each entity; 10 (c) Identify and produce all documents relating to the 11 sale of defendant's automobile brake linings or brake assemblies 12 to each entity; , 13 (d) Identify each person within defendant's company 14 having knowledge of sales and distributions to each entity. 15 RESPONSE: 16 Initially defendant assumes for purposes of this respoonse 17 that a typographical error exists in referencing Interrogatory 18 No. "123" rather than "121." Assuming No. "121" was meant to be 19 referenced, defendant objects to the interrogatory on the grounds 20 that it is overly broad, burdensome, oppressive, vexatious and 21 harassing and seeks a compilation of records which does not 22 exist. This defendant has records pertaining to sales dating 23 back only to 1976. Without waiving said objection, and in the 24 spirit of liberal discovery, defendant responds that at the 25 present time, based upon the data that it has been able to 26 reconstruct from past years, it supplied original equipment brake 27 linings as- indicated below. The information provided is subject 28 to revision as further information should become available. oO -59- \' 1 Should any further information become available, it will be 2 provided. 3 (a) Chrysler Corporation; Approximately 50% of all 4 production passenger cars from 1950 through 1960 model years. 5 (c) General Motors Corporation; 6 Chevrolet passenger cars: approximately 10% of rear 7 brakes from August 1952 through July 1954. 8 Cadillac passenger cars: 100% of all models from August 9 1955 tovJuly 1965; 50% (rears only) from August 1956 to July 1983 10 Buick: 25% from June 1956 to August 1957 on all II power-braked equipment cars. 12 Chevrolet 1/2 ton trucks (-10 models): 100% from 13 August 1965 to July 1970; 50% (rears only) from August 1970 to 14 June 1975. 15 Chevrolet 3/4 ton trucks (-20 models): 100% from 16 August 1969 to July 1980; 50% (rears only) from August 1970 to 17 June 1978. 18 Defendant does not have sufficient information to provide 19 such information with respect to after market sales at this time. 20 Should such information become available, it will be provided. 21 INTERROGATORY NO. 123: 22 Does defendant have or possess any data or information re 23 garding any shipments, sales or distributions of automobile brake 24 linings or brake assemblies by a manufacturer or distributor, 25 other than itself, to any of the following entities: 26 (a) Chrysler-Plymouth Corp.; 27 (b) Ford Motor Company; NZO 23 (c) General Motors; o (S 1 j I '\ ' 1 (d) American Motors; 2 (e) Nissan Motors; 3 (f) Mitsubishi Motor Car Division; 4 (g) Volkswagon; 5 (h) British Leyland; 6 (i) Sears & Roebuck. 7 RESPONSE: 8 OBJECTION. Interrogatory No. 123 is objected to on the 9 grounds., that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous and unintelli 10 gible . 11 INTERROGATORY NO. 124: 12 If the answer to part of Interrogatory No. 123 is affirma 13 tive, please state: 14 (a) The identities of each manufacturer or distributor 15 and the above-named entity which received the automobile brake 16 linings or brake assemblies; 17 (b) The date(s) of each shipment, sale or distribution 18 of automobile brake linings or brake assemblies for which defen 19 dant has data or information; 20 (c) The quantity and type, including trade or brand 21 name, of the automobile brake linings or brake assemblies 22 shipped, sold or distributed to each of the above-named entities. 23 RESPONSE: 24 OBJECTION. Interrogatory No. 124 is objected to on the 25 grounds that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and unintelli 26 gible . 27 /// NZO Cs 28 III H6l 60 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 125: 2 At any time during the period 1948 to 1978, did defendant 3 manufacture automobile body filler? If so, please state: 4 (a) The trade or brand name(s) under which the automo 5 bile body filler was marketed; 6 (b) The years during which the automobile body filler, 7 under each trade or brand name, was manufactured; 8 (c) The date each product was withdrawn from the 9 market,^if such is the case; 10 (d) The quantitative percentage of each chemical com 11 ponent of the automobile body filler manufactured under each 12 trade or brand name; 13 (e) If asbestos was included in the composition of the 14 automobile body filler which defendant manufactured under any 15 trade or brand name, please state: 16 (i) The type of asbestos fiber (i.e., amosite, 17 chrysotile, crocidolite) used in the automobile body filler under 18 each trade or brand name; 19 ~ (ii) The quantitativae percentage of asbestos 20 fiber used in the automobile body filler under each trade or 2! brand name; 22 (iii) The years during which asbestos fiber was 23 included in the composition of the automobile body filler under 24 each trade or brand name. 25 RESPONSE: 26 Mo . 27 INTERROGATORY NO. 126: KZO - 28 At any time during the period 1948 to 1978, did defendant mo ii6i 60 -62- s i ] distribute automobile body filler? If so, please state: 2 (a) The trade or brand name(s) under which the automo 3 bile body filler was marketed; 4 (b) The years during which the automobile body filler 5 under each trade or brand name, was distributed; 6 (c) The date each products was withdrawn from the 7 market, if such is the case; 8 (d) The quantitative percentage of each chemical com 9 ponent of the automobile body filler distributed under each trade 10 or brand name; II (e) If asbestos was included in the composition of the 12 automobile body filler which defendant distributed under any 13 trade or brand name, please state: 14 (i) The type of asbestos fiber (i.e., amosite, 15 chrysotile, crocidolite) used in the automobile body filler under 16 each trade or brand name; 17 (ii) The quantitative percentage of asbestos fiber 18 used in the automobile body filler under each trade or brand 19 name; ' 20 (iii) The years during which asbestos fiber was 21 included in the composition of the automobile body filler under 22 each trade or brand name. 23 RESPONSE: 24 Not applicable. 25 INTERROGATORY NO. 127: 26 Identify all distributors of defendant's automobile body 27 filler in and for the State of California, and for each distribu NZO 3* 2*R8O tor, state: 116! C 1 (a) The date(s) defendant's automobile body filler was 2 sold or delivered to said distributor; 3 (b) The quantity and type, including trade or brand 4 name(s), of defendant's automobile body filler sold or delivered 5 to said distributor. 6 RESPONSE: 7 "ot applicable. 8 INTERROGATORY NO. 128: 9 Has defendant directly or indirectly sold or distributed its 10 autonobile body filler to any of the following: 11 (a) Chrysler-Plymouth Corp.; 12 (b) Ford Motor Company; 13 (c) General Motors; 14 (d) American Motors; 15 (e) Nissan Motors; 16 (f) Mitsubishi Motor Car Division; 17 (g) Volkswagon; 18 (h) British Leyland; 19 - (i) Sears & Roebuck. 20 RESPONSE: 21 Not applicable. 22 INTERROGATORY NO. 129: 23 If defendant's answer to any part of Interrogatory No. 128 24 is affirmative, please: 25 (a) State the date(s) during which defendant's automo 26 bile body filler was sold or distributed to each entity; 27 (b) State the quantity and type, including trade or "ZQ 28 brand name, of defendant's automobile body filler sold or *90 1'*i -64- i \ I distributed to each entity; 2 (c) Identify and produce all documents relating to the 3 sale of defendant's automobile body filler to each entity; 4 (d) Identify each person within defendant's company 5 having knowledge of sales and distributions to each entity. 6 RESPONSE: 7 Not applicable. 8 INTERROGATORY NO. 130: 9 Does defendant have or possess any data or information re 10 garding any shipments, sales or distributions of automobile body 11 filler by a manufacturer or distributor, other than itself, to 12 any of the following entities: 13 (a) Chrysler-Plymouth Corp.; 14 (b) Ford Motor Company; 15 (c) General Motors; 16 (d) American Motors; 17 (e) Nissan Motors; 18 (f) Mitsubishi Motor Car Division; 19 (g) Volkswagon; 20 (h) British Leyland; 21 (i) Sears & Roebuck. 22 RESPONSE: 23 OBJECTION. Interrogatory No. 130 is objected to on the 24 grounds that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous and unintelli 25 gible. 26 INTERROGATORY NO. 131: 27 If the answer to any part of Interrogatory No. 130 is af N2 3 28 firmative, please state: AOO 'V -65- "'i -r [ (a) The identities of each manufacturer or distributor 2 and the above-named entity which received the automobile body 3 filler; 4 (b) The date(s) of each shipment, sale or distribution 5 of automobile body filler for which defendant has data or infor 6 mation ; 7 (c) The quantity and type, including trade or brand B name, of the automobile body filler shipped, sold or distributed 9 to eachvof the above-named entities. 10 RESPONSE: -- 11 Not applicable. 12 DATED: July /3 ' 1984 13 14 15 16 17 HILLSINGER & COSTANZO Professional Corporation B /U ^ -- E A. COVE ^Attorneys for Defendant ABEX CORPORATION 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NZO o*. 1 A2H8O H6i -66- A. B. PARTY PLAINTIFF DATE OF SERVICE ANDERSON, E. 1983 ANDERSON, L. 7/30/82 ANDERSON, R. 12/13/82 ANDREWS, A. ARMENTA, J. 3/21/84 1983' BABTIKIS, R. 4/25/83 BARNETT, W. 1983 BEAR, B. BERUAN, J. 1/6/83 8/2/82 BETTS, R. 12/13/83 BLAYLOCK, J. 12/13/83 BOYLE, J. 11/16/83 BURNS, J. 11/16/83 BURTON, R. 4/2/84 CHAVEZ, R. COLE, R.D. 1983 12/13/83 COMSTOCK, L. 7/20/81 COOK, J. 8/2/82 COOPER, M. 1983 CRAMER 19 8 3 CURRY, J. 4/25/83 DE LA PENA 2/1/82 DI NAPOLI, R. 12/13/83 C. ALLEGED INJURY Asbestosrelated injury if H tt ft tt 11 rt t n ft tt tt it ri it it it it tt it ti D. PLACE OF VENUE Los Angeles Superior Court tt tt ft II ft ft ft it n ft it ti tt ii tt it ti 11 M tt " ft EXHIBIT "A PARTY PLAINTIFF DOHERTY, W. DATE OF SERVICE 4/26/83 DUVALL, F. 1983 EVANS, J. 11/16/83 FRALEIGH, J. 4/26/83 GILLUM, J. 11/23/83 GRAHAM, E. 12/13/83 GRAHAM, G. 10/28/83 GROOMS, C. 11/16/83 HASSEY, T. 11/16/83 HEDBLOM, R. 5/18/84 HILL, J. 11/16/83 HUGHES, R. 1/6/83 JACKSON, J. 1983 JOHNSON, C. 10/28/83 LASH, B. 1983 MARKS, T. 11/16/83 MARSHALL, G. 10/28/83 McCLENNEY, W. 1983 McILONIE, E. 10/28/83 MCINTYRE, M. 11/16/83 McNEAL, L. 1/6/83 MOLINA, L. 4/8/82 MUNIS, A. 1981 PECK, J. 1/6/33 ALLEGED INJURY Asbestosrelated injury II t II U H n M 11 It 11 If tr it ii ii ii ii it it ii ti ii PLACE OF VENUE Los Angeles Superior Court t* it ' If it ii if 11 ft n it 11 it ii it ti ff ft ii it it ii ti PARTY PLAINTIFF PERRY, D. DATE OF SERVICE 11/23/83 PHENIX, R. POWELL, L. ROSE, E. RUNGE, F. SEALS, G. STEVENS, L. STRAUB, J. TEAGUE, W. TURNER, G. 7/20/81 11/16/83 3/21/84 12/13/83 11/16/83 12/3t)/8 3 10/28/83 12/13/83 11/16/83 ALLEGED INJURY Asbestosrelated inj ury '* " " " " " " " " PLACE OF VENUE Los Angeles Superior Court < li H It II II r it B. C. 'ARTY "LAINTIFF LANDER LEXANDER WADER .MBRICCO NDERSON ERGER ESAMAJIAN ILLEDO ISHOP LACKMAN DATE OF SERVICE ALLEGED INJURY 5/11/83 Asbestos related injury Early 1980s 11 Early 1980s 11 Unknown ir Early 1980s i 2/28/83 H 4/30/84 (1 9/28/83 11 8/12/83 11 12/13/83 11 OTELHO OWMAN 1/30/84 3/ 5/82 It II ROWN 4/15/83 11 AIRES 11/10/81 II ARDILLO 1/11/82 II ARPENTER 8/20/81 If ASWELL 10/ 3/83 11 ONNER 10/28/83 11 ORSINO 11/15/83 II OURTNEY 9/30/83 If LUTTER 5/12/78 11 REECH 1/26/83 11 AILEY Early 1980s It EAN 6/ 3/83 . It ERRICK ICKOW Circa 10/79 8/14/81 11 T fot D. PLACE OF VENUE Alameda Superior Court, CA Ct. of Common Pleas, PA Ct. of Common Pleas, PA U.S. District Ct'. of N.J. Ct. of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga Cty, Ohio Ct. of Common Pleas, Philadelphia Cty. U.S. District C .. , E.D., PA Cir. Ct. , Cook <_ty, IL. Cir. Ct., Duval Cty, FL. U.S. District Ct., E.D., PA San Francisco Superior Court, CA Alameda Superior Court, CA Ct. of Common Pleas, Philadelphia Cty. Alameda Superior Court, CA Ct. of Common Pleas, Montgomery Cty, PA Ct. of Common Pleas, Bucks Cty, PA U.S . District C t. , E . D. , MO Cir. Ct., St. Louis Cty, MO U.S . District Ct., E.D., PA Alameda Superior Court, CA U.S . District Ct., N.D. Ohio, East. U.S. Dist. Ct . , N.D., Ohio, W. Div. of Common Pleas, PA Illinois Cir. Ct. Ct. of Common Pleas, Philadelphia, PA Alameda Superior Court, CA PARTY PLAINTIFF 'ICKSON OUTHIT UNN ETTEROLF ODER RASER RIEDMAN 'URGER ;ando ENOVESE IORGIANNA IPSON LORE `RAY ALLING ANEY ART AZZARD ICE OLLIMAN ORMELL UGHES UMPHREY TO APLAN EAN ELLY ERR DATE OF SERVICE ALLEGED INJURY 3/13/84 Asbestos related injury Early 1980s 11 12/22/82 n 2/24/82 9* 4/25/83 i 11/ 7/83 tt 3/12/79 n 3/28/83 ii Ear.y 1980s 5/20/83 Early 1980s 5/11/83 10/22/81 3/31/83 5/11/83 3/ 9/77 Early 1980s 4/19/83 5/11/83 11/10/83 6/ 9/81 7/22/82 1/ 6/84 3/14/84 10/ 5/81 Early 1980s 3/11/80 12/19/83 i it if ri it ii it ii ii n it it M II If 11 II .. 1 11 ) PLACE OF VENUE San Francisco Superior Ct., CA California Superior Court Cr. Ct., Cty of Wayne, MI Ct. of Common Pleas, Philadelphia, pa U.S. District Ct., E.D., PA U.S. District Ct., E.D., PA Sup. Ct. of N.J., Bergen Cty. Alameda Superior Court, CA Ct. of Common Pleas, PA Ct. of Common Pleas, PA Ct. of Common Pleas, PA San Francisco Sup. Ct., CA U.S. District Ct., S.D., GA, Augusta Div. Ct. of Common Pleas, PA ' Alameda Superior Court, CA Cir. Ct., Cty of Wayne, MI Ct. of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga Cty., Ohio Ct. of Common Pleas, PA San Francisco Sup. Ct., CA N.J. Sup. Ct., Monmouth Cty. Ct. of Common Pleas, Bucks Cty, PA Ct. of Common Pleas, PA Ct. of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga Cty, Ohio U.S. District Ct., Dist. of Hawaii U.S. District Ct., N.D., CA Ct. of Common Pleas, PA Ct. of Common Pleas, PA U.S. District Ct., N.D., CA ARTY LAINTIFF DATE OF SERVICE ) 4wLEGED INJURY INSEY 6/30/81 ONSTANTIN ANE 5E EOTTA 2YMAN ONDON DNG OVETT acCASKIE 4/25/83 1/ 5/83 11/23/81 11/23/81 1/24/83 6/22/83 5/11/83 1/20/82 2/29/84 Asbestos related injury fl ll M II H f it ARTIN ASON cCORMICK Early 1980s 4/18/84 2/28/83 II ti ii cCULLEN IHALY 4/20/82 Early 1980s ii it ILLIGAN 3/16/84 ii ALL 12/14/81 ii EISS ELS ON 1/18/83 10/ 6/83 ii H VERTON 7/26/82 II ANNELL 5/ 8/82 II EARLINGI 12/16/83 If IPPINS 5/11/83 II YCZ 3/18/83 If EAVES SED ' 5/ 6/83 11/30/83 II 11 EES 10/22/80 M PLA-J OF VENUE U.S. Dist. Ct. , N.D., Fla, Tallahassee Di\ Alameda Superior Court, CA Ct. of Common Pleas, Lorain Cty, Ohio U.S. District Ct., N.D., CA U.S. District Ct- N.D., CA Cir. Ct., Cty of Wayne, MI Ct. of Common Pleas, PA San Francisco Sup. Ct., CA U.S. District Ct., E.D. of PA Alameda Superior Court, CA Ct. of Common Pleas, Ohio Ct. of Common Pleas, Ohio Ct. ofCommon Pleas, PA Ct. ofCommon Pleas, PA Ct. of Common Pleas, Ohio U.S. District Ct., Michigan, S.D. Tenth Judicial Cir. Ct., IL U.S. District Ct., E.D., PA San Francisco Sup. Ct., CA Ct. ofCommon Pleas, PA Ct. of Common Pleas, PA Ct. ofCommon Pleas, PA Alameda Superior Court, CA Ct. ofCommon Pleas, PA Ct. of Common Pleas, PA Ct. ofCommon Pleas, PA U.S. District Ct., E.D., PA ' -IFF DATE OF SERVICE ^jliLEGED INJURY 5/11/83 Asbestos related injury 3 Early 1980s It 3/ 7/80 It 9/15/83 II rs 4/11/84 l 30N, W. 4/19/83 30N, E. 3/31/83 11/16/83 11 11 AS Early 1980s It SG FFER 1/16/84 9/13/82 II 11 DS 3/14/83 DA 10/ 5/81 It 11 , s. , D. , R- ART 2/ 2/84 4/22/82 Early 1980s 3/17/83 4/12/82 Early 1980s II 11 II 11 11 11 L 7/22/82 If 2/21/84 If 12/19/83 11 N 12/19/83 11 0 3/13/84 II R 5/11/83 It N 4/25/83 It PLA^E OF VENUE San Francisco Superior Court, CA Ct. of Common Pleas, PA U.S. District Ct., E.D., PA Ct. of Common Pleas, Ohio Wayne Cty Ct., MI U.S. District Ct., E.D., PA Ct. of Common Pleas, PA U.S. District Ct., Dist. of Mass. Cir. Ct. of Cook Cty, ILL San Francisco Superior Court, CA Ct. of Common Pleas, PA U.S. Dist. Ct., E.D., Tenn., So. Div. U.S. Dist. Ct. of Hawaii U.S. Dist. Ct. of Hawaii U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D. of Ohio, E. Div. Ct. of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga Cty, Ohio Delaware Sup. Ct., New Castle Cty. U.S. Dist. Ct., W.D. of PA Ct. of Common Pleas, PA U.S. Dist. Ct., Ohio, N.D., E. Div. Solano Superior Court, CA San Francisco Sup. Ct., CA Santa Clara Superior Court, CA San Francisco Sup. Ct., CA Alameda Superior Court, CA U.S. District Ct., E.D., MO ARTY LAINTIFF HEELOCK ILKINS ILLIAS . ABLON DUNG DUNG, M. ITIS DATE OF SERVICE ALLEGED INJURY 11/ 4/82 Asbestos related injury 9/ 8/83 Early 1980s II II 11/23/81 If 1/25/82 ft 3/19/84 tl 3/12/7? II PLACE OF VENUE Cir. Ct., Cty of Wayne, MI San Francisco Superior Court, CA Ct. of Common Pleas, PA California U.S. District Ct. of Maryland Kanawha Cty Cir. Ct., W. VA Supreme Ct. of N.J., Bergen Cty TWSOKANC - History of Carriers From 1946 thru 1956: Maryland Casualty Company. Coverage of at least $300,000 per occurrence and $1 million in the aggregate. From 1956 thru 1971: - Liberty Mutual Insurance Company provided casualty and general liability coverage of at least $500,000 per occur rence and $3 million in the aggregate. From 1971 thru 1974: The Travelers Insurance ' Companies provided CGL coverage of at least $500,000 per occurrence./and $3 million in the aggregate. From 1974 thru 1975: Argonaut Insurance Company provided CGL primary insurance coverage of $950,000 in excess of $50,000 self-insurance retention while during the same period, additional insurers provided $40 million of excess coverage. From 1975 thru 1976: Continental Insurance Company provided primary CGL coverage in the amount of $900,000 in excess of $100,000 self insurance retention while other carriers provided $45 million worth of excess coverage. From 1976 thru 1978: Continental Insurance Company provided primary CGL coverage in the amount of $750,000 in excess of $250,000 self insurance retention while other insurers provided minimum excess coverage of $45 million. From 1978 thru 197$: Northwestern National Insurance Company provided $1 million of primary CGL coverage while other insurers provide an additional $80 million of ex ' iss coverage. From 1979 thru 1980: Continental Insurance Company provided primary CGL coverage in the amount of $1 million while other insurers provided excess coverage of $75 million. From 1980 thru 1983: National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh provided primary CGL coverage in the amount of $1 million while other insured provided excess coverage ranging from a minimum of $100 million to a maximum of $180 million. EXHI3IT "B" RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES FOR REDUCING ASBESTOS DUST DURING BRAKE SERVICING Because studies have indicated that exposure to excessive amounts of asbestos dust may be a potential health hazard, OSHA has set maximum limits of levels of airborne asbestos dust to which workers may be exposed. Since most automotive friction materials normally contain a sizable amount-of asbestos, it is important that people who handle brake linings and clutch facings un derstand the nature of the problem and know the precautions to be taken. when exposure to asbestos dust may be at its highest. This increases the difficulty in com plying with the OSHA standards. In addition to the approved respirator, there must be local exhaust ventilation such that worker ex posures are maintained below the OSHA asbestos standards If there is any question as to the efficiency of asbestos dust removal by the machine, the manufacturer should be con tacted. 1. Areas where brake work is done should be set aside if possible, and entrances should be posted with an asbestos exposure sign as follows: - Asbestos Dust Hazard Avoid Breathing Dus! Wear Assigned Protective Equipment Co Not Remain in Area Unless Your Work Requires It Breathing Asbestos Dust May Be Hazardous To Your Health 2. The amount of asbestos in the dust from uiakr "iuii'ty Wear is normally at ar, extremely low levei because of chemical breakdown during use. 2nd if machining of friction materia* does not take place, simple procedures will minimize exposure. During br?kr servicing, the mechanic should wear a recpirctcr approved by NIOSH for asbestos dust, h should be worn during all procedures startinc with the removal of wheels and in cluding reassembly. 3 When removing worn friction materials, remove the accumulated dust in the assemblies wiili an industrial vacuum cioaner equipped with s high efficiency filter system. If such equipment is not available, dust can be removed with a damp cloth, uo not use com pressed air or dry brushing for cleaning unless the assembly is enclosed and properly ex hausted. 4 Whenever oossible. purchase fri .tion materials creground and ready for installation. If machining is necessary, the precautions which must be taken are of extreme impor tance. This is the operation in brake service 5. Industrial vacuum cleaner bags containing asbestos dust and cloths used for wiping brake assemblies should be sealed in plastic bags and labeled with the following warning label printed in letters of sufficient size and contrast to be reao iy visible and legible. Caution Contains Asbestos Fibe*-* Avoid Creating Dust Breathing Asbestos Dust May Causs Serious Bodily Harm All asbestos waste should be disposed of in accordance with OSHA and EPA asbestos regulations. During removal of vacuum bags, an approved respLaiur. as described in (2! above should be worn. 6. Good housekeeping is essential in a workplace where asbestos containing materials are handled. Industrial vacuum cleaners equipped with multiple stage high efficiency filters should be used for removing accumulations of asbestos dust and waste. Never use compressed air or dry sweeoina for cleaning. Water or other dust suppressants should be applied if brooms are used 7. Good personal' hygiene practices ate imyuitant in minimizing asbestos dust exposure Do not smoke. Wash before eating. Shower after work. Change to work clothes upon arrival at work and change from work clothes at con clusion of work. Work clothing should not be taken home. Laundering of asbestos con taminated cluthmg shal; De done so SS *0 pre vent release of airborne asbestos fibers in ex cess of the expocu'c limits. CAUTION: DO NOT BREATHE ASBESTOS EXHIBIT "C i / / V