Document M4M6QMawv8p7KpjpezX17ZX7j

fRi*1 TTi. '` *K% ` ****} - *2' - '' 'A-v *#>* r* . % * ^ * . _ }fc. kVi* 1* . '** * , " '"i, ,,. * SALES DEPARTMENT INTER-OFFICE MEMO 'KS-v. -. > jr.J?-'." j-. V'C` ;:* ^ATP> Ptctmbtt 23;/1959 ' 4 , a?l f ::-. sjj * " 'Vi v*' . 5s--.-* v . > ' ''!; I >*... <i! ' - SUBJECT! LAWSUIT INVOLVING CEMENT ASBESTOS PIPE . CIVIL ACTION # 14144; 10 - . all CAST IRON PIPE SALES REPRESENTATIVES FBDMt J. M. HOLLINGSWORTH * "'l "V*v** * A', Hv-v V -y *' ' 'C Pending receipt of the transcript of a court trial held in the Western District of Pennsylvania, we are passing on to- ' you questions which were asked by the foreaan of the jury and answered by the jury in a lawsuit between Johns.Manvllle Sales Corporation versus West Penn Engineering and Contracting Cow- , pany and Ohio Casualty Insurance Company. Johns.Manville was suing the contractor, who did not pay for Ceaent Asbestos pipe which he clalaed was not suitable for' the purpose for. which it was sold. The job happened to be a - . l`. #. J large one involving both Cast Iron pipe and Ceaent Asbestos. pipe at Center Township, Pennsylvania. Fifty per cent of the-'7 job was Ceaent Asbestos and fifty per cent was Cast Iron. In *r ' - , H K- ` ;Kf- vi ''K&rZi-: . .'v'. . .irV^V:. theA.C lines, there were over 165 breaks, whereas there were % . :5 only 3 breaks in the Cast Iron portion. .1 ' *. J A 'Vi'VH The contractor withheld his last payaent of $36,000.00 . froa Johns.Manville, for which Johns.Manvllle sued the con. tractor. The contractor in turn filed a countersuit for $64,-: ..v'->r { ` ' : |*. 000.00 against Johns.Manvllle; this sua included slightly - over . $25,000.00 which was for anticipated profits on other work whtdh the contractor alght have been able to take had he not been held--^/SCfup on finishing the Center Township job by the necessity of re.' 1 pairing'breaks'in Ceaent Asbestos pipe. Av.' ', ' -. ' - * 'j".' -;vV'77.t::. AV -Vt". '*> - - The aaaa went to trial and a verdict was rendered on -i"% ' Friday, October 23, 1959. The judge inforaad the jury that the' ; slightly over $25,000.00 in anticipated profits could not be~. ^ ' ; ~ considered and that the total aaount they could consider was 5' $44,183.13. The "judge further charged the jury with the three' questions (see attached), the answers to be "yes'* or Maon and the decision to be derived froa these questions* > rr^-ir-i -C"As you will note iron the answers to the questions,' it was proven that the Asbestos ^^aent pipe was not suitable for^~ j, 1:^.1.- the purpose for which it was intended and sold. The judgaent - . ai rendered by the jury is also attached. -'..''4^^ nii ".tater, we will have a transcript of this ease for each "`'4.-.^^^^ of you, as there are aany interesting questions brought up ' during this trial and which were cnswerad by Johns.Manvilla*a '** % Page Two Meaorandust to Sales Representatives December 22, 1959 personnel, which prove that Cetaent Asbestos pipe is an inferior quality product to Cast Iron Pipe. In the aeantiae, yon are free to show this doeuaent to anyone, and we believe it will be a very useful tool in selling Cast Iron Pipe. JMH/k Copies to Messrs*: B. J. Bohannan I. B. Langhaan D. L. Balderach M. 1. Anderson K. C. Sneed 1. R. Reef I. M. Fischer J. D. Dillard J. R. Barton R. M. Seston G. C. Graves . T. Moreland W. G. Whitsitt B. C. Robertson J. M. Hollingsworth UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CENTER TOWNSHIPWATER AUTHORITY Now to Use of JOHNS-MANVILLE SALES CORPORATION, : : Plaintiffs, : vs. : CivilActionNumber WEST PENN ENGINEERING & CONTRACTING : CO. and OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE CO., a corporation. 14144 Defendants. : AND NOW, TOWIT, this 23rd day of October, 1959 > upon the basis of' the answers of the jury to the interrogatories submitted to it and the stipulation of the parties as to in terest, it is ORDERED that the Clerk enter Jud'gnent forthwith a3 follows: 1. Judgment for West Penn Engineering and Contracting Company and Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, the defendants, on the main claim asserted by the plaintiff Center Township Water Authority to the use of Johns-Manvilie Sales Corporation .2. Judgment for the defendant West Penn Engineering and Contracting Company against the plaintiff Johns-Manvilie Sales Corporation in the amount of $ 8,156.76 plus interest at 6$ per annum from July 1, 1955 to this date. /s/ Edwin D. Steel, Jr. D. J. 'i# 'ImrjitjJ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CENTER TOWNSHIP WATER AUTHORITY Now to Use of JOHNS-MANVILLE SALES CORPORATION, : : Plaintiffs, vs. : Civil Action Number WEST PENN ENGINEERING & CONTRACTING : CO. and OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE CO., a corporation, : l4l44 Defendants : COPY OF VERDICT OF JURY RENDERED IN THE ABOVE ENTITLED MATTER ON OCTOBER 23, 1959 INTERROGATORIES 1. Was the pipe which Johns-Manvilie furnished to West Penn Engineering fit for.the purpose for which it was intended i. e., for use as an underground water pipe? esj___ No NO If Question 1 is answered "yes", do not answer any other question. If Question 1 is answered "no", then you must answer Question 2. 2. Did West Penn Engineering suffer a financial loss as a re sult of the failure of Johns-Manvilie to furnish it with pipe fit for use as an underground water pipe? YesYES Ne If Question 2 is answered "no", do not answer Question 3. If Question 2 is answered "yes", then you must answer Question 3. 3. What was the reasonable financial loss which West Penn Enggineerlng suffered as a result of the failure of JohnsManville to furnish West Penn Engineering with pipe fit for use as an underground water pipe? . $ 44,183.13 ,/s/ Richard A. McFeeley Foreman..