Document NGk44Mqw24GK3omOnBd3GJBww

FILE NAME: Maryland Casualty Company (MCC) DATE: 1992 May 19 DOC#: MCC018 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Legal - Deposition of Harvey G. Lewis I i i NO, 88-C-0615 SHERMAN A. SEARLS, JR. VS. , OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION, ET AL } IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF ] BRAZORIA COUNT, TEXAS ] ] 23RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 87-C-1934 TOMMIE L. HEATHMAN, ET UX ] IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF VS. ] BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS 1 CORPORATION, ET AL ] 23RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT IN RE: CONSOLIDATED RICHARD B. JACKSON, ET UX .] VS. 1 OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS 1 CORPORATION, ET AL ] NO. 87-37068 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, T E X A S 165th JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. GLADYS LORETTA STEELE, ET VS. FISCHBACH & MOORE, INC., ET AL. 90 -20663 AL .1 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF ] HARRIS COUNTY, T E X A S ] _ ] 55TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 89- 053547 HAZEL WILKENING, ET AL. ] IN THE VS. ] HARRIS FORD, BACON AND -DAVIS ] CONSTRUCTION CORP., ET AL ) 334TH DISTRICT COURT OF COUNTY, T E X A S JUDICIAL DISTRICT LORETTA TURNER VS. ARMSTRONG WORLD INC., ET AL. NO. 91-002902 ] IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF ] HARRIS COUNTY, T E X A S INDUSTRIES, ] ] 189TH 'JUDICIAL DISTRICT Between VIDEOTAPE DEPOSITION OF HARVEY G. LEWIS May 19, 1992 the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 800 Commerce Houston, Texas 2:30 p.m. Wanda Kelley, Texas CSR No. 2007 Nell McCallum & Associates 2900 Smith, Suite 104 Houston, Texas 77006 (713) 523-3767 6 1 APPEARANCES 2 3 For the Plaintiffs: 4 5 MR. LAWRENCE MADEKSHO 6 Attorney at Law 7 Law Offices of Lawrence Madeksho 8 8320 Gulf Freeway, Suite 218 9 Houston, Texas 77017-4598 10 11 MR. ROBERT E. BALLARD 12 Attorney at Law 13 Abraham, Watkins, Nichols, Ballard & Friend 14 800 Commerce Street 15 Houston, Texas 77002 16 17 For the Defendant Commercial Union Insurance 18 Company, appearing for the Sherman S. Searls, 19 Jr. lawsuit: 20 21 MR. DON MARTINSON 22 Attorney at Law 23 Fanning, Harper s Martinson 24 8117 Preston Road, Third Floor 25 Dallas, Texas 75225 1 APPEARANCES 2 3 For the Defendant Owens-Corning Fiberglas 4 Corporation, appearing for the Tommie L. Heathman 5 and Sherman A. Searls, Jr. lawsuits: 6 7 MR. RICK THAMM 8 Attorney at Law 9 Bean & Manning 10 5847 San Felipe, Suite 1500 11 Houston, Texas 77056 12 13 14 For the Defendant Pittsburgh Corning Corporation, 15 appearing for the Sherman A. Searls, Jr., Tommie L. 16 Heathman, Richard B. Jackson Consolidation and 17 Gladys Loretta Steele lawsuits: 18 19 MR. MIKE WALZEL 20 Attorney at Law 21 Weller, Wheelus & Green 22 Fifth Floor, Petroleum Tower 23 550 Fannin Street 24 Beaumont, Texas 77704 25 8 1 APPEARANCES 2 3 For the Defendant ACandS, Inc., appearing for 4 the Sherman A. Searls, Jr.; Tommie L. Heathman; 5 Juanita Simpson, which is part of the Richard 6 Jackson Consolidation; and Loretta Turner lawsuits: 7 8 MR. KEN RHODES 9 Attorney at Law 10 Dunn, Kacal, Adams, Pappas i Law 11 2600 America Tower 12 2929 Allen Parkway 13 Houston, Texas 77019 14 15 16 17 For the Defendant Allied Signal, Inc.: 18 19 MS. LYNN G. HAUFRECT 20 Attorney at Law 21 Vinson & Elkins 22 3300 First City Tower 23 1001 Fannin 24 Houston, Texas 77002 25 9 1 APPEARANCES 2 3 For the Defendant Aetna Casualty and Surety, 4 appearing for the Sherman A. Searls, Jr., lawsuit; 5 and for the Defendant Ford Bacon Davis 6 Construction Corporation, appearing for the Hazel 7 Wilkening lawsuit: 8 9 MS. BARCLAY-MANLEY 10 Attorney at Law / 11 Fulbright & Jaworski 12 1301 McKinney 13 Houston, Texas 77010 14 15 16 For the Defendant Travelers Insurance Company and 17 Travelers Indemnity Company, appearing for the 18 Sherman A. Searls, Jr. lawsuit: 19 20 MR. J. WILEY GEORGE 21 Attorney at Law 22 Strasburger & Price 23 4300 NCNB Plaza 24 901 Main Street 25 Dallas, Texas 75202 iU 1 APPEARANCES 2 3 For the Defendant Owens Illinois, Inc., appearing 4 for the Richard B. Jackson Consolidation and the 5 Tommie L. Heathman lawsuit: 6 7 ' MR. MARK D. RAYBURN 8 Attorney at Law 9 Strong, Pipkin, Nelson & Bissell 10 1400 San Jacinto Building 11 595 Orleans 12 Beaumont, Texas 77701 13 14 15 For the Defendant Foster Wheeler Corporation, 16 appearing for the Gladys Loretta Steele and 17 Hazel Wilkening lawsuits: 18 19 MR. JAMES M. RILEY, JR. 20 Attorney at Law 21 Holmes, Ryman & Lee 22 800 First City Tower 23 1001 Fannin 24 Houston, Texas 77002 25 A. L 1 APPEARANCES 2 3 For the Defendant M. W. Kellcg Company, appearing 4 for the Hazel Wilkening lawsuit: 5 6 MR. DOOG S. GRIFFITH 7 Attorney at Law 8 Hutcheson & Grundy 9 3300 Citicorp Center 10 1200 Smith Street 11 Houston, Texas 77002-4579 12 13 14 15 For the Defendant Brown & Root, Inc., appearing for 15 the Loretta Turner lawsuit: 17 18 MS. CYNTHIA HOOPER INGLET 19 Attorney at Law 20 Alenik. & Associates 21 12 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1200 22 Houston, Texas 77046 23 24 25 Also present: Ray Blackstone - Legal Media i r f: L r 12 1 [EXHIBIT NO. 1 MARKED] 2 VIDEOGRAPHER: Today is May 19th, 1992. The 3 time is 10:05 a.m. On the record. 4 5 6 HARVEY G. LEWIS, 7 being duly sworn, testified as follows: 8 9 EXAMINATION BY 10 MR. MADEKSHO: 11 Q Would you state your full name for the 12 record, please, sir? 13 A Harvey G. Lewis. 14 Q Mr. Lewis, how are you doing this morning so 15 far? 16 A Fine. Thank you. 17 Q Mr. Lewis, in regard to today's proceedings, 18 we have noticed the deposition of Commercial Union 19 Insurance Company concerning certain areas of inquiry. 20 And you understand that, sir? 21 A I do. 22 Q And you have been designated by Commercial 23 Union to make an appearance for that testimony here this 24 morning? 25 A Yes, sir. r i: l: i: r: i: i; rL": l: L ' 13 Q Mr. Lewis, if we could back up for just a second and if you would please give us the benefit of 7 F your educational background, we would appreciate that MR. MARTINSON: Mr. Madeksho, if I ought 5 interrupt just for a second. We were noticed in Cause 6 No. 88-C-0615, which is the only case we're a party to. 7 We're not taking a position regarding these other 8 depositions, but I wanted you to know that's the only 9 case in which we're a party and that we know that we're 10 here. MR. MADEKSHO: We understand that. 12 A I'm a 1966 graduate of Northeastern At 13 University in Boston, Massachusetts; a 1969 graduate of 14 Suffolk University Law School it. Boston, Massachusetts, 15 where I received a J.D. degree. 16 Q And in 1969, after you received your law 17 degree, did you take the bar exam there in the state of 18 Massachusetts? 19 A I did, sir. 20 Q Are you a practicing lawyer at this time? 21 A I am admitted before the Bar of the 22 Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the United States 23 District Court for the First Circuit. 24 Q Are you admitted to practice in the courts of 25 any other state besides the state of Massachusetts? 14 1 A No, sir, I am not. 2 Q In 1969, upon receiving your law degree -- 3 did you receive your license in the same year? 4 A 1970. 5 Q 1970. Upon receiving your law degree and 6 your license in 1970, could you tell us what your work 7 history has been since that time? 8 A Prior to being admitted to the bar, I was an 9 employee of the Massachusetts Defenders Committee and 10 continued on after being admitted into the bar. In 11 1970, I left the Massachusetts Defenders Committee and - 12 went on active duty in the United States Army until the 13 middle of January 1972, when I was relieved of military 14 service. 15 I then became an associate in a small defense 16 firm in Boston, Massachusetts. The name of the firm was 17 Galvin, Smith & Nordlinger. I practiced with that firm 18 until sometime in 1976. I left that firm and for a 19 period of approximately three years practiced as a sole 20 practitioner in Boston and then became associated with 21 Commercial Union Insurance Company in June of 1979. 22 Q And since June of 1979, in your employment 23 with Commercial Union Insurance Company, could you give 24 us the various positions and duties and responsibilities 25 you have held up to the present time? - - - -- - - r1 r1 ~__ I" L * 1" L r Lr r' r " _ 15 i A In June of 1979, upon my first employment, I 2 was a Fidelity Surety claim attorney in the home office 3 claim department until approximately 1981, when I 4 transferred to the claims counsel's office of the home 5 office claims department. 6 In 1984, I officially transferred into the 7 environmental issues area and remained in environmental 8 issues in one capacity or another until the present 9 time. 10 Q And when is the first time that you became 11 involved with the asbestos litigation on behalf of -4- 12 Commercial Union? 13 A Approximately the spring and summer of 1983, 14 I was asked to participate with other personnel at 15 Commercial Union involved in a document production that 16 arose out of the California coordinated asbestos 17 proceedings. 1? Q Okay. And we're talking about the California 19 insurance litigation between Commercial Union and a 20 number of asbestos manufacturers and then also some 21 other insurance companies besides Commercial Union? S22s i : 23 A That's correct, sir. Q And do you have a specific title with 24 Commercial Union at this time? . 1 25 A I do. I n f; r r: r: 1: r f -* L _ 16 1 Q And what is that title, sir? 2 A I am vice president or specialty litigation. 3 Q And as vice president of specialty litigation 4 for Commercial Union Insurance Company, what do you do? 5 A My responsibility is the management and 6 supervision of three areas which primarily involve the 7 handling of environmental claim matters and all 8 litigation involving environmental claims. __ i% i^- 9 Q So basically your sole expertise and your 10 sole duties and responsibilities surround the 11 environmental arena? 12 A That is correct. 13 Q And in regard to the environmental arena, 14 as the -- in your position that you presently hold, 15 approximately how much of your time do you spend in the 16 asbestos litigation? 17 A By virtue of my management responsibilities 18 and administrative responsibilities, only a small 19 portion of my current time is involved with asbestos 20 litigation. 21 Q Could you give us an idea in regard to a 22 percentage of that time or how many days a week or a 23 month or anything of that nature? 24 A My sense would be approximately 10 percent 25 of my time is involved in direct invoLvement with the 19 1 negotiations that are ongoing, I can't state. 2 Q Okay. We'll get to some of that information 3 in just a little bit that I believe that you had covered 4 and responded to concerning the answers to 5 interrogatories that Commercial Union had filed in this 6 case? 7 A Yes, sir. 8 Q Have you had an opportunity, Mr. Lewis, to 9 review the answers to interrogatories that Commercial 10 Union had filed in these cases? 11 A I did. ^_____ 12 Q Could you tell us what else that you have had 13 the opportunity to review preparatory for your testimony 14 here this morning? 15 A I reviewed the deposition notice and the 16 items that were to be covered. I reviewed the answers 17 to interrogatories, supplemental answers to 18 interrogatories, briefly reviewed the testimony of 19 Arthur Lynn with reference to the deposition notice. I 20 believe I reviewed some of the responses to notices to 21 produce involved in this litigation as well. 22 Q And that's all that you have reviewed that 23 you can recall at this time? 24 A Yes, sir, that's correct. 25 Q In regard to area of inquiry number one to c 20 1 today's notice of deposition, Mr. Lewis, we had 2 requested that Commercial Union produce someone to 3 discuss the corporate history of Commercial Union. And 4 could you briefly tell us as to when Commercial Union 5 was first -- when it first came into existence? 6 A Perhaps I can explain it to you in this 7 fashion, sir. In approximately 1968 or '69, Commercial 8 Union and the Employers group of insurance companies, 9 which are both United States groups of companies, merged 10 and ultimately the end result was the Commercial Union 11 Insurance Companies of today. 12 Prior to that time the Employers group of 13 insurance companies went back into the early 1900s with 14 Employers Liability Assurance Corporation Limited. The 15 United States branch of that operation was operating in 16 this country from the early 1900s on. 17 During the 1920s, Thirties and Forties, there 18 were other companies as part of the Employers group, 19 including American Employers Insurance Company, 20 Employers Fire Insurance Company. 21 In 1957, there was incorporated the Employers 22 Surplus Lines Insurance Company, all part of the 23 Employers group. The Northern Assurance Company of 24 America. 25 And then, as I said, in 1968 or 1969, there ! 21 1 was a merger with the Commercial union group of 2 companies. I have much less information as co the 3 origins of Commercial Union in the United States than I 4 do with the Employers group. Suffice it to say that as 5 of 1968 or '69, during tne merger, Commercial Union was 6 the end result of that merger along with all the 7 subsidiary companies and that remains today. ___ 8 Q At the time that the merger occurred between 9 Commercial Union and a number of these companies that 10 you had just mentioned from the Employers group, did 11 Commercial Union assume the assets and the liabilities 12 of those insurance companies? 13 A It did, sir. 14 Q And Commercial Union, their origination, was 15 it in England? 16 A There is a Commercial Union in England which 17 is the parent company. There was a United States branch 18 of Commercial Union which was the branch that ultimately 19 became domesticated as a United States based operation 20 and ultimately merged with the Employers group in the 21 late Sixties. 22 Q In regard to Commercial Union'sorigination 23 in England, was that sometime in the 1800s? 24 A I couldn't tell you the exact date, sir. 25 Q Are you familiar with an individual by the 27 I 1 J 1 & 54 1 Q Would they also have been an additional named 2 insured under the policies of C o m i n g Glass Works, 3 Corning Glass? 4 A No, sir. 5 Q ' It was simply limited to PPG? 6 A That's my recollection. 7 Q Now, has Commercial Union Insurance Company 8 ever prepared or made any calculations or come up with 9 any figures in regard to the total amount of defense 10 costs and the total amount that was actually paid to the 11 asbestos victims, say as far as up to the year around 12 1985? 13 MR. MARTINSON: Are you asking that question 14 as to all insureds, all circumstances? 15 MR. MADEKSHO: As to all insureds, including 16 the ones we had talked about a little bit earlier: 17 Armstrong World Industries, Armstrong Cork, GAP 18 Corporation, right on down the line. 19 A I can't recall seeing any document that would 20 have a summary such as that. ____ Q Now, could you tell the court and jury as to when Commercial Union either first knew or alleged that there was an industry-wide scheme on the part of Pittsburgh Corning and the other manufacturers of 25 asbestos products to deliberately conceal facts of what / the manufacturers actually knew about the risks to the users of the asbestos products in order that the manufacturers could go into courts all over the country and argue a state-of-the-art defense that the manufacturers didn't know of the risks to the users and that's why they didn't put on warning labels? Could you tell us as to when Commercial Union first knew or alleged that? ^____ MR. MARTINSON: I'm.going to object to the form of the question. It assumes facts that h e 's not testified to. A I don't recall Commercial Union ever taking that position as you stated. MR. MADEKSHO: Let me hand you and ask to be marked as plaintiffs' next in order. [EXHIBIT NO. 9 MARKED] MR. MADEKSHO: Q This is a portion -- and there again, I have got the entire hearing, transcript from this entire hearing, if you need to refer to it, Mr. Lewis -- but what has been handed to you and marked as plaintiffs' next in order is a portion of the transcript from June 24, 1982, in the Federal Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in the case styled Commercial Union Insurance Company v. Pittsburgh Corning, PPG Industries, 5 1 Corning Glass Works and Travelers Indemnity Company, 2 et cetera. 3 Now, there again,, if you would look to the 4 counsel page in regard to who's representing whom at 5 this hearing and in this litigation. Do you see the 6 name James Lewis Griffith? 7 A I do. 8 Q That's the same Mr. Griffith that we had 9 talked about a little bit earlier? 10 A Yes, sir. 11 Q Do you know Mr. Griffith personally? 12 A I do. 13 Q Have you dealt with him on a regular basis 14 over a period of years? 15 A I did. 16 Q Did he represent Commercial Union? Did he 17 have the authority to represent Commercial Union in this 18 litigation? 19 A He did, sir. 20 Q Now, if you would, tutu to Mr. Griffith's, 21 Commercial Union's statements, the representative of 22 Commercial Union. See on Page 187? 23 A Yes, sir. 24 Q Do you see where Mr. Griffith was telling the 25 court, the Federal Court in Philadelphia, that: For 57 1 years, Johns-Manville, PC and ail these manufacturers 2 have been going into courts all over the country 3 standing before the court and arguing a state-of-the-art 4 defense based upon the fact that they did not know that 5 this product was a risk to the individual in the 6 capacity of a third-party user and that's why they 7 didn't put labels on their bags and they didn't put 8 other kinds of warnings? Do you see those statements? 9 A I see statements similar to that. I'm 10 reading them exactly as they appear on the record right 11 now, sir. 12 Q What I just recited, was that accurate? 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q Do you also see that Mr. Griffith, on behalf 15 of Commercial Union, is alleging tnat there was in fact 16 on the part of many of these manufacturers a deliberate 17 attempt to conceal the fact that they knew that those 18 third-party users were at risk? Do you see those 19 statements? 20 A I see them, sir. 21 Q And if you would turn over to the two pages 22 over from where you are. 23 HR. MARTINSON; What page is that? 24 MR. MADEKSHO: 25 Q It would be the lase page, where Commercial I 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 lii 25 Union's representative, Mr. Griffith, was telling the court also that there was an industry-wide scheme not to tell the people about what they knew of a risk, not just to their employees, which is what they have been contending, but of what they actually knew to the people who were going to use the product? Do you see those statements? A I see them. Q And isn't it true that these statements were made by Commercial Union's representative in the Federal Court in Philadelphia on June 24, 1982? A That appears to be the case. I do not know what context they were made in from this copy. Q Do you have any doubt in your mind that Commercial Union's representative, Mr. Griffith, Commercial Union's lawyer, made those statements to that Federal Court in 1982? A Sir, I have no doubt that that's what the attorney said, according to this exhibit; but again, I don't know in what context that was said. Q There is no question as to what those words are, though, is there? a n o , sir. They are very apparent on the record. Q -- - (,0,13 Do you know that as of 1991 that of course 6 0 1 Commercial Union's representative's statements. 2 MR. MARTINSON: Mr. Madeksho, what do you 3 want the witness to do? 4 MR. MADEKSHO; Basically we need to 5 straighten up the situation concerning as to whether or 6 not I have taken something out of context concerning 7 Commercial Union's representative's statements to the 8 Federal Court in Philadelphia in 1982. 9 MR. MARTINSON: It will not suffice for Mr. 10 Lewis to acknowledge that the statements that you read 11 from the Exhibit No. 9 were correctly -read?- . - -- 12 MR. MADEKSHO: ______ 13 Q Well, let's go back to Exhibit No. 9- right 14 quick, Mr. Lewis. 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q Let's get No. 9 before you. There again, I 17 think we had a little bit earlier agreed that Mr. 18 Griffith, the representative of Commercial Union, the 19 lawyer for Commercial Union, had represented to the 20 court that the manufacturers had been going into the 21 courts all over the country standing before the court 22 and arguing a state-of-the-art defense based upon the 23 fact they did not know that this product was a risk to 24 an individual in the capacity of a third-party user and 25 that's why they didn't put labels on their bags and G 61 1 that's why they didn't- put other kinds of warnings. And 2 then he also told the Federal Court that there was in 3 fact on the part of many of the manufacturers a 4 deliberate attempt to conceal the fact that they knew 5 that those third-party users were at risk. Now, aren't 6 those the exact words of Commercial Union's 7 representatives? 8 A Yes, sir. During the argument in this 9 matter, I agree with you, that those are the exact 10 words. 11 Q And there again, in regard to the last page 12 of that exhibit, Mr. Griffith told the Federal Court 13 again that the industry-wide scheme not to tell the 14 people about what they knew of the risk, not just to 15 their employees, which.is what they have been 16 contending, but of what they actually knew to the people 17 who were going to use the products. Isn't that exactly 18 what he said to the Federal Court? 19 A It is, sir. 20 Q In 1982? 21 A Yes, sir. 7o, X 0- 22 Q Thank you. 23 Now, is it also your understanding that: 24 Commercial Union was a party to the other action that 25 was filed in the Federal Court in Philadelphia in the 7 0 1 A Yes, sir, I do. 2 Q And is today the rirsi nine that you have had 3 an opportunity to review this coii=.ented-tc protective 4 order concerning the excnange or confidential 5 information? 6 A Yes,sir, it is . 7 Q Now, of course, you are also familiar with 8 the attempts by Commercial Union and Pittsburgh Corning 9 to get an injunction in that same Federal Court in 10 Philadelphia tc prevent the production of the 1937 11 Commercial Union engineering manual to the plaintiffs, 12 are you not? 13 A Yes, sir. i 14 Q As a matter of fact, I believe that you had i 15 executed an affidavit for that purpose. Is that 16 correct? 17 A Yes, sir. 18 MR. MADEKSHO: Let me ask that this be marked t 19 as plaintiffs' next in order. 20 [EXHIBIT NO. 15 MARKEDJ 21 MR. MADEKSHO: 22 Q Mr. Lewis, I would ask you to look at Exhibit | 23 15 to your testimony and see if you recognize that 24 affidavit that you signed on February 28, 1991. Do you 25 recognize that? L- 1 A Yes, I do, sir. 2 Q Now, in regard to the purpose tor executing 3 this affidavit was to get the Federal Court there in 4 Philadelphia to issue an injunction prohibiting the 5 production of Commercial Union's 1937 engineering 6 manual. Is that correct? A Yes, sir. 7-4$ Z 2- 8 Q And, of course, the reason that Commercial 9 Union did not want that 1937 engineering manual produced 10 is because it felt like it could be damaging evidence in 11 cases against Commercial Union's insureds in the 12 asbestos litigation. Correct? 13 A No, sir. 14 Q Let's take a look at your affidavit. Let's 15 look at Item No. 3. Item No. 3 that you filed in that 16 affidavit is -- and see if this is a correct recitation 17 of your affidavit that you executed: The discovery 18 sought -- now, the discovery sought, of course, we know 19 that's the 1937 engineering manual. Correct? 20 A I can't recall if that was the only thing 21 that was sought through Pittsburgh Corning. I'm not -- 22 I can't recall that. 23 MR. MADEKSHO: Okay. Let's do this then. 24 Let's back up just a hair then. Let me ask that this be 25 marked as plaintiffs' next in order.- 7 4 1 Commercial Union had in 1937 concerning the hazards of 2 exposure to asbestos. Correct? 3 A That was not my reason for approving counsel 4 to seek the injunction in this case. 5 Q Is there any doubt in your mind that you had 6 authorized the efforts to seek the permanent injunction 7 in the Federal Court there in Philadelphia to prevent 8 the plaintiffs from getting their hands on the 1937 9 engineering manual? 10 A To the extent that that was the subject of a 11 protective order entered by a Federal Court judge, I 12 believe in 1981 or 1982, to which I was not a party and 13 privy, based upon the fact that that protective order 14 had been entered by the parties at the time, I was 15 reluctant to do anything that would be in violation of 16 that protective order. 17 Q In other words, you knew that the Commercial 18 Union 1937 engineering manual had been placed under seal 19 and made part of a protective order in that case in the 20 Federal Court in Philadelphia. Correct? 21 A Yes, sir, I was aware of that fact. 22 Q And then when you found out or Commercial 23 Union found out that the plaintiffs wanted to get the 24 information contained in that 1937 engineering manual, 25 Commercial Union, along with Pittsburgh Corning, went to J 75 1 the Federal Court to see about getting an injunction to 2 keep the plaintiffs from getting it. Correct? 3 A That's my understanding. 4 Q Now, of course, the 1937 engineering manual, 5 that clearly demonstrated that an asbestos hazard was to 6 be looked for wherever asbestos dust is created. 7 Correct? 8 A I recall reading words similar to that in the 9 manual, but I can't -- I'm not sure if you are quoting 10 it correctly. If you have a copy, I'll be more than 11 happy to verify that that's what it did say, sir. 12 Q Yes, sir. Let's take a look at the answers 13 to interrogatories that you filed in this case. And if 14 you would, Mr. Lewis, turn to Interrogatory No. 14. 15 And, of course, you have a sworn affidavit attached to 16 these answers to the interrogatories on behalf of 17 Commercial Onion Insurance Company as the vice president 18 of specialty litigation. Correct? 19 A Yes, sir. 20 Q In regard to Interrogatory No. 14, the 21 question is: Is it true that this defendant, being 22 Commercial Union Insurance Company, knew by no later 23 than 1937 that a potential asbestosis hazard was to be 24 looked for wherever asbestos dust was created? 25 Correct? And tell us what your answer was. 76 1 A My answer was yes, sit. 2 Q Now, of course, that iy37 engineering manual 3 told us a little bit more, than just simply that 4 asbestos -- that an asbestos hazard could be looked for 5 wherever asbestos dust was created, didn't it? 6 A Yes, sir. 7 Q As a matter of fact, it told usthat anytime 8 that there was a visible concentration of dust, it was a 9 hazardous situation and that if you couldn't see the 10 dust that you needed to take dust counts. Correct? 11 A I can't recall that specifically being 12 stated. 13 MR. MADEKSHO: Let me hand you a copy of that 14 1937 engineering manual, those portions of it. And I've 15 got the entire manual here for you, Mr. Lewis, if you 16 need it. And ask that this be marked as plaintiffs' 17 next in order. 18 [EXHIBIT NO. 17 MARKED] 19 MR. MADEKSHO: 20 Q Mr. Lewis, do you recognize that as the 1937 21 engineering manual that we've been discussing? 22 A I recognize this as a portion of it, sir, 23 yes. 24 Q Yes, sir. And like I said, I've got the 25 entire thing here, if you need it. But the portions 7 7 1 that we're concerned about relate to the occupational 2 disease hazards in 1937 and under the heading of 3 Asbestosis. Do you see that? 4 A I do, sir. 5 Q And, of course, we've already discussed a 6 little bit earlier about the potential asbestosis hazard 7 is to be looked for wherever asbestos dust is created. 8 And, of course, under that same section it mentions 9 various industries, including brake lining and gaskets 10 and insulation. Correct? 11 A Yes, sir. 12 Q And also, inregard to the portion -- if you 13 would turn over to the next to the last page where it 14 talks about dust control. Are you under that section? 15 A I am, sir. 16 Q And at thebottomof theleft-hand column 17 there, as a matter of fact, where it starts at, "A dust 18 cloud may be. composed," do you see the start of that 19 sentence? 20 A Yes, sir. 21 Q Where it states that, "A dust cloud may be 22 composed of billions of particles of varying sizes and 23 shapes." Correct? 24 A Yes, sir. 25 Q And then at the bottom of that page on the right-hand side, do you see chat statement by Commercial Union in 1937 that, "When dust in the area is visible, we know a hazard exists, when not visible, dust counts should be employed." Correct? A Yes, sir. Q And this was known in 1937 by Commercial Union. Correct? A This was the manual that the loss prevention engineering department utilized in workers' compensation type loss reports. Q And that information was known in 1937. Correct? A Yes, it was. MR. MADEKSHO: Did you want to take a quick 7 break, or do you want to keep marching on? MR. MARTINSON: We're going to break at lunch in the next 30 minutes. We inignt. as well go on, unless you wanted to take a break. THE WITNESS: No, I'm tine. MR. MADEKSHO: Q In regard to discussing some of the -- pardon me. Strike that. Now, another portion of these interrogatories related to the meetings of the American Insurance Association back in 1976. Is tha correct? 7 9 1 A I believe so. 2 MR. MADEKSHO: Do you remember that? 3 Let me hand you and ask that this be marked 4 as next in order and ask you to take a look at that. 5 [EXHIBIT NO. 18 MARKED] 6 MR. MADEKSHO: 7 Q Mr. Lewis, you recall in the answers to 8 interrogatories that there were some questions asked of 9 Commercial Union relating to these minutes from these 10 minutes of the American Insurance Association back in 11 1976? Do you .remember those interrogatories? 12 A I recall them, sir. 13 Q And if you would turn over to the second page 14 of that exhibit and you will see that that's entitled 15 that Minutes of the Enterprise Liability.Discussion 16 Group, November 10, 1976, American Insurance Association 17 in New York City. Right? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q And present at this meetingthere were 20 representatives from the Commercial Union Insurance 21 Companies. Correct? 22 A That's correct. 23 Q And they had two representatives there? 24 A I believe so. 25 Q And also present were other insurance 8 o ,14- 80 1 companies, the Aetna and the Travelers Insurance 2 companies? 3 MR. GEORGE: I'll object to the form of 4 the question to the extent this witness has personal 5 knowledge of who was present and who wasn't present. I 6 don't believe the witness has testified that he knows 7 who was there and who wasn't there. 8 MR. MADEKSHO: 9 Q Does the document reflect, Mr. Lewis, that 10 Travelers Insurance Company haa a representative at that 11 meeting of the American Insurance Association in 12 November of 1976? 13 A The document indicates that, sir. 14 Q And if you recall in regard to the 15 interrogatories, we were wanting to find out what 16 Commercial Union's position was concerning the 17 information in these minutes? Do you remember that? 18 A I recall the question in the interrogatories 19 about this. 20 Q As a matter of fact, we had asked Commercial 21 Union if they had agreed or not concerning the 22 information about when the dangers of asbestos were 23 known. Do you recall that? 24 A Yes, sir. 25 Q And if you would, turn over to Page 3 of this particular document, where Commercial Union had two representatives at this 1976 meeting, and you see under the section Asbestosis Medicai Program? A I do, sir. Q And do you see there thatwhere it'sstated that, "In 1900 medical research linked the mineral asbestos with asbestosis and 1935 brought the first direct linkage of asbestos to cancer"? A I see where it says that. Q And do you have any reason todispute this information from the American Insurance Association, of which Commercial Union was a member? A I have no reason one way or another. Q Now, also, we hadasked Commercial Union about some of the asbestoslawsuits that were filed by -- filed against manufacturers of asbestos products in the 1920s. Do you remember that interrogatory? A Yes, sir, I do. Q And, of course, Johns-Manville was one of the insureds of Commercial Union. Correct? A It was. Q And have you since had the opportunity to go back and see some of the lawsuits that were filed against Johns-Manville in the 1920s and concerning asbestos diseases? 82 1 A We were unable to locate any that go back to 2 the 1920s. I believe in responses to the discovery we 3 did provide information on a 1949, I believe, workers' 4 comp claim. 5 Q Were you aware that there were asbestos 6 disease claims alleging malignancies in the 1920s 7 against manufacturers of asbestos products? 8 A No, I wasn't. 9 MR. MADEKSHO: Let me ask that -- and see if 10 we can speed this up just a little bit. I'm going to 11 ask that these two be marked consecutively as * 12 plaintiffs' next in order, these two exhibits. 13 [EXHIBIT NO. 19 MARKED) 14 [EXHIBIT NO. 20 MARKED] 15 MR. MADEKSHO: 16 Q I believe the first exhibit that you have 17 before you is a lawsuit styled Robert Marshall, 18 Administrator of the Helen Marshall -- of Helen Marshall 19 deceased? 20 A Yes, sir. 21 Q Filed in theNew Jersey Supreme Courtagainst 22 Johns-Manville? 23 A Yes, sir. 24 Q Do you seethat where it's alleged that Helen 25 Marshall was the employee of the defendant corporation, s' 83 1 under Allegation No. 1, and that under Allegation No. 2 2 that the defendant corporation was engaged in the 3 manufacture of asbestos products? 4 A Yes, sir. 5 Q And also, in regard to -- in Allegation No. 6 3, that the defendant employed the intestate, being the 7 deceased Ms. Marshall, in its manufacture of asbestos 8 products and that the said defendant not only knew but 9 should have known that the said asbestos products 10 contained certain dangerous, insidious and harmful 11 agencies composed of asbestos fibers and other particles 12 that were destructive to life and health in the human 13 body? 14 A I see that in Paragraph 3. 15 Q Is this the first time that you have become 16 aware "f this particular lawsuit that was filed against 17 Johns-Manville in 1929? 18 A Yes, sir, it is. 19 Q Take a look at the next exhibit, if you 20 would, please. This is a 1929 lawsuit, is it not? 21 A Yes, sir, it's dated 1929. 22 Q And this is a lawsuit that's filed in the 23 United States District Court for the District of New 24 Jersey, styled Anna Pirskowski, P-i-r-s-k-o-w-s-k-i, v. 25 Johns-Manville? 84 1 A Yes, sir. 2 Q And in regard to this lawsuit in the 19 -- in 3 1929, do you see that the allegation is made against 4 Johns-Manville that Anna Pirskowski, that she was in the 5 employ of the defendant, under No. 2? 6 A Yes, sir. 7 Q And that defendant was engaged in the 8 manufacture of asbestos, and particles of asbestos and 9 other dangerous articles used in its business of 10 manufacture were inhaled by her, that she became 11 diseased, sick and poisoned, that her body became 12 infected and weakened so as to cause her to suffer 13 permanently with a malignant disease? 14 A That's what it says. 15 Q Is this the first time that it'scome to your 16 attention that asbestos lawsuits were filed against 17 manufacturers for malignant diseases in the 1920s? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q Now, in regard -- let me back up for just I O X jit. 20 one second, if I could, please, Mr. Lewis. There was 21 another insured that we perhaps didn't touch on that was 22 on that list, that Mr. Michael Sommecville1s Commercial 23 Union claims handling manual concerning asbestos-related 24 diseases. Do you remember that list we had looked at? 25 A Yes, I do. 102 1 Q Are you familiar with this gentleman? 2 A I have heard the name years ago. 3 Q And if you -- would you notice in the top 4 paragraph where there is a mention of the Borel case? 5 A Yes, sir, in the second sentence. 6 Q Where there is a mention of the Borel case 7 where the manufacturers in the asbestos products are 8 liable inasmuch as they put a dangerous product on the 9 market without adequate warning? Is that correct? 10 A That's what this statement does say. 11 Q And you have -had an opportunity to read the 12 Borel decision or memos concerning the Borel decision 13 yourself? 14 A Over the years. I'm not currently familiar 15 with exactly what the holdings were on it. 16 Q Now, you have also seen documents in the 17 files of Commercial Union relating to the state-of-the- 18 art defense, have you not, sir? 19 A I have seen mention in documents of the 20 state-of-the-art defense. 21 Q And, of course, the state-of-the-art defense 22 is that the manufacturers, they just didn't know and it 23 couldn't have been known about the .dangers of the 24 asbestos products that they put on the market, and so 25 therefore they had no duty to warn the users and the 103 1 consumers of those products. Is chat in essence what 2 the state-of-the-art defense is? 3 A I guess that could be one interpretation of 4 it. ______ -- / K L, 5 Q In your involvement with the Pittsburgh 6 Corning account, were you aware of Pittsburgh Coming's 7 defense, that they alleged that the state of the medical 8 and scientific knowledge prior to the late 1960s, as it 9 related to the exposure of the asbestos insulation 10 worker to asbestos dust, was such that the medical and 11 scientific community were of the opinion that the *- 12 exposures to which the asbestos insulation workers was 13 subjected was safe and that the asbestos insulation 14 occupation was a reasonably safe occupation and as a 15 result the manufacturers of asbestos insulation products 16 were charged with no greater knowledge than that of the 17 medical and scientific community and such manufacturers 18 had no reason to reasonably foresee injury to insulators 19 or other workers from application of their insulation 20 products which contained asbestos and therefore had no 21 duty to warn regarding their products prior to such 22 time? Are you familiar generally with that type of 23 defense statements by Pittsburgh Corning? 24 A No, I'm not, sir. 25 Q Are you aware that they are alleging that defense in this case? MR. MART"`ISON: Searls? MR. MADEKSHO: Q In the Searls case? A Not particularly. Q Are you also aware of Pittsburgh C o m i n g ' s statements in regard to the allegations against Commercial Union back.in June of 1982, where they were telling -- where Pittsburgh Corning was telling the Federal Court that it couldn't have been more clear by the year 1937 that an asbestos hazard was to be looked for wherever asbestos dust was created? A My recollection is that those were some of the allegations by Pittsburgh Corning. Q Do you have any understanding, in the position of a supervisor or a supervisory position with Commercial Union Insurance Company and your experience in the asbestos litigation, as to why they would allege in this case that these dangers were not known until the late 1960s or early 1970s, and they were telling the Federal Court in Philadelphia in 1982 that it couldn't have been more clear in 1937? MR. WALZEL: Object to the question. I believe his previous testimony was he was not "involved in the defense of Pittsburgh Corning. 109 1 MR. MADEKSHO: "T Q Mr. Lewis, if you would, turn over -- you 3 are already turning over to the first and second pages, 4 et cetera. There again, this is a portion of the 5 transcript from the hearing of June 24, 1982, in the 6 case styled Commercial Union Insurance Company v. 7 Pittsburgh Corning in the Federal Court in Philadelphia. 8 Correct? 9 A Yes, sir. 10 Q And in regard to the appearances, as far as 11 the lawyers representing the various parties, of course 12 we have earlier discussed that James Lewis Griffith was 13 representing Commercial Union. Right? 14 A Yes, sir. 15 Q And do you also see that in regard to the 16 representation of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation, there 17 was a lawyer representing them by the name of Mr. John 18 McN.Cramer? 19 A Yes, sir, I see that. 20 Q And if you would, turn to the -- you are 21 already looking at it. 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q Do you see the underscored portions of that 24 transcript in regard to the representations that were 25 made by the Pittsburgh Corning lawyer to the Federal 110 1 Court there in June of 1982? 2 A I note what's on Page 173 here, yes, sir. 3 Q And in regard to what is in the transcript, 4 that is all put on that first page of that exhibit? 5 A Well, I think you have taken some statements 6 partially out and put them on this summary exhibit on 7 the top. 8 Q The statements by the lawyers for Pittsburgh 9 Corning from that June 1982 hearing? 10 A Yes, I presume so, sir. 11 Q Now, for the benefit of the court and jury, 12 is it a correct recitation that the statements made by 13 the lawyer for Pittsburgh Corning in June of 1982 was 14 that: "First, Commerical Union had knowledge that 15 exposure to asbestos could produce asbestos-related 15 disease." 17 "Commercial Union's own 1937 engineering 18 manual states, quote, 'Asbestosis is a disease caused 19 by the inhalation of asbestos fibers,' close quote. 20 "Commercial Union's own 1937 engineering 21 manual states, quote, 'A potential asbestos hazard is to 22 be looked for wherever asbestos dust is created,' close 23 quote, and finally that same manual states, 'Industries 24 which have this exposure to asbestos dust include 25 insulation,' close quote." r And then the lawyer states to the court, does he not, that: "Now, it's all there, all you need to know"..."and it could not be more clear that Commercial Union knew that an asbestos hazard was to be looked for wherever asbestos dust was created, and that insulation was an industry in which the exposure existed." Is that correct? Is that in that 1982 hearing before the Federal Court? A These are apparently representations of counsel. They do appear in the transcript. Q Now, based upon Commercial Union's experience in the asbestos litigation, do you have any idea as to why Pittsburgh Corning states, in cases filed against Pittsburgh Corning by asbestos victims, that these dangers could not be known until the late 1960s, and why Pittsburgh Coming ' s representatives were telling the Federal Court in Philadelphia in 1982 that these hazards were known by 1937? A You would have to ask the attorneys for Pittsburgh Corning, sir. I don't know why they made the statements as they did. Q You are familiar with Pittsburgh C o m i n g ' s -- I mean -- pardon me. Strike that. You are familiar with Commercial Union's own Asbestos Related Disease Claim Handling Procedures 112 1 manual by Mr. Sommerville? 2 A I am familiar with the fact that Mr. 3 Sommerville issued such a document. 4 MR. MADEKSHO: Let me ask that this be marked 5 as next in order. 6 [EXHIBIT NO. 27 MARKED 1 7 MR. MADEKSHO: 8 Q Does this appear to be the same claim 9 handling procedures manual that you have reviewed 10 previously? 11 A Yes, sir. 12 Q And it appears that on the bottom right-hand 13 column, or the right-hand corner, that there's a 14 Pittsburgh Corning exhibit sticker of August 13, 1981? 15 A I have no idea that that's Pittsburgh Corning 16 or otherwise. 17 Q Let's turn over to the first page of 18 Commercial Union's asbestos claims handling manual, in 19 regard to the introduction. Do you recall reading the 20 introduction before, Mr. Lewis? 21 A Quite a while ago, yes, sir. 22 Q With your experience in the environmental 23 claims section which included -- which includes 24 asbestos, have you formed the opinion that scientific 25 studies have demonstrated that asbestos creates an 113 1 especially high risk of lung cancer and other serious 2 lung disease for workers who have been heavily exposed 3 to this toxic substance, as Commercial Union's manual 4 states? 5 A I am not a medical person, sir. I have never 6 formed that opinion. I don't have the ability to form 7 that opinion. 8 Q Now, this was prepared by a representative of 9 Commercial Union, though. Correct? 10 A Apparently so. 11 Q Mr. Sommerville? 12 A Yes, sir. 13 Q Could you turn to the next page, please, and 14 under the section "A Hazard to Human Health"? 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q Do you recall Mr. Sommervillediscussing with 17 you the fact that Commercial Union's own manual stated 18 that asbestos is a hazard to man's health and this was 19 recognized quite early? 20 A I don't believe he ever discussed that with 21 me. 22 Q Have you reviewed otherdocuments in the 23 files that have been prepared by Commercial Union 24 stating that the cancer producing potential of asbestos 25 was not established until 1949? / A I haven't read that anywhere else. Q Do you recall the ctner documents that we had reviewed earlier today that the first direct link to asbestos and cancer was 1935? A There were documents that had statements in it of that nature. Q And for how many decades had Commercial Union Insurance Company been in effect prior to 1935? A I believe you indicated at least three decades before that, sir. Q Have you had.the opportunity to become familiar with allegations made by Commercial Union in regard to Pittsburgh Corning other than what we discussed earlier today about Mr. Griffith's allegation about the scheme and the concealing of the facts -- A No, sir, I have nat. Q -- by the manufacturers? A I'm sorry. No, sir, I have not. Q Has Commercial Union ever taken the position that the asbestos products manufacturers have deliberately concealed facts and evidence from Commercial Union? A Yes, sir, I believe there have been positions like that asserted in the past. Q And could you tell us as to whom, which 115 -- - -- 1 - 2 3 - -- 4 -- 5 6 7 - 8 9 -- T-- 10 - -- 11 1 12 - r4 _ ~~ -- -- -- -- -- m. 13 14 15 L--- 16 17 18 _ 19 i ___ 20 21 22 -- 23 24 25 manufacturers that Commercial Union has alleged that those particular asbestos products manufacturers concealed, deliberately concealed facts and evidence from Commercial Union? A Facts in evidence? I'm sorry. Q Facts and evidence. A Oh, facts and evidence? My understanding was that those were some allegations that were made in Pittsburgh Corning, and I believe they were also made in litigation involving Eagle Picher. Q So the only ones that you are familiar with ~ is in regard to those allegations being made by Commercial Union against Pittsburgh Corning and Eagle Picher? A That's my recollection. Q And when the answers to interrogatories were l i e I Z filed initially by Commercial Union, there was no mention, I don't believe, about the coverage that was in effect for Armstrong World Industries, Armstrong Cork, and we discussed that a little bit earlier today . concerning the California litigation? A Yes, sir. I don't believe that -- if they weren't one of the individuals mentioned in your complaint, that's what you referred to. Q Right. Armstrong is a party to this 116 litigation. A Okay. Then the reason Armstrong World Industries is not mentioned, I believe, is because no payments have been made to or on behalf of Armstrong. Q Okay. Now, of course, we have determined that Commercial Union had coverage for Armstrong -- do you recall exactly how many years back that the coverage by Commercial Union goes for Armstrong Cork, now known as Armstrong World Industries? A I believe it was a three-year period in the mid Sixties. It was an excess cover. Q Are you familiar with the allegations by Commercial Union that Armstrong produced highly dangerous asbestos-containing products as early as the 1940s, which gave rise to injury and death among its employees and third-party users? A That may have been an allegation or an answer in response to the original complaint in Armstrong. I don't believe it went much further than a defense that was asserted. Q Let me ask you if you're familiar with this allegation by Commercial Union against Armstrong Cork, now known as Armstrong World Industries: Armstrong was acutely aware of the deadly propensities of asbestos as early as 1952 and increasingly thereafter but took 117 1 absolutely no substantive steps to protect its own 2 workers or third parties or to in any way curtail its 3 own use of asbestos products. Are you familiar with 4 those allegations by Commercial Union? 5 A No, I'm not, sir. 6 MR. MADEKSHO: Let me ask you to take a look 7 at this particular document and have that marked as next 8 in order. 9 [EXHIBIT NO. 28 MARKED] 10 MR. MADEKSHO: 11 Q Mr. Lewis, what you presently have before you ^ 12 is Commercial Union Insurance Company's post trial brief 13 that was filed in the Superior Court of the State of 14 California during the trial of the California insurance 15 litigation? 16 A Yes, sir. 17 MR. MARTINSON: Mr. Madeksho, if I might 18 intercede just for a moment, certainly you are welcome 19 to question the witness on this area, but the specifics 20 about allegations against or in favor of specific 21 companies did not include Armstrong, so for that reason 22 we were not prepared. 23 MR. MADEKSHO: That's fine. He can take his 24 time. But Armstrong wasn't answered on the 25 interrogatories and I've since determined that there was 1 1 coverage by Commercial Union and that's the reason. 2 MR. MARTINSON: I have no quarrel with it. I 3 have no quarrel with you asking. I want you to be aware 4 that we weren't prepared to answer that because, again, 5 it's not a specific item on your topic of inquiry. 6 MR. MADEKSHO: All right. It would have 7 been if they had been answered in the interrogatories. 8 MR.- MARTINSON: Right. 9 MR. MADEKSHO: 10 Q Let me ask you to turn to Page 19 of 11 Commercial Union's allegations against Armstrong and the 12 trial court there in California. Do you see the section 13 there where Commercial Union states that, "Armstrong 14 intended to cause injury when they purposefully employed 15 men to work with products they knew would result in 16 asbestos-related disease and death"? 17 A Yes, sir, I do. 18 Q And do you also see further, starting 19 approximately Line 18 -- the lines are numbered on the 20 left-hand side -- where it states that, "From the early 21 1940s through the early 1970s, Armstrong continued a 22 course of conduct which was unrelenting in its quest for 23 profit over the health concerns of its employees or 24 third parties"? 25 A The trial brief does so state. ' fm in 119 1 Q Do you have any reason co dispute Commercial 2 Union's allegations that were filed in the trial court 3 in California? 4 A Sir, I cannot recall wnat the testimony was 5 that gave rise to this statement in the trial brief. 6 Q What I 'm asking you about are the allegations 7 that you have before you right now. 8 MR. MARTINSON: What is the question again? 9 MR. MADEKSHO: If you will just read back the 10 exact question for Mr. Lewis. 11 COURT REPORTER: "Do you have any reason to 12 dispute Commercial Union's allegations that were filed 13 in the trial court in California?" 14 A The document does indicate that these 15 statements were made. 16 MR. MADEKSHO: ^ ---- ---- -- -- 17 Q And let's turn over to Page 21, in regard to 18 the allegations made by Commercial Union, starting on 19 Line 6. Do you see there where it states that -- 20 Commercial Union states that: Wegman admits that 21 documents refreshed his recollection that he was aware, 22 in the early 1950s, that Armstrong products could 23 contribute to asbestos-related diseases? 24 A Yes, sir, it is so stated. 25 Q Do you have any reason to dispute Commercial o 120 1 Union's allegations concerning that particular bit of information? 3 A No, sir, I don 't . 4 Q Do you see the next sentence there concerning 5 Commercial Union's allegation that, "George W. Nichol, 6 who was a plant chemist for Armstrong during the mid 7 1950s likewise admits that he understood sometime 8 between 1956 and 1957 that asbestos was a toxic 9 material"? 10 And would you have any reason to disagree 11 with Commercial Union's allegations concerning that *. 12 information? 13 A No, sir. ____________ H h ? 14 Q Have you become aware, during the course of 15 your duties with Commercial Union, that one of 16 Commercial Union's insureds, Johns-Manville, had claims 17 by the users of asbestos products that were filed 18 against them by no later than 1935? 19 A No, I was not personally aware of that. 20 Q And you have been following this case fairly ! 21 closely? 22 A The Johns-Manville case, sir? 23 Q No, this case here. 24 A No, I haven't. I have not been following the- I 25 underlying matter at all. 122 1 then didn't? 2 A And then did not? 3 Q And then did not. 4 A No,I don't recall that. 5 Q Now, of course, another one of Commercial 6 Union's insureds has been Union Carbide. Correct? 7 A Yes, sir. 8 Q And during the course of your activities and 9 involvement with the asbestos litigation on behalf of 10 Commercial Union, have you become aware of when Union 11 Carbide states that the dangers of asbestos were known? 12 A No, sir. 13 MR. MADEKSHO: Let me have this marked as 14 plaintiffs' next in order. 15 [EXHIBIT NO. 29 MARKED] 16 MR. MADEKSHO: 17 Q Mr. Lewis, I've got the entire document, if 18 you need to refer to it. But the section I want to ask 19 you about is in regard to this document that was 20 prepared by Mr. I. C. Sayers entitled "Asbestos as a 21 Health Hazard in the United Kingdom." And have you 22 turned over to that chart there? 23 A I have. 24 Q Do you see the perspectives and the 25 associated diseases relating to the asbestos industry? A Yes, sir. Q And do you see that date 1900 when asbestosis was known? A I do, sir. Q And that's the same date that we saw a little bit earlier in regard to the American Insurance Association documents, 1900. Correct? A There was a reference made to the year 1900. Q And do you also see, in regard to the association of asbestosis and lung cancer, approximately 1935? A Yes, sir, I see it on here. Q And is that the same date of 1935 that we saw in the American Insurance Association documents that we looked at earlier? A My recollection is it is the same date. Q And do you also see in regard to the associated diseases relating to asbestos concerning insulation workers? A Yes, sir. Q And do you see when it was known in regard to insulation workers, looks like around 1930, '31? A That's what the qraph indicates. Q And you are aware that Union Carbide mined iH Y\ asbestos, was a miner of asbestos, are you not?