Document RJp558qw5eaB1kgMLXMwmRNp8
No. 86-2385-0
JAMES DECKER AND NETA DECKER
Plaintiffs
Versus
ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES INC., ET AL,
Defendants
) IN THE DISTRICT COURT
)
>
) )
) OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
) ) ) )
) 95TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
RESPONSES OF DEFENDANT PROKO INDUSTRIES. INC. TO PLAINTIFFS * SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
TO: LISA A. BLUE, ESQUIRE, ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS:
The defendant Profco Industries, Inc. hereby responds to
plaintiffs' second set of interrogatories dated March 26, 1986.
This defendant reserves the right to amend or supplement its
responses if it finds that inadvertent omissions or errors have
been made or if additional or more accurate information becomes
available that is required to be provided.
1. Please give the style, case number, and jurisdiction of
every suit filed against Defendant based on injuries caused by
exposure to asbestos-containing products.
1. RESPONSE:
Lerov S.__Baxter & Joan Baxter v. National Gypsum Company,_et al., Civil Action No. 83-792, United States District Court of Maryland.
Raymond Knox Whalen and Billie__ Sandra__ Whalen__ v,___Georgia Pacific Corporation, et al..*. Civil Action No. 1-84-62, United Stated District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Southern Division.
Elov Marin v. U.S. Gypsum Company^ et al.. Civil Action No. 84-149BB, United States District Court of New Mexico.
Roy Wacener v. The Celotez_Corporation. et al.. Civil Action Mo. 14-C8-84-883, District Court o Clay County, Minnesota.
Llovd M. and June Robinson v. W. R. Grace & Co., et al.. Civil Action Mo. C2-84-2121, United States District Court/ Southern District o Ohio/ Eastern Division.
James and. Nancy. Sparks v,_W. R. Grace & Co., et al.. Civil Action No. C2-84-2187, United States District Court, Southern District o Ohio, Eastern Division.
Harold R. and Norma J. Drvden v. W. R. Grace & Co., et al., Civil Action No. C84-3971A, United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.
Nancy E._ McDade. personal representative of the Estate of Rov C. McDade and surviving spouse, and Helen J, McDade v. Eagle Picher Industries. Inc., et al.. Case No. 85 CG 1182, Circuit Court, Baltimore County, Maryland.
Arthur W.__Miller and N. IiOUiSft-Miller V.__ National Gypsum
Company, et al.. Civil Action No. C85-3563A, United States District Court, Northern District, Georgia.
Barbara Lee. Administratrix of the Estate of Arthur P. Lee. Deceased, and in her own right v. Ravmark Industries, et al.. Case No. 3343(3962), Common Pleas Court, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
2. Please identify by name, current address, and dates of
service all medical advisors, health directors, industrial
hygienists, and/or any other health personnel employed by
Defendant through 1945 to the present.
2. RESPONSE: None.
3. Please state whether or not Defendant ever obtained any
information concerning the health hazard created by exposure to
asbestos. If so, please state also when defendant first became
aware of the hazardous potential to exposure to asbestos, the
manner in which defendant first obtained this information, and
the source from which this information was obtained.
-2-
3. RESPONSE: It is this defendant's belief that it first received information and first became aware of the alleged hazard of exposure to certain levels of asbestos dust at the time OSHA required warning labels be placed on all asbestos-containing products, air sampling in all manufacturing facilities which used asbestos, medical examinations of all employees exposed to asbestos and maintenance of records of such medical examinations. It is believed that notification of these requirements took place between 1970 and 1972.
4. Does defendant contend that asbestos products can be manufactured so as to eliminate all potential health hazards to workers using same?
(a) If so, please explain. 4. RESPONSE: This defendant objects to interrogatory number 4 on the ground that it requires an expert medical opinion which this defendant is unable to render. Furthermore, the interrogatory is too broad, vague and ambiguous in that it sets forth no time frame, level of exposure, or other parameters that would be necessary for even a medical expert to attempt to answer such a question. Further, there appear to be divergent medical opinions concerning the matters in this interrogatory. 5. Please list by name and date all trade periodicals, technical periodicals and medical periodicals to which defendant subscribed during its existence.
-3-
5. response: This defendant believes that it has received
the publication of the National Paint & Varnish Association
since at least 1971. The publication was initially entitled
Coatings. The name of the publication was later changed to the
Paint St-Coatinos Industry.
This defendant believes that it has received the publication
of the Gypsum Drywall Contractors International since at least 1972. The publication was initially entitled GDCI. The name of
the publication was later changed to Dimensions.
6. Please list by title, date and author all books,
manuals, pamphlets, and/or any other literature in Defendant's
possession dealing in any way with drywall, insulation, and/or
asbestos-containing products.
6. response: Such documents as this defendant has been
able to locate, after a diligent search, are available at the
offices of Nexsen Pruet Jacobs & Pollard, 1401 Main Street,
Suite 1200, Columbia, South Carolina 29201, and can be inspected
by the plaintiffs, upon reasonable notice, any day of the week
during business hours.
7. Please identify by location and product each plant in
which products listed in your answer to Interrogatory No. 5 in
Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories, has been manufactured
and/or assembled and the dates that said plants have been in
operation. 7. response:
This
defendant's
asbestos-containing
products were manufactured at the following facilities during
the periods specified:
-4-
5
Manufacturing
Product
Facility___
Triko Aristex
Dallas, Texas Kaufman, Texas Jacksonville, Florida
Waycross, Georgia Cambridge City, Indiana Watertown, Minnesota Madison, South Dakota
Triko Aristex Poly
Kaufman, Texas Waycross, Georgia Cambridge City, Indiana Madison, South Dakota
Triko Joint Compound
Dallas, Texas Cambridge City, Indiana Kaufman, Texas
Triko Top-Kote
Dallas, Texas Kaufman, Texas Cambridge City, Indiana Madison, South Dakota
Triko 3 in 1
Dallas, Texas Kaufman, Texas
Jacksonville, Florida Waycross, Georgia
Cambridge City, Indiana Watertown, Minnesota Madison, South Dakota
Triko Fill-'n-Finish Dallas, Texas Cambridge City, Indiana
Triko Code 100
Dallas, Texas Kaufman, Texas Jacksonville, Florida
Waycross, Georgia Cambridge City, Indiana Watertown, Minnesota Madison, South Dakota
Triko 3 in 1 Redi-Mix
Dallas, Texas Kaufman, Texas Jacksonville, Florida Waycross, Georgia Cambridge City, Indiana
Watertown, Minnesota Madison, South Dakota
-5-
Triko Redi-Mix Topping Triko-Plex
Triko-Plex Interior Triko Blox-Fill (Regular)
Triko Blox-Fill (Redi-Mix)
Triko-Plex Stucco Base Vinyl Triko Vin-L-Tex
Triko Exterior Aristex
Dallas, Texas Kaufman, Texas Cambridge City, Indiana Madison, South Dakota
Dallas, Texas Kaufman, Texas Jacksonville, Florida Waycross, Georgia Cambridge City, Indiana Watertown, Minnesota Madison, South Dakota
Kaufman, Texas Waycross, Georgia Cambridge City, Indiana Madison, South Dakota
Dallas, Texas Kaufman, Texas Jacksonville, Florida Waycross, Georgia Cambridge City, Indiana Watertown, Minnesota Madison, South Dakota
Dallas, Texas Kaufman, Texas Jacksonville, Florida Waycross, Georgia Cambridge City, Indiana Watertown, Minnesota Madison, South Dakota
Kaufman, Texas Waycross, Georgia Cambridge City, Indiana Madison, South Dakota
Dallas, Texas Kaufman, Texas waycross, Georgia Cambridge City, Indiana Madison, South Dakota
Dallas, Texas Kaufman, Texas Jacksonville, Florida Waycross, Georgia Cambridge City, Indiana Watertown, Minnesota Madison, South Dakota
-6-
Triko-Plex Flexit- and Flexit Filler
Dallas# Texas Kaufman# Texas Waycross# Georgia
Cambridge City# Indiana Madison# South Dakota
Triko Set-Fast
Dallas# Texas Kaufman# Texas Jacksonville# Florida Waycross# Georgia Cambridge City# Indiana Watertown# Minnesota Madison# South Dakota
Triko Redi-Mix Texture
Triko Radex Base Coat and Triko Radex Finish Coat
Kaufman# Texas Waycross# Georgia
Dallas# Texas Kaufman# Texas Jacksonville# Florida Waycross# Georgia Cambridge City# Indiana Watertown# Minnesota Madison# South Dakota
Triko Pro-Tex
Texture an Triko Super-Tex Texture
Dallas# Texas Kaufman# Texas Jacksonville# Florida Waycross# Georiga Cambridge City# Indiana Watertown# Minnesota Madison# South Dakota
Triko Vinyl Sand Finish Texture
Dallas# Texas Kaufman# Texas
Jacksonville# Florida Waycross# Georgia Cambridge City# Indiana Watertown# Minnesota
Madison# South Dakota
Triko-Bar
Kaufman# Texas Waycross# Georgia Cambridge City# Indiana Madison, South Dakota
Triko-Lurae
Kaufman# Texas
This defendant's manufacturing facilities and their dates of
operation are as follows:
-7-
Dallas* Texas Plant
KaufmanT Texas Plant Jacksonville, Florida Plant
Waycross, Georgia Plant Richmond, Indiana Plant Cambridge City, Indiana Plant
Watertown, Minnesota Plant Madison, South Dakota Plant Denham Springs, Louisiana Plant
1954-72 1971-Present 1964-69 1969-Present 1959 1959-Present
1968-72 1975-Present 1970-73
8. Prior to the date of the filing of Plaintiffs* Original
Petition in this cause, did any person file a claim against
defendant or defendant's workmen's compensation carrier alleging that he or she contracted an occupational disease as a result of
exposure to asbestos? If so, please provide the following
information:
(a) A list of each such claim by claimant's name,
jurisdiction, claim number, and date filed; and claimant's
attorney. (b) A brief summary of the disposition of each such
claim.
8. response: Yes, only one such claim has been made.
(a) The claimant's name was George L. Scott. The
claim was made in letter form by the claimant's attorney,
Bradley J. Behr of Minneapolis, Minnesota. The letter was
received by Proko from Mr. Behr in July of 1980.
(b) This defendant believes Mr. Scott's claim was
voluntarily dropped since to the best of this defendant's
knowledge, it was never pursued.
9. Please identify all trade organizations and trade
associations of which defendant has been a member by listing the
name and address of each such group, the years defendant was a
-8-
member in each such group and the names o any publications
issued or written by such association or organization.
9. RESPONSE;
This defendant is a member of the
International Association of Wall & Ceiling Contractors/Gypsum Drywall Contractors International, 1711 Connecticut Avenue N.w.,
Washington, D.C. 20009 and National Paint & Varnish Association
(formerly known as the National Paint, Varnish & Lacquer Association), 1500 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20005. This defendant has been unable to determine the year in which it became a member of these organizations. This defendant believes that it has been a member of the National Paint & Varnish Association since at least 1971 and of the Gypsum Drywall Contractors International since at least 1972.
The National Paint & Varnish Association initially published a publication entitled Coatings. The name of the publication was later changed to Paint & Coatings Industry.
The Gypsum Drywall Contractors International initially published a publication entitled GDCI. In the late 1970*s, the
name of this publication was changed to Dimensions. 10. Have defendant's asbestos products or
those
of
defendant's predecessor or defendant's subsidiaries been
marketed and/or sold at any time by companies other than
defendant, defendant's predecessor or defendant's subsidiaries.
(a) If so, please list the name and address of each
company.
-9-
10. RESPONSE;
Yes.
This defendant manufactured a
secondary line of products, some of which were sold under
private labeling agreements with the following companies.
(a) Napko Paint Company Columbia, Mississippi
Napko Color Center Bellaire, Texas
All-Pro Corporation Scotch Plains, New Jersey
Glidden-Durkee Paint Company Cleveland, Ohio
Jones-Blair Paint Company Dallas, Texas
Franklin Paint Company Scotch Plains, New Jersey
Inland Sales Scotch Plains, New Jersey
11. Does defendant have policies of insurance that cover
the claims made by plaintiff herein? If so, please provide the
following information:
(a) The name of each insurance carrier providing such
coverage;
(b) The dates of such policy;
(c) The amount of coverage provided by each such
policy. 11.
response;
This defendant objects to this Interrogatory
on the grounds that it seeks information which is neither
relevant to the subjectmatter of this action nor reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Further, the preparation of a response to this Interrogatory
-10-
would impose an undue burden upon this defendant. Finally, without waiving these objections, this defendant states that it has not been determined which insurers, if any, may be involved
with plaintiffs' claim. 12. Please state the name and present address of each and
every person known to defendant or to defendant's agents having knowledge of the relevant facts of this case.
12. RESPONSE: Discovery in this case is in the early
stages. This defendant is unable at the present time to state
the name and address of each and every person known to it or its agents who have knowledge of the relevant facts of this case.
13. Please identify each document defendant will offer in
evidence and any other documents that any expert witness may
rely on or testify about at the trial of this case to support
the defenses contained in defendant's answer.
13. stages.
response: Discovery in this case is in the early This defendant will identify the documents that it
intends to offer into evidence as discovery is developed.
14. Please identify the name and address of each expert
witness that defendant expects to call at the trial of this
case. For each expert witness identified, please state also: (a) His or her qualifications, employment experience,
and educational background; (b) The substance of his or her anticipated testimony.
-11-
14 RESPONSE; Discovery in this case is in the early stages. This defendant has not yet determined what expert witnesses it expects to call at the trial of this case. This defendant will identify the expert witnesses and their qualifications, employment experience, educational background and anticipated testimony as discovery is developed.
15. Does defendant admit that service of process was properly had on the defendant in this case.
15. RESPONSE! Yes.
May _l2., 1986
WINSTEAD, MCGUIRE, SECHREST & MINICK
1601 Elm Street, Suite 700 Thanksgiving Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 745-5158
By: Robert. H. Frost
Attorneys for Defendant Industries, Inc.
Proko
-12-
STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF DALLAS
) ) )
Robert F. Wright, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that he is the President of Proko Industries, Inc., that he is authorized to make this affidavit on its behalf, that the information necessary to prepare the within Responses of Defendant Proko Industries, Inc. to Plaintiffs' Second Set of Interrogatories has come from his personal knowledge as well as from others and from the records of Proko Industries, Inc., that he does not necessarily have personal knowledge of all of the facts stated but believes the same to be true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.
SWORN TO before me this day of 1986
Notary Public for Texas My Commission Expires; 7 \ u > /
-13-
