Document ZB5wR6Kwxv4o6KkbD676qXOzd

UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION 39oldridgeburyroad.danbury,cCtTo06b881177--0o0o0o1i LAW DEPARTMENT UC<- June 13, 1988 Oonald A. Cockrill, Esq. Ogletree. Deskins, Nash, Smoak and Stewart One Thousand East North Street P.0. Box 2757 Greenville, South Carolina 29601 Re: Wanda Cox v. Georgia Gulf v. Union Carbide et ai_ Dear Mr. Cockrill: As we discussed last week, you indicated that you would consider the following issues as applicable to the Cox case under South Carolina law: Whether the suppliers of PVC resins had a duty to warn Stauffer, the employer, and/or the individual worker, Mr. Cox. Since Stauffer was in the PVC business, Stauffer, of course, knew before 1978 of the potential cancer hazard of PVC. Since the government, OSHA, specified the cancer warning for PVC/VCM, is plaintiff pre-empted from claiming that the warning was inadequate? Since plaintiff apparently might have been exposed to PVC resins from 1978-1982 and in 1985 and 1986, do general latency/incubation principles preclude a claim that PVC/VCM exposure caused Mr. Cox's alleged ASL? Union Carbide sales records indicate that we had no PVC resin sales to the Stauffer plant from 1978 through 1982, but that we did supply in 1985 and 1986. Attached is a copy of our sales records print-out. Although you indicated that Stauffer is protected by the worker's compensation defense even against claims by co-defendant PVC suppliers, can we claim against Stauffer based on a "dual capacity" theory if Stauffer also supplied its plant with PVC resins? Can there be some pro rata allocation of liability and damages, if any, with Stauffer if Stauffer supplied PVC resins to the plant? I look forward to hearing from you soon concerning your m eting with plaintiff's attorney. Best regards. PRIVILEGED Awn Sincerely, PFD/ Is nclosure UCC 079629