Document jyzxQVeXK6vMNoo0VDoYjRg59

1 GLOUCEZ-m*. County ~pMS , UsooDBUfl-y i/llfac / A PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT DUP-2492 Du Pont is defendant in asbestos Du Pont (CUM4tnoruta.il ' P1 ltvaaicilein,gatnod provide proper labels, adinstructions for use with court case laws do not permit monetary damage asbestos productssold toDuPont amounts to'be specified in suits, but be The plaintiffs include pipefitters and said the case could run into "millions insulators at the plants, where ByELLIOT GOLDBERG Of The Times Staff GREENWICH TWP/- Six current and former employees of the DuPont Co., allegedly suffering from asbestosrelated disorders, hare charged in a dvQ suit that the firm, its doctors, and nine asbestos suppliers failed to advise the workers ofhazards of working with the material at the firm's plants here and in Deepwater, Salem County. The employees, four of whom are from Gloucester County, *D are suf fering from various stages of asbestosis, their attorneys said. The suit seeks compensatory and punatiye of dollars." asbestos materials have been used for David Watson, president of the insulation of pipes and tanks. Chemical and Industrial Union, an in- They are Vernon G. Kronmaier of house bargaining unit to which the Mantua Township and Ftank Baptiste Repauno workers belong, charged the of Laurel Springs, both pipefitters at has enztged in "gross company has engaged fat "gross violations of the asbestos standards," Siting a (83,000 fine assessed by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (QSHA) last the Repauno Works in Greenwich Township; Clarence Sdnrebel of West Deptford Township, an insulator at Repauno; his brother, Harold of Lbgan Township, a former insulator at Repauno; .William B. MfiUsoQ of year for safety violations. The asbestos manufacturers, in cluding the Denver, Colo.-based JohnsMpraonduviclleer oC*foarsp*b.e, stthoes, anraetiao"lns'os*cl*haa-r-grg-g-ee-e-ss-dtt, Washington Township and Edward B. AgarofGloucester Qty, insulators and ppWiippoeerkffiistt-tteeinrr~ss aaDttettehhpeewDja^uteoPr.ornoTTt')hsayeiCwwhaoomrrkkbeeerrsrss*' with bring careless and negligent for wives are also named asplaintiff. damages against DuPont,- the physicians and the asbestos makers. Toe suit seeks compensation for past and future medical expenses and for 17- lost wages resulting from the disor ders. Asbestosis is first seen as X-ray evidence of scarring of ltmg and as the disease progresses, lungs stiffen and breathing becomes difficult. Researchers have also finked some forms of cancer to asbestos particle inhalation. The suit, filed Wednesday in Superior Court in Camden, charges that the company and physicians deliberately concealed from -em ployees that their exposure to asbestos, and its dust and fibers had been dangerous. The suit charges the employees were allowed to further jeopardize their health by continuing 1 to work with the product. "We allege they (the defendants) have not diagnosed the condition as it existed or told them (the employees) about U or protected them from fur ther exposure/'sald William Tomar, a Haddonfield attorney representing the workers. "These people were working with, removing and installing asbestos." In New Jersey, Tomar explained, u (See DU Pont *>-- -- 1 DUP 0821128 DU 011544 i n 1 3 .3 I ac 3 i ' > >><o DU 011545