Document kD4vDp8eZ6aKpMwDbXaJ4e9Ln
PLAINTIFF'S
EXHIBIT DUP-636
oc
-a o w ro o o o
DU 041526
ASBESTOS (2 )
CTgnrfgy-4.
' -**'** -ii
MMHl
..........-i. jiBf.
FROM. Ext. 46360
R. M. SHEPHERD Polymer Products Department
WT--642
/^wt >4?
L^J
r l
DUP 0962014
DU 041527
3) 3,Data: J Lo
From:
H. E. SERENBETZ Polymar Product! Dapartmant
Ext. 42846 WT--642
!l_S--
Ij a- .
/qJ~s
,u/~d~4xf d
jyj L
'lo
(]. P- J((.l
r
DUP 0 9 6 2 0 1 9
DU 041528
J. T. SMITH P P & R Dept. Manufacturing Division
D--12008 Ext. 44878
TO: /7^~5
frj^Uul *
xfa-
'
ri I j
DU 041529
DUP 0 9 6 2 0 2 0
ExtOM430s Ext. 4305
TO:
STINGER
S Washington Works
'UjX^J' Cd^JUlt^)
('Ll.
^P.
X,
f1
J
UP 0962021
DU 041530
mtaiSH .' b iMiimwfeiaiit i life-'': -m.mu--i. zmirwmwmt1 - - 4*niBH
$3.75 Million
Suit Accuses I:
11 Concerns 11
| '. By BECKY POTASNK l:'"' '
Of The News Staff
1
Eleven asbestos dealers were!
named in a J3.75 million damaged
suit filed in U.S. District Court by an'
Ohio couple.
Y
.
Clayton L'. and Delores J. Maylei
have, taken the action against Johns-;'
Manville Sales Coro., Unarco Indus-
tries Inc., GAF Corp., Armstrong;:',;
Cork Co., Owens-Coming Flberglasv," -
Corp., Pittsburgh Corning Corp., The,
Celotex Corp., Keene Corp., Rock.'-; .
Wool Manufacturing Co. Inc., H.K.Yv'
Porter Co. Inc.,, and Raybestos-YY;
Manhattan Inc.
.rfC; ;
According to the suit, Mayle wasiY-
.employed as an asbestos insulation'
mechanic who, during the eight' ` years of his work, was exposed toi
asbestos. He developed asbestosis, a 1 lung disease occuring in persons who-
inhale asbestos or asbestos-like,
material.
- %'.
! In addition; the suit charges that'
Mayle suffered damages to the' lungs, respiratory system and skin. *
The plaintiffs charge that ail the'
defendants failed to advise him ol.
the danger of asbestos. They charge
. that the defendants failed to advise;
; Mayle as to what apparel he should-
' wear while working with the fiber,?
placed no danger warnings on the: '
. material, and had' no safety plan fori
workers handling it.
_.. *f
In addition, the suit charges that:
the defendants breached an implied'
warranty that the product was "of J
good and merchantable quality and
fit for its particular intended use," in-' ,,
that "certain harmful, poisonous and.
deleterious matter was given off into
the atmosphere"- where Mayle-
worked.
$
Mayle is permanently disabled,"
"caused by the gross negligence,,
omission, conscious indifferences ;
willful and wanton misconduct and
j
utter disregard for the welfare of
said plaintiff." the suit states. The defendants "ignored scientific,
data available to them, which indicated that their asbestos and asbes-
> 'i
tos insulation material were harmful-
j
and deadly to the mechanic who
came in contact with said materi-
1
als," the complaint charged.
.The scientific data, the complaint ' i j said, has been in the possession of
the defendants since 1929, yet they "conspired to deprive the public,
1
particularly the users and installers: 1 of the defendants' products contain-
!
ing asbestos, the medical and scien tific data."
Mrs Mayle is asking for $250,000 of the settlement for permanent loss of
consortium.
DU 041531