Document wKK3BXYp8Qno9pL80kLyRq1GJ

CAUSE NO. CC-99-8033-B MALCOLM LEE MURPHY, JR. and ANNETTE HARBERT MURPHY V. OWENS CORNING (a/k/a OWENS CORNING CORPORATION); ET AL IN THE COUNTY COURT 8 AT LAW NO. 2 DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANT AMERICAN STANDARD INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Defendant American Standard Inc.'s ("American Standard," "ASI," or "this Defendant"), for its Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production, states as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND GENERAL OBJECTIONS This Defendant's Response to each of these Interrogatories incorporates this Preliminary Statement and these General Objections. The information used in responding to these Interrogatories was assembled by authorized employees and counsel for this Defendant and was derived primarily from an ongoing review of records and from ongoing discussions with this Defendant's past and present employees. Because much ofthe information is of, or relates to, events ofmany years ago, it is difficult, ifnot impossible, for this Defendant to retrieve or reconstruct some of the requested information. Many of the individuals who might have had personal knowledge of the matters to which Plaintiffs' discovery relate are deceased or are otherwise unavailable to Defendant, and investigations to date indicate that at least some information and documents which might relate to matters inquired into by Plaintiffs' discovery may have been destroyed pursuant to Defendant's normal record retention policy or are F:\wpdocs\l 1592\discovery'responsetoplainUffintem>gs&rfp.OO 1 .wpd otherwise unable to be found. Defendant is engaged in a continuing investigation in an attempt to locate or confirm the absence of such information or documents and Defendant also is engaged in a continuing investigation with respect to the matters inquired into by Plaintiffs' discovery. Therefore, this Defendant reserves the right to amend these Responses if new or more accurate information becomes available, or iferrors are discovered. Furthermore, these Responses are given without prejudice to this Defendant's right to rely at trial on subsequently discovered information or on information inadvertently omitted from these Responses as a result of mistake, error or oversight. To the extent information contained herein differs in any material respect from any prior responses to discovery, this response shall be deemed to update and supersede such prior responses, to the extent they may be inconsistent. Any objection by this Defendant to a request as being "overly broad" includes, but is not limited to, an objection to requests for information regarding the ultimate sale or distribution of products distributed or sold by this Defendant other than products identified by Plaintiffs as being at issue in this litigation, and which may not lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding products utilized at job sites where Plaintiffs are claiming exposure, because information sought regarding sales or distribution of other products of this Defendant is irrelevant and immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. American Standard objects to these Master Interrogatories and Requests insofar as the information sought is not limited to a time frame relevant to Plaintiffs' claims or to activities which transpired in a geographical area to which the Plaintiffs would have had contact. This Defendant objects to those Interrogatories and Requests that request information and documents regarding the F**wpdocs l1592 discovery responseioplaintiffimerrogs&rtp.OOl.wpd -2- ultimate sale or distribution ofproducts distributed or sold by this Defendant other than to jobsites where Plaintiffs worked and which may not lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding product shipments that may have been utilized at jobsites where Plaintiffs are claiming exposure, because information sought regarding other sales or distribution of this Defendant's products is irrelevant and immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. American Standard objects to the definition of the term "Defendant." American Standard has had numerous divisions, related entities and predecessors over the course of the decades referenced in Plaintiffs' Requests, many of which conducted business totally unrelated to the issues and claims raised in this litigation. On information and belief, Plaintiffs' claims against this Defendant relate to Defendant's former boiler products. Accordingly, American Standard will respond only on behalf of the entity to which process was directed and its former divisions and predecessors in interest which were involved in the manufacture of boilers. It is difficult for ASI to respond to form Interrogatories such as these which are directed to the activities, organization and structure of companies engaged in the mining and/or manufacture ofasbestos or asbestos-containing insulation products. It is not, nor has it ever been, a manufacturer of asbestos products or asbestos-containing insulation. As aforementioned, on information and belief, Plaintiffs' claims against ASI relate to boiler manufacture. As a result, these Interrogatory Responses apply only within that scope and context. To the extent that these Interrogatories call for information outside of that scope and context, this Defendant objects on the ground that such Interrogatories are overly broad, unduly burdensome, seek information neither relevant nor material FAwpdocsvl 1592'discovery responsetoplaintiffmterrogs&rfp.OOI.wpd -3- to the subject matter of this case, and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. The Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure limit interrogatories to twenty-five. This Defendant, by in good faith attempting to answer these sixty-four interrogatories - not including sub-parts - does not waive its objection that these interrogatories exceed the maximum number allowed. Moreover, in responding to these Interrogatories, this Defendant does not concede the relevancy, materiality or admissibility of any information sought by the discovery Interrogatories or any responses thereto. These Responses are made subject to and without waiver of any questions or objections as to the competency, relevancy, materiality, privilege or admissibility of evidence, documents, or information referred to herein, or the subject matter thereof, in any proceeding, including trial. ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO SPECIFIC INTERROGATORIES Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, this Defendant responds to Plaintiffs' specific interrogatories as follows: INTERROGATORY NO. 1: State the name, address, job title, length of time employed by Defendant, and a year-by end list of all other positions, titles, or jobs held when working for Defendant of each person who has supplied any information used in answering these interrogatories. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving such objections, see Preliminary Statement and General Objections. These Responses have been prepared with the assistance of its counsel. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: F:' wpdocsM 1592'discovery'responsetoplaimifTinterTOgs&rfp.OOI .wpd -4- State whether or not you are a corporation. If so, state your correct corporate name, the state of your incorporation, the address of your principal place of business, the name and address of the person or entity authorized to accept service of process on your behalf, and whether or not you have ever held a Certificate of Authority to do business in the State of Texas. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Yes; American Standard Inc.; Delaware; One Centennial Avenue, Piscataway, New Jersey; American Standard Inc. was qualified to do business in the State of Texas on January 12, 1959. The agent for service of process is C T Corporation, 350 North Saint Paul Street, Dallas, Texas 75201. INTERROGATORY NO. 3; Has Defendant or any of its predecessor or subsidiary companies at any time engaged in the mining and subsequent sale of material containing asbestos fibers? Ifso, identify the location of the mine(s), the years of its operation, the type of asbestos mined and whether you sold any asbestos to any Defendants in the Dallas County asbestos litigation. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Defendant never mined, milled, purchased or sold raw asbestos, nor, did it never manufacture asbestos insulation products. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Identify by name each product containing asbestos fibers that Defendant or any of its predecessor or subsidiary companies at any time manufactured or sold. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. It is not limited to a relevant time frame or jobsite or to products, if any, at issue in this litigation. Plaintiffs should limit their inquiry to the specific American Standard products, if any, to which they claim exposure. Subject to and without waiving such objections, American Standard commenced with a . merger in 1929 of American Radiator Company and the Standard Sanitary Manufacturing Company. In 1897, American Radiator bought the Ideal Boiler Company. In 1927, F .wpdocs'l J592*djscovery responsetoplainuffimerrogs&rfp.00l ,wpd -5- American Radiator bought Kewanee Boiler Co., which had been formed in 1898. Following the merger in 1929, the company was known as the American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corporation, until 1967 when it changed its name to American Standard Inc. In 1952, Kewanee was merged into Kewanee-Ross Corporation, which was dissolved in 1955. Kewanee was thereafter operated as a part of various divisions of American Standard, until 1970, when the Kewanee Boiler assets were sold to Kewanee Boiler Corp., an unrelated entity. In 1974, American Standard sold its Hydronics Division, which had conducted American Standard's remaining boiler business. Prior to 1975, American Standard, through its predecessors and divisions, engaged in the manufacture of relatively small boilers or pre-packaged boilers and burners for use in residential, commercial, institutional and industrial settings. American Standard has never engaged in the mining, milling, manufacture, sale or distribution of asbestos or asbestos fiber. It has never manufactured asbestos-containing insulation products. On occasion, prior to the late 1920s, but not thereafter, it may have offered, in unaltered condition, small quantities of asbestos cement and asbestos pipe covering manufactured by others as accessories to boiler sales. On occasion, prior to 1972, it may have offered, in unaltered condition, small quantities of rubberized asbestos-containing gaskets, rope and packing for replacement use in boilers. Some boilers manufactured and sold by American Standard in some instances at some points in time, may have contained asbestos-containing components such as block, cement, gaskets, rope, air cell, board, tape, paper and/or packing manufactured by other companies such as Johns-Manville, Grant-Wilson, Palmer Asbestos & Rubber Company, Janos Asbestos Co., Eagle-Picher and Garlock. Other manufacturers may have supplied products as well. Such components were used by American Standard in its products in unaltered condition. Most of the above products were located beneath the boiler jacket. Commencing in the 1930s, metal jackets were utilized to insulate and enclose boilers. Also, fiberglass began to be used in the place of asbestos in boilers in the 1940s. By the early 1950s, ail boiler jackets manufactured by American Standard were insulated with fiberglass or mineral wool. After 1955, every American Standard boiler was jacketed. Kewanee boilers were jacketed beginning in 1960. American Standard and Kewanee boilers that were not jacketed, were not insulated at manufacture, but were shipped bare metal without insulation. By the 197072 time frame, Kewanee boilers no longer incorporated asbestos-containing gaskets and rope. American Standard does not have detailed information regarding all the products it may have sold, as there have been numerous mergers, acquisitions and dispositions over the years. However, Attachment A itemizes the American Standard boiler and heating products presently believed to have contained an asbestos-containing component in the past. F"\vpdocsM 592 discovery responsetoplainuffinieriogs&rfp.OOl.wpd -6- INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Identify by name each product containing asbestos fibers that Defendant or any of its predecessor or subsidiary companies at any time marketed or sold. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. S: See Objections and Response to Interrogatory No. 4. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: If the answer to one or more of the last three interrogatories is in the affirmative or lists any products, state as to each named product the following: A. As to each product, state whether such product was mined, manufactured, marketed, and/or sold. B. The names of the companies mining, manufacturing, marketing, and/or selling each product mined, manufactured, marketed, and/or sold. C. The trade or brand name of each of those products mined, manufactured, marketed and/or sold. D. The date each of the named products was placed on the market E. A description of the physical (chemical) composition of each of the named products, including the type of asbestos contained in the product and the percentage of asbestos put in each product. F. The date each of the products was removed from the market and no longer sold or distributed and the reason or reasons therefor. G. The date asbestos was removed from such products, if ever, and the reasons therefor. H. A description of the physical appearance of each of the named products. I. A detailed description of the intended uses of the named products. J. Identify the last year that you sold each asbestos-containing product. r wpdocs 11592 discovery responseloplamtiffmterrogs&rfp.OOhwpd -7- RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, seeks irrelevant information and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofrelevant, admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving such objections, see Objections and Response to Interrogatory No. 4. In addition, ASI respond as follows: A. See Objections and Response to Interrogatory No. 4. B. See Objections and Response to Interrogatory No. 4. C. American Standard, American Radiator, Ideal and Kewanee. D. Except as provided in Response to Interrogatory No. 4, American Standard has no records of the dates such products were first placed on the market. E. Any asbestos-containing components of ASI boilers were manufactured by others and incorporated into the boilers without material change. ASI exited the boiler business by 1974 and, as a result, has few documents and little information regarding such products. American Standard currently has no information as to the type, grade, or percentage of asbestos that these components may have contained, except, on information and belief, many, if not all, of such components contained chrysotile asbestos. F. & G. See Objections and Response to Interrogatory No. 4. American Standard's Kewanee Boiler Division was sold in 1970. American Standard's Hydronics Division, which consisted ofits remaining boiler business, was sold in 1974. H. Generally, American Standard boilers were relatively small boilers for use in residential, commercial, institutional and industrial settings. American Standard boilers presently believed to have contained asbestos-containing components are identified on Attachment A and in response to Interrogatory No. 4. I. Generally, these relatively small boilers were used to generate heat, hot water and/or steam, depending on the year and model, and were fueled with coal, gas, oil or electricity. Temperature ranges and pressures varied with the model, size and application of the boiler. ASI did not manufacture boilers for ship propulsion. J. See Objections and Responses to Interrogatories Nos. 4 and 6(f). Fi'wpdocs'1 1592 discoveryTesponseioplainuffimeiTOgs&rfp.OOl.wpd INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Do any documents, including but not limited to written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints, or other written materials of any kind or character, relating to the design, preparation, or introduction into the market of the products listed in Interrogatory No. 6 still exist? If so, state: A. A description of each such document. B. The name, address, and job title of each person who currently has possession of each document, and where the documents are currently located. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It is not limited to a product, if any, at issue in this litigation, a relevant time frame or jobsite. Subject to and without waiving such objections, Defendant states that it currently has limited brochures, catalogs and manuals relating to some models of its former boiler products during certain time frames. If Plaintiffs will identify the specific ASI boiler, if any, to which exposure is claimed, Defendant will determine what, if any, responsive documents exist. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Before distributing, selling, or placing the products listed in your responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3-6 into the streams of commerce, were any tests conducted to determine potential health hazards involved in the use of, or exposure to, the materials such as asbestos, contained in those products? If the answer is affirmative, state: A. The names of the products tested and the date of each test. B. The name, address, and job title of each person conducting the tests or involved with conducting the tests. C. The results of the tests. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing, argumentative, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It is not limited to a product, if F- wpdocs\1 1592 discovery responsetoplaintiffinterrogs&rfp OOl.wpd -9- any, at issue in this litigation. It is not even limited to alleged asbestos hazards. Subject to and without waiving such objections, inasmuch as ASI was not the manufacturer of any of the asbestos-containing components utilized in its boilers, but simply incorporated them "as is," without substantial change and because the asbestos-containing components utilized in Defendant's boilers were underneath a boilerjacket and/or otherwise encapsulated, no testing for asbestos emissions was believed necessary. Defendant was not and is not currently aware of any asbestos hazards posed by its former boiler products. On information and belief, Defendant's boiler products either did not release harmful levels ofrespirable asbestos fibers during installation or use or did not release respirable fibers in excess of limits established by OSHA and the EPA. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Do any documents, including but not limited to, written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints, or other written materials of any kind or character, relating to the testing of the products referred to in Interrogatory No. 6 now exist? If so, state: A. A description of each such document. B. The name, address, and job title of each person who currently has possession of each document, and where it is presently located. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9: See Objections and Response to Interrogatory No. 8. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Did Defendant or any of its predecessor or subsidiary companies make any design changes or modifications as a result of those tests described in responses to Interrogatory No. 8? If the answer is affirmative, state: A. The trade names of the products changed. B. The nature of the changes made and the date of such changes or modifications. C. The name, address, and job title of each person responsible for having caused a change to be made, or having made a change or modification. F; wpdocs^l 1592'di$covery`responsetoplaimifnmenogs&rfp.001 .wpd -10- ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10: See Objections and Response to Interrogatory No. 8. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: After releasing the products listed in Interrogatory No. 6 to the public, were any tests conducted on them to determine potential health hazards resulting from the use of or exposure to the materials, such as asbestos, contained in those products? If the answer is affirmative, state: A. The names of the products tested and the dates of such tests. B. The name, address, and job title of each person who conducted those tests. C. The results of those tests. D. Whether, as a result of the tests, any products were removed from the market. E. The names of all products removed from the market as a result of these tests. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11: See Objections and Response to Interrogatory No. 8. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Do any documents, including written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints, or other written materials of any kind or character, relating to the potential health hazards of the products listed in Interrogatory No. 6 now exist? If so, state: A. The name of each product. B. A description of each document and how it relates to each product. C. The name, address, and job title of each person who currently has possession of each document, and where it is presently located. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12: See Objections and Response to Interrogatory No. 8. F: wpdocsM 1592\discovery'responsetoplaintifTinterrogs&rtp.001 .wpd -ll- INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Did Defendant or any of its subsidiary companies make any design changes as a result of the tests discussed in your response to Interrogatories No. 8 or 11? If the answer is affirmative, state: A. The names of the products changed or modified. B. The name, address, and job title of each person responsible for having made a change or modification. C. The nature of the hazard or defect which resulted in such change or modification. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13: See Objections and Response to Interrogatory No. 8. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Has Defendant or any of its predecessor or subsidiary companies at any time published or distributed any printed material, including brochures, pamphlets, catalogs, packaging or other written material or any kind of character containing any warnings concerning the possibility of injury resulting from the use of the asbestos-containing products listed in Interrogatory No. 6? If so, state: A. The names of each relevant product. B. The exact wording of each warning statement on each printed material. C. A description of the printed material other than the warning statement. D. The method used to distribute the warning to persons likely to use the product. E. The date each warning was first issued, distributed, or placed on packaging. F. The name, address, and job title of each person responsible for having drafted or issued the warning. G. The current location of any such printed material and the custodian thereof. H. The form in which such literature or printed material can be accessed, Le., the manner in which such literature is indexed or stored. F* wpdocsM 1592`discovery responsetoplaintiffimerrogs&rfp.OOl.v/pd -12- ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing, vague, argumentative, ambiguous, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. It is not limited to a relevant time frame, product or job site. Subject to and without waiving such objection, American Standard did not manufacture any of the asbestos-containing component parts incorporated "as is," without substantial change, into its boiler products. Moreover, on information and belief, any asbestos-containing components utilized in its boilers/bumers were located beneath the boiler jacket and/or otherwise encapsulated. On information and belief, no harmful levels of respirable asbestos fibers were released from ASI boilers and, as such, no warnings regarding asbestos were believed necessary. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Before 1970, had you received notice that any individual or individuals, other than those Plaintiffs who have filed personal injury actions in Dallas County, Texas, is or are claiming or has or have claimed an injury as a result of using asbestos products manufactured and/or sold by your company or any of its predecessors or subsidiaries before 1970? If so, state: A. The name and address of each claimant. B. The date of notice of each claim. C. A description of the claim. D. The type of injuries allegedly sustained. E. The name and address of each attorney who represents each individual making a claim. F. The style and court number of each claim. G. The disposition of each claim that has been settled or taken to judgment. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Defendant did not manufacture "asbestos products." Prior to 1970, American Standard received no notice of any claimed asbestos-related injuries alleged to have occurred as a result of using American Standard boilers. Fi wpdocs U592"discoverY.responsetoplamtifrinterrogs&rfp.OOl,\vpd -13- INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Were your asbestos products distributed, marketed, packaged, labeled and/or sold by companies other than your own? If the answer is affirmative, list the names and addresses of each of those companies, and the products in question. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible'evidence. It is not limited to a relevant product, time frame and job site. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Defendant did not manufacture asbestos products. Defendant manufactured boilers and burners, some of which, at some points in time, may have contained asbestos-containing components. Some American Standard boiler products were sold through independent, wholesale distributors. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Did you or any of your predecessors, successors, or subsidiaries have any distributors or sales representatives of asbestos products in the States of Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Oregon, Washington, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia? Ifso, state: A. The name and address of each such distributor or sales representative. B. The years in which such company or person distributed, marketed, or sold your products. C. What products were distributed, marketed, or sold and in what years. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It is not limited to a relevant time frame, job site, geographic area and product. Subject to and without waiving such objections. Defendant's boiler products were sold by distributors in variousjurisdictions. However, inasmuch as ASI exited the boiler business in 1974, the only information American Standard presently retains which identifies any distributors of its heating products in Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Oregon, Washington, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia is a June 1969 Official Distributor List for the U. S. Plumbing & Heating Division. However, the distributors on that list distributed various ASI products, such as plumbing supplies, most of which did not contain asbestos-containing components. F' -updoes 11592 discovery fesponsetoplanuiffimerrogs&rlp.OOl.wpd -14- INTERROGATORY NO. 18: List each employee (including only physicians and/or hygienists) who has acted in a medical advisory capacity to your company at any time during the past 40 years, including, but not limited to, physicians and industrial hygienists, and the current address, telephone number and job title of each of those individuals and who has, had or may have had any knowledge regarding the hazards of asbestos. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Defendant "objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving such objections, American Standard presently is able to state only that Raymond Yerg was corporate medical director in 1981. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Does Defendant have in its possession any books, pamphlets, memoranda, or written materials of any kind or character that would indicate that asbestos fibers, when inhaled, can be hazardous to the health of human beings? If so, state: A. The name of each such publication. B. The date of publication and the names of the author and publisher (if any). C. The name, job title, and address of each person who currently has possession of each publication and its present location. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It is unlimited in time. Moreover, as written it seeks core work product. Subject to and without waiving such objections. Defendant is unaware of any responsive documents relating to boiler products. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Has Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies at any time been a member of any trade organization or association that published or disseminated any documents or information relating to the hazards of asbestos comprised of other F 'Wpdocs 11592,discovery\responsetoplaindffiruerTogs&rfp OOl.wpd -15- manufacturers, miners, marketers, and/or sellers of asbestos products? If so, state: A. The name and address of each association or organization. B. The dates during which Defendant or any of its subsidiaries or predecessors were members. C. The names and dates of any publications, minutes, or reports published, written, or disseminated by any of the named associations or organizations. D. Whether any of those publications are still in your possession, and if so: 1. A description of the publications, including the date. 2. The current location of such publications. 3. The custodian of such publications. 4. The method or manner in which such publications are maintained. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving such objections. Defendant is a large, decentralized company that has had numerous employees in numerous divisions, over the course of a century. Defendant's employees may have held memberships in various organizations from time to time, but Defendant has no central repository for information of this type. As such, it is impossible for it to identify all organizations to which its employees may have belonged in the past, whether any of them received publications from organizations and whether any publications that may have been received by individual employees still exist today. At present it is able only to state that, on information and belief, Industrial Hygiene Foundation documents indicate that from 1936-1958, American Radiator and Standard Sanitary Corporation belonged to the Industrial Hygiene Foundation. From 1969-1971, American Standard was a member of this organization. From 1934 to a date unknown, Standard Sanitary Manufacturing Corporation was a member of the American Ceramic Society. American Standard rejoined this organization in 1981 and remains a member at present. INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Identify by name and location each plant or manufacturing facility in which the products listed in your answers to Interrogatory Nos. 3-6 were manufactured, F-wpdocS'.! 1592'discoveryTesponseloplainutfintenogs&rtp.00l,\vpd -16- assembled, or prepared for sale or marketing, specifying which plants produced each item, the dates each plant is or was in operation, and the time span during which each named item was produced or manufactured. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It is not limited to a relevant product, time frame, job site and geographic area. Subject to and without waiving such objections, see Objections and Response to Interrogatory No. 4. Kewanee boilers were manufactured in Kewanee, Illinois. ASI boilers were manufactured in the U. S. at plants in various locations, primarily in Buffalo, New York and Detroit, Michigan. INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Have printed sales materials been prepared by Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies or their agents for purposes of marketing or advertising products containing asbestos? If so, state: A. The name, address, and job title of each person or entity who prepared such materials. B. The name, address, and job title of each person who currently has possession of such materials and their present location. C. The date the materials were prepared. D. The media used to disseminate the sales materials. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It is not limited to relevant time frames, products and job sites. Subject to and without waiving such objections, see Objections and Responses to Interrogatories Nos. 7 and 14. INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Have any written or printed materials or instructions of any kind or character been prepared by Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies or their F wpdocs 11592 discovery responsetoplaiimffimerrogs&rrp 001 wpd -17- ' agents indicating how asbestos products should be used and maintained? If so, state: A. The name, address, and job title of each persons who prepared such materials or instructions or assisted in their preparation. B. The name, address and job title of each person who currently has possession of such materials or instructions and their present location. C. The dates of distribution or use and the manner in which such materials or instructions were distributed to purchasers of Defendant's products or those of its subsidiaries or predecessors. D. The year each such written material or instruction was prepared and disclosed to potential consumers. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 23: See Objections and Response to Interrogatory No. 22. INTERROGATORY NO. 24: Does Defendant have insurance policies that might cover the claims made by Plaintiffs in these cases? If so, list the name of each insurance carrier, the amount of initial coverage, amount of coverage remaining at the present time, and the effective dates of each policy. (If properly answered, this Interrogatory need not be supplemented as to the remaining amount of coverage). ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 24: Defendant object to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. It repeats Plaintiffs' request for disclosure. Subject to and without waiving such objections, this Defendant claims to have liability insurance coverage, depending on the years of alleged exposure in question, for varying amounts from varying insurers. Insurance available to pay asbestos-related claims is aggregate and dependent upon the time and circumstances underlying each claim and the payments made under each policy. For some claims, no insurance may exist, depending on the date of exposure. American Standard is continuing to analyze the claims made against it and will supplement this response if it is able to accurately assess insurance coverage for those claims. American Standard is presently able to state that it has had coverage provided to it at varying times from Michigan Mutual Insurance Company, Aetna Casualty, Travelers F updoes 11592'd>scovery'responsetoplaiiifnmerrogs&rfp.OOI wpd -18- Indemnity Company, USF&G, Cigna and, perhaps, others. INTERROGATORY NO. 25: As to the disease asbestosis, state: A. The date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor first learned that such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans. B. How Defendant became aware of the existence of the disease. C. Who within the company first discovered, recognized or understood the adverse consequence or effects of the disease and/or of asbestos exposure. D. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. E. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor in any written form. F. Who is the custodian of such information. G. The date on which you first received knowledge or information that asbestos was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 25: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, harassing and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to the extent that it improperly calls for medical opinion. The interrogatory does not specify what level or type of exposure is claimed to be at issue. The Interrogatory fails to distinguish between fiber types and ignores important factors such as differences in the friability of asbestos fibers in different products, different uses of asbestos-containing products, different exposures of different individuals at different work sites engaged in different crafts and the frequency, proximity, regularity and duration of particular exposures. Subject to and without waiving such objections, Defendant is a corporation, which has employed numerous persons throughout the course of its business, any one ofwhom may have obtained varying degrees ofknowledge regarding asbestos and asbestos-related disease at varying points in time. The amount of materials published in both the technical and popular press that discuss possible correlations between asbestos, especially friable, amphibole asbestos, and human health consequences is voluminous. Thus, Defendant is unable to definitively answer on what F wpdocs 11592 disco\ery responsetoplamtiffinterrogs&rfp 001 wpd -19- specific date, as a corporation, it first became aware of a possible correlation between asbestos, in particular circumstances, and certain human health consequences. At all relevant times, Defendant and its respective business divisions kept apprised of the prevailing industry standards and standards ofmedical art as they related to the operation ofDefendant's respective businesses. Defendant presumably received notice of the hazards of asbestos at approximately the same time as did the general public, which is presently believed to have been in the 1970s. Defendant is not currently nor has it ever been aware of any clinical, epidemiological, toxicological, industrial hygiene, medical and/or scientific literature or study demonstrating that its products caused asbestos-related adverse health consequences. See also Response to Interrogatory No. 14. INTERROGATORY NO. 26: As to the disease lung cancer, state: A. The date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor first learned that such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans. B. How Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor became aware of the disease and its relationship to asbestos exposure. C. Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered or recognized the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure. D. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. E. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendants or its subsidiaries or predecessors in a written form. F. Who is the custodian of such information. G. The date on which you first received knowledge or information that lung cancer was caused by inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 26: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, harassing and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to the extent that it improperly calls for medical opinion. The interrogatory does not specify what level or type F updoes.M592\discoveryTesponsetoplaimifFimerrogs&rfp.OOI wpd -20- of exposure is claimed to be at issue. The Interrogatory fails to distinguish between fiber types and ignores important factors such as differences in the friability of asbestos fibers in different products, different uses of asbestos-containing products, different exposures of different individuals at different work sites engaged in different crafts and the frequency, proximity, regularity and duration of particular exposures. Subject to and without waiving such objections, Defendant is a corporation, which has employed numerous persons throughout the course of its business, any one of whom may have obtained varying degrees ofknowledge regarding asbestos and asbestos-related disease at varying points in time. The amount of materials published in both the technical and popular press that discuss possible correlations between asbestos, especially friable, amphibole asbestos, and human health consequences is voluminous. Thus, Defendant is unable to definitively answer on what specific date, as a corporation, it first became aware of a possible correlation between asbestos, in particular circumstances, and certain human health consequences. At all relevant times, Defendant and its respective business divisions kept apprised of the prevailing industry standards and standards ofmedical art as they related to the operation ofDefendant's respective businesses. Defendant presumably received notice of the hazards of asbestos at approximately the same time as did the general public, which is presently believed to have been in the 1970s. Defendant is not currently nor has it ever been aware of any clinical, epidemiological, toxicological, industrial hygiene, medical and/or scientific literature or study demonstrating that its products caused asbestos-related adverse health consequences. See also Response to Interrogatory No. 14. INTERROGATORY NO. 27; As to pleural disease, pleural thickening or pleural plaques, state: A. The date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor learned such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans. B. How Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor became aware of the disease and that it was caused by exposure to asbestos. C. Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered or recognized the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure. D. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. E. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor in a written form. F. Who is the custodian of such information. F; wpdocs'l 1592^discovery^respoiisetoplaintiffimerrogs&rtp.00l .wpd -21- ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 27: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, harassing and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to the extent that it improperly calls for medical opinion. The interrogatory does not specify what level or type of exposure is claimed to be at issue. The Interrogatory fails to distinguish between fiber types and ignores important factors such as differences in the friability of asbestos fibers in different products, different uses of asbestos-containing products, different exposures of different individuals at different work sites engaged in different crafts and the frequency, proximity, regularity and duration of particular exposures. Subject to and without waiving such objections, Defendant is a corporation, which has employed numerous persons throughout the course of its business, any one of whom may have obtained varying degrees ofknowledge regarding asbestos and asbestos-related disease at varying points in time. The amount of materials published in both the technical and popular press that discuss possible correlations between asbestos, especially friable, amphibole asbestos, and human health consequences is voluminous. Thus, Defendant is unable to definitively answer on what specific date, as a corporation, it first became aware of a possible correlation between asbestos, in particular circumstances, and certain human health consequences. At all relevant times, Defendant and its respective business divisions kept apprised of the prevailing industry standards and standards ofmedical art as they related to the operation ofDefendant's respective businesses. Defendant presumably received notice of the hazards of asbestos at approximately the same time as did the general public, which is presently believed to have been in the 1970s. Defendant is not currently nor has it ever been aware of any clinical, epidemiological, toxicological, industrial hygiene, medical and/or scientific literature or study demonstrating that its products caused asbestos-related adverse health consequences. See also Response to Interrogatory No. 14. INTERROGATORY NO. 28: As to the disease mesothelioma, state: A. The date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor first learned such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans. B. The date on which Defendant first suspected that mesothelioma was caused by inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers. C. How Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor became aware of the disease and that it was caused by exposure to asbestos. D. Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered or F-'wpdocs'l l592\discoveryTesponsetoptainriffinterrogs&rfp.001.wpd -22- recognized the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure. E. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. F. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendants or its subsidiary or predecessor in a written form. G. Who is the custodian of such information. H. Whether Defendant agrees that there is no known medical cure for mesothelioma. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 28: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, harassing and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to the extent that it improperly calls for medical opinion. The interrogatory does not specify what level or type of exposure is claimed to be at issue. The Interrogatory fails to distinguish between fiber types and ignores important factors such as differences in the friability of asbestos fibers in different products, different uses of asbestos-containing products, different exposures of different individuals at different work sites engaged in different crafts and the frequency, proximity, regularity and duration of particular exposures. Subject to and without waiving such objections, Defendant is a corporation, which has employed numerous persons throughout the course of its business, any one ofwhom may have obtained varying degrees ofknowledge regarding asbestos and asbestos-related disease at vaiying points in time. The amount of materials published in both the technical and popular press that discuss possible correlations between asbestos, especially friable, amphibole asbestos, and human health consequences is voluminous. Thus, Defendant is unable to definitively answer on what specific date, as a corporation, it first became aware of a possible correlation between asbestos, in particular circumstances, and certain human health consequences. At all relevant times, Defendant and its respective business divisions kept apprised of the prevailing industry standards and standards ofmedical art as they related to the operation ofDefendant's respective businesses. Defendant presumably received notice of the hazards of asbestos at approximately the same time as did the general public, which is presently believed to have been in the 1970s. Defendant is not currently nor has it ever been aware of any clinical, epidemiological, toxicological, industrial hygiene, medical and/or scientific literature or study demonstrating that its products caused asbestos-related adverse health consequences. See also Response to Interrogatory No. 14. F:*wpdocs\l l592^i$covery\responsetoplaintiffinterrogs&rfp OOl.wpd -23- INTERROGATORY NO. 29: As to gastro-intestinal cancer, laryngeal cancer, pharyngeal cancer or lymphatic cancer, state: A. The type of cancer and the date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor first learned that such diseases were caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans. B. What cancers has the Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor become aware can be caused by exposure to asbestos fibers? C. The date on which Defendant first suspected other cancers were caused by asbestos inhalation. D. Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure. E. What information was disseminated with Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. F. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor in a written form. G. Who is the custodian of such information. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 29: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, argumentative, irrelevant, harassing and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects on the grounds that it assumes facts not in evidence and calls for medical opinion, which this Defendant is not qualified to render. Defendant would further state that, on information and belief, no association between the inhalation of asbestos fibers and cancer of the gastro intestinal tract, larynx, pharynx and/or lymph nodes has been established by the medical and/or scientific communities. Subject to and without waiving such objections, Defendant is not currently nor has it ever been aware ofany clinical, epidemiological, toxicological, industrial hygiene, medical and/or scientific literature or study demonstrating that its products caused asbestos-related adverse health consequences. The amount of materials published in the both the technical and popular press that discuss possible correlations between asbestos, especially friable, amphibole asbestos, and human health consequences is voluminous. Thus, Defendant is F'nvpdocsU 1592\discovery\responsetoplaintiffinterrogs&rfp.001 .wpd -24- unable to definitively answer on what specific date it first became aware of a possible correlation between asbestos, in particular circumstances, and certain human health consequences. At all relevant times. Defendant and its respective business divisions kept apprised of the prevailing industry standards and standards of medical art as they related to the operation of Defendant's respective businesses. INTERROGATORY NO. 30: Does Defendant contend that asbestos products can be manufactured or designed so as to eliminate all potential health hazards to persons working with or exposed to them? If the answer is affirmative, explain in detail, and attach any studies or surveys on which this answer is based. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 30: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, harassing, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving such objections. Defendant did not manufacture the asbestos-containing components that it utilized "as is" in some of its boiler products. However, on information and belief, since such components were located under a boilerjacket or otherwise encapsulated, on information and belief, no harmful levels ofrespirable asbestos fibers were emitted. This issue will be the subject of expert testimony as set forth more fully in Defendant's expert witness designation. INTERROGATORY NO. 31: Describe in detail the types of packages or packaging which Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies used for asbestos material or products, listing the dates each type of package was used, a physical description of each type of package, and providing a description of any printed material or trademarks that appeared thereon. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 31: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It is not limited to relevant products, time frames or job sites. Subject to and without waiving such objections, if Plaintiffs will identify the specific American Standard boiler product to which they claim exposure, ASI will determine if responsive information is available. INTERROGATORY NO. 32: F;\wpdocs\l 1592\discovery\responsetop!ainn'fnntenogs&rfp.001.wpd -25- Has Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies at any time entered into a "rebranding" agreement with any other company, either as buyer or seller, concerning asbestos materials or asbestos products? If so, state, as to each such agreement: A. The name of the company manufacturing the asbestos products. B. The trade name affixed to those products. C. The periods of time covered by each such agreement. D. The volume, in dollar amount, of each transaction. E. The initial purchaser of the products. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 32: No. INTERROGATORY NO. 33: List the name and address of each company from which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor purchased materials or asbestos products which Defendant sold or distributed in any form, stating the form of the materials, the dates of such purchases, and the ultimate disposal of such materials. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 33: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. It is not limited to relevant time frames, products and job sites. Subject to and without waiving such objections, see Objections and Responses to Interrogatory No. 4. INTERROGATORY NO. 34: Does Defendant or any of its subsidiaries or predecessors currently have possession of any writings or contracts on those rebranding agreements set forth in the answer to Interrogatory No. 32? If the answer is affirmative, state: A. The name, address, and job title of each person having custody of each of those documents and their current location. F'\wpdocs\l 1592 discovcry'responsetoplainuffinten-ogs&rfp.OO l,wpd -26- B. A brief description of each such documents, including the dates and the parties signatory. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 34: N/A. INTERROGATORY NO. 35: Prior to 1968, did any person file a claim against a Worker's Compensation carrier covering Defendant or any of its subsidiaries or predecessors alleging that he/she contracted a disease from inhaling asbestos fibers? If so, provide? A. A list of the claims, including each claimant's name, address and the date each claim was filed, and including the caption and jurisdiction of the claim. B. The disease alleged in each such claim. C. A brief summary of the disposition of each such claim. D. The name, address and title of the person having custody of the records pertaining to each such claim. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 35; Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, harassing, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. The conditions in Defendant's manufacturing plants, unrelated to its end products, are not relevant to Plaintiffs' claims in this litigation. Subject to and without waiving such objections, not to present knowledge. INTERROGATORY NO. 36: Did Defendant or any of its subsidiaries or predecessors maintain written minutes of corporate meetings, either board ofdirectors, departmental, or otherwise, which reflect discussions pertaining to any subject matter related to asbestos products? If so, for each such set of minutes, state: A. The dates of each such meeting. B. The general subject matter discussed at each meeting. F wpdocs' 1 1592\dtscovery'responseioplamtiffmterrogs&rfp.OO! ,\vpd -27- C. Who was in attendance at each meeting. D. Where and by whom the written minutes are presently maintained. E. By whom the minutes were taken and put into final format. F. Whether the minutes were abstracted and reports disseminated to other individuals, and if so, the names and job titles of those individuals. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 36: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. Moreover, the Request seeks information and documents protected by the work product, attomey/client and/or other privilege. It is not limited to relevant boiler products. Subject to and without waiving such objections, not to present knowledge. INTERROGATORY NO. 37: Do you or any of your subsidiaries, including foreign business entities, currently manufacture any products containing asbestos? If so, state: A. As to each product, whether such product is mined, manufactured, and/or marketed or sold. B. The names and addresses f the companies mining, manufacturing, marketing, and/or selling each of those products. C. The trade or brand name of each of those products mined, manufactured, marketed, and/or sold. D. The date each of the named products was placed on the market. E. A description of the physical (chemical) composition of each of the named products, including the type of asbestos contained in the product. F. A description of the physical appearance of each product and its packaging. G. A detailed description of the intended uses of each of the named products. H. Whether there are any warning labels on said products or containers regarding F wpdocssl 1592xdiscovery'responseioplainnfnnterrogs&rtp.OOI ,wpd -28- potential asbestos-related health hazards. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 37: No. INTERROGATORY NO. 38: State whether you or any of your predecessors and/or subsidiaries maintain, from 1940 through the present or for any portion thereof, copies of invoices, shipping documents, bills of lading, purchase orders, or other documents of a similar nature relating to the mining, manufacture, marketing, sale or distribution of asbestos products. If so, state: A. The location of such documents. B. The name and address of the custodian of the documents. C. The format in which the documents are kept, he., hard copy, microfilm, microfiche, etc. D. In what form the documents can be accessed, Le., by state, by product, etc., and ifby product, whether kept according to asbestos or non-asbestos. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 38: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, harassing, argumentative, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. It is not limited to relevant products and time frames. Subject to and without waiving such objections, no such documents are known to exist regarding ASI's former boiler products. INTERROGATORY NO. 39: May you call company representatives as witnesses at the trial of any of these cases? If so, list: A. The name, address, and job title of each company representative who may be called. B. A summary of the testimony expected to be given by each such witness. C. List any and all previous times that the named witnesses have either given l:; wpdocs 11592 discovery responsetoplaintiffimerrogs&rfp.OOl.wpd -29- deposition or trial testimony in an asbestos-related case, including the jurisdiction, style of the case, case number, date of testimony, and the name of the attorney taking the deposition for the Plaintiffs in that case. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 39: Defendant has not yet made a determination of who it will call at a trial of this action. ASI will provide its witness lists in accordance with the scheduling orders of the Court and the Rules of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORY NO. 40; Have Defendant or its subsidiaries or predecessors ever acquired through purchase, reorganization, or merger another corporation, company, or business which manufactured, sold, processed, distributed, or contracted or supplied products containing asbestos? If so, for each such entity, state: A. Full and correct name; B. Principal place of business; C. State of incorporation; D. Date of acquisition by Defendant; E. Whether or not the business entity was ever authorized to transact business in the State of Texas; ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 40: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. It is not limited to relevant products and time frames. Subject to and without waiving such objections, see Objections and Response to Interrogatory No. 4. INTERROGATORY NO. 41: Was each of your asbestos products generally expected to reach, or packaged to reach, the consumer or user, without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold? If not, with respect to any such product, explain in what way the Defendant claims its products were altered or substantially changed after sale or distribution and before reaching the user. F:'wpdocs\H592\discovery\responsetoplaintiffinterrogs&rfp.001,wpd -30- ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 41: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. It is not limited to relevant products and time frames. Subject to and without waiving such objections, if Plaintiffs will identify the specific ASI boiler product allegedly at issue, Defendant will determine if further response may be made. INTERROGATORY NO. 42: For each asbestos-containing product identified in response to Interrogatory No. 6, identify ail foreseeable users such as insulators, helpers, pipefitters, welders, machinist, plasterers, drywall finishers, carpenters, boilermakers, shipwrights and riggers, etc. of any of Defendants's asbestos-containing products. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 42: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofrelevant, admissible evidence. It is not limited to products at issue in this litigation, if any, or to a relevant time frame or job site. Subject to and without waiving such objections. Defendant did not manufacture or sell asbestos-containing insulation products. ASI's boilers were usually installed by plumbers or mechanical contractors involved in boiler installation. INTERROGATORY NO. 43: Based upon the material contents of your asbestos-containing products, the method of manufacturing, and the method of application, can such products be generally applied without liberating asbestos fibers into the air? A. If there is a different answer concerning different products manufactured, sold, distributed, or used by your company, then specify the different products by precise manufacturer's name and popular name. B. If there is a difference in your answer depending on the year or years in which a particular product was used, then specify in detail what year or years you are referring to and the specific products you are referring to and year involved. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 43: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead Frwpdocsl 1592 di$covery\re$ponsetoplainuffinierrogs&rfp.001.wpd -31- to the discovery of admissible evidence. It is not limited to a relevant product, job site and time frame. Subject to and without waiving such objections, Defendant states it did not manufacture asbestos products. Defendant's boiler products are not "applied". See also response to Interrogatory No. 14. INTERROGATORY NO. 44: Was it a foreseeable use of your asbestos-containing products that they may have been removed, stripped, or replaced at some time after installation? ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 44: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It is not limited to a relevant product, job site and time frame. Subject to and without waiving such objections, Defendant states that its boiler products and various components thereof, may need replacement at some point in time, under certain circumstances. INTERROGATORY NO. 45: Before 1970, did you or your subsidiaries or predecessor(s) ever arrange for any labor inspectors, insurance company inspectors or anyone from your company to go to job sites where your products were being used or installed to make or take dust level counts? If so, state when this procedure started, the purpose of such procedures, and all results of such procedures. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 45: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, argumentative, harassing, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It is not limited to relevant products, job sites and time frames. The conditions of ASI plants or of jobsites where Plaintiff did not work are not relevant to Plaintiffs claims in this litigation. Subject to and without waiving such objections, any asbestos-containing components installed into American Standard products were manufactured by others and purchased and installed into its products, primarily under the boiler jacket, without substantial change. As such, there was no reason to believe that any significant threat to health was presented thereby. Moreover, American Standard typically sold its boilers to distributors and, as such, the identity of the purchaser was not always known to ASI. Defendant is presently unaware of any labor inspectors, insurance company inspectors or anyone else performing dust level counts at the job sites of any end-users of ASI boilers. F: wpdocs*! I592>discovery'responsetoplamummenogs&rfp.001.wpd -32- INTERROGATORY NO. 46: If Defendant performed or had performed any dust level counts, what action, based on the results, did your company take? ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 46: See Objection and Response to Interrogatory No. 45. INTERROGATORY NO. 47: Has your company or its subsidiaries or predecessor(s) ever conducted or caused to be conducted any studies designed to assist in minimizing or eliminating the inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers by those exposed to the use of your company's products? If so, give the following: A. Name of the person or firm conducting such studies; B. The date the studies began and the date they were completed; C. Any publication or other written dissemination of the results of the studies; D. The nature of any action to eliminate or minimize th<> inhalation of asbestos dust fibers; ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 47: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, argumentative, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It is not limited to relevant products, job sites and time frames. Subject to and without waiving such objections, no. On information and belief, no harmful levels ofrespirable asbestos fibers were emitted from ASI boiler products. See Objections and Response to Interrogatory No. 14. INTERROGATORY NO. 48: Does your company have, has it ever had, or have your predecessor(s) or subsidiaries ever had, a Research Department? If so, give the year such Research Department was established, and whether or not such Research Department has operated continuously since being established. State also: A. The amount of time and money expended each year on research concerning F:'wpdocs 11592 discovery responsetoplaintiffinterrogs&rfp.OOl.wpd -33- asbestos or asbestos-containing products? B. What percentage of gross sales did your company or its predecessor(s) spend on research concerning the health effects of asbestos? C. State in detail the purposes, duties, and responsibilities or such Research Department. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 48: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving such objections, not to present knowledge. INTERROGATORY NO. 49: Does your company have, has it ever had, or have your predecessor(s) or subsidiaries ever had, a Medical Department? If so, state: A. The year such Medical Department was established; B. Whether or not such Medical Department has operated continuously since being established; C. The name of each director, chief, or head of your Medical Department year by year, beginning with the first year you had a Medical Director or Medical Department, and the last known address and phone number of each; D. State the duties and responsibilities of such Medical Department. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 49: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving such objections, while Defendant did not have a medical department, it is currently known only that Raymond Yerg was the medical director in 1981. INTERROGATORY NO. 50: Did your company or its predecessor(s) or subsidiaries ever place any warning directly F' wpdocsl 1592 discover} TesponsetoplaintiffimerTOgs&rfp.OOhwpd -34- on any of its asbestos-containing produce or on their packaging. If so, identify the product(s) and year said warning was first applied. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 50: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing, duplicative, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. See also response to Interrogatory No. 14. INTERROGATORY NO. 51: Did your company or its predecessor(s) or subsidiaries ever stamp or place the name of the company, its initials, or any identifying logo on any of its asbestos-containing products? If so, please state the name brand names of such products, a description of such stamp or logo and the dates such were placed on the referred products. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 51: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofrelevant and admissible evidence. It is not limited to a relevant product or time frame. Subject to and without waiving such objections, American Standard's name was placed on each boiler. Older boilers may say "American Radiator" and/or "Ideal". The Kewanee name appeared on each boiler from that former subsidiary. INTERROGATORY NO. 52: Has your company, or your predecessor(s) or subsidiaries, ever devised a research plan to develop, or actually developed or had developed, a product which did not contain asbestos and which could be substituted for one or more of your asbestos-containing products? If so, state the date that such research plan was begun and when such asbestos-free product was first placed on the market. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 52: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is argumentative, assumes facts not in evidence, it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It is not limited to relevant products and time frames. Subject to and without waiving such objections, Defendant did not develop or manufacture asbestos products. It did not develop or manufacture insulation products. In some cases, Defendant's boilers contained asbestos- F: wpdocs'l I592'discovery'responsetoplaimiffimerrogs&rfp.001.wpd -35- containing components which were manufactured by others and incorporated into the boilers without material change. Commencing in the 1930s, medical jackets were utilized to insulate and enclose boilers. Fiberglass began to be used in the place of asbestos in boilers in the 1940s. By the early 1950s, American Standard believes all boilerjackets insulated by it were insulated by fiberglass and mineral wool. By the 1970-72 time frame, many boilers no longer incorporated asbestos-containing gaskets, rope or packing. On information and belief, asbestos was removed from block and cement, by their manufacturers, by 1972. American Standard sold the Kewanee boiler assets to Kewanee Boiler Corp., an unrelated entity. In 1974, American Standard sold its hydronics division, which had conducted its remaining boiling business. INTERROGATORY NO. 53: Did your company or its predecessor(s) or subsidiaries ever recall any products containing asbestos from the market or stream of commerce? If so, state: A. Ail details of such recall; B. The name of the product recalled, including the reason for the recall and the names and current addresses of those individuals who determined that it should take place; C. The dates of recall; D. The purpose for the recall. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 53: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is argumentative, overly broad, unduly burdensome, seeks irrelevant information and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant admissible evidence. It is not limited to products at issue in this litigation, if any, or to a relevant time frame. Subject to and without waiving such objections, not to present knowledge. INTERROGATORY NO. 54: Before 1970, did you ever manufacture or sell products which did not contain asbestos and which could be substituted for your asbestos-containing products? If so, state the date such asbestos-free products were first placed on the market. F updoes I I592'discovery,responsetopiaintiffinterrogs&rfp.00l,wpd -36- ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 54: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is argumentative, overly broad, unduly burdensome, seeks irrelevant information and is not reasonable calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant admissible evidence. It is not limited to products at issue in this litigation, ifany or to a relevant time frame. Subject to and without waiving such objections, see Objections and Responses to Interrogatory No. 52. INTERROGATORY NO. 55: Have any products you identified in your response to Interrogatory Nos. 52 and 54 not performed as intended? Please list all such products that have not performed as intended. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 55: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant admissible evidence. It is not limited to products at issue in this litigation, if any, or to a relevant time frame. Subject to and without waiving such objections, not to present knowledge. INTERROGATORY NO. 56: Did your company or its predecessor(s) or subsidiaries ever make, order, or arrange for any industrial hygiene surveys regarding asbestos or asbestos-containing dust? If so, give the date of such surveys and state who, or what entity, was responsible for completion of such surveys. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 56; Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant admissible evidence. It is not limited to products at issue in this case and is unlimited in time. The conditions of ASI plants are not relevant to Plaintiffs claims in this litigation. Moreover, conditions in Defendant's plants, unrelated to its end products, are also not relevant to this litigation. See also Objection and Response to Interrogatory No. 45 INTERROGATORY NO. 57: As to either the threshold limit values or maximum allowable concentrations of both asbestos dust and total dust provided by the American Conference of Governmental F updoes I I592-di$co\ery responsetoplaimiftmterTOgs&rip.GO! upd -37- Industrial Hygienists, state: A. The year in which Defendant or any predecessor^) or subsidiaries were first advised of such limits or concentrations; B. The name of the employee or official of the company receiving such advice; C. How Defendant received notice of such limits or concentrations. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 57: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving such objections, American Standard, as a corporation, gains knowledge only through its agents. It has employed numerous persons over the years and when one of them may have first learned of such information is unknown. When American Standard, a corporate entity, first obtained knowledge of such values and concentrations cannot be determined. INTERROGATORY NO. 58: Were the threshold limit values or maximum allowable concentrations inquired about in Interrogatory No. 57 for total dust, and not asbestos dust alone? ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 58: See objections and response to Interrogatory No. 57. INTERROGATORY NO. 59: State in detail what tests, if any, Defendant ever made with regard to the quantity, quality or threshold limit values of asbestos dust or particles to which workers were exposed while using, working with or around, or installing your asbestos-containing products. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 59: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It is not limited to products at issue in this case, the manner of alleged exposure(s) involved, the types of products producing the source of alleged exposure, nor is it limited in time. Subject to and without waiving such objections. F updoes !1592'disco\er> responseioplaintuTimerrogs&rfp001 upd -38- see Objections and Responses to Interrogatory No. 8. INTERROGATORY NO. 60: Please state the following with respect to each expert witness you that you may call during trial of these cases. Please designate with specificity the expert witnesses that you will call, including: (a) The name, address, and job classification of each such expert witness; (b) The subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify; (c) The substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion; (d) Whether any person identified in subparagraph (a) above has provided a report or other documentation to you, and if so, identify each such document or report; (e) Identify all documents that you have provided to each person identified in response to subparagraph (a) above; (f) Describe in detail the education and work history of, and identify any books, treatises, articles, published and unpublished reports, studies or other scholarly works authored by any individual identified in response to subparagraph (a) above. Alternatively, in lieu of said response, attach a copy of a resume or curriculum vitae and a list of publications to your answers. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 60: Objection. This request duplicated the Plaintiffs' request for disclosure and is thus an improper request. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, see Defendant's responses to Plaintiffs' Request for Disclosure. Defendant will file its expert witness designation in accordance with the scheduling orders of the court and the Rules of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORY NO. 61: Please state the name, present address and present telephone number, along with the experience and qualifications, if applicable, of each and every person, known to Defendant or to Defendant's agents, having knowledge of facts relevant to these cases involving, but not limited to: (a) identification of asbestos-containing products to which each and every individual Plaintiff, separate and distinct from all other Plaintiffs within the F. wpdocsU 1592discoveryTesponseioplaintiffinleiTogs&rfp,001.v.pd -39- group, allegedly was exposed or facts disputing the identification of asbestoscontaining products in this case. (b) Each and every individual Plaintiffs separate and distinct from all other Plaintiffs within the group, alleged damages, injuries and/or facts disputing each and every Plaintiffs alleged damages and/or injuries; (c) the negligence of any person or entity other than Defendant which Defendant contends was a cause of each and every individual Plaintiffs, separate and distinct from all other Plaintiffs within the group, alleged injuries and/or damages; (d) each of Defendant's defenses enumerated in Defendant's last filed Answer in each of these cases. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 61: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad and unduly burdensome, It is impossible to answer when Plaintiffs have not identified the products to which they were allegedly exposed. Subject to and without waiving such obj ections, discovery is continuing. Defendant will supplement in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. See Defendant's lay and expert witness designations. INTERROGATORY NO. 62: Please identify documents which will be used at time of trial, (Exhibit List, Deposition List), which are relevant to each of Defendant's enumerated defenses in Defendant's last filed Answer. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 62: Defendant has not yet determined which documents will be used at a trial of this matter. Defendant will file its exhibit and designation lists in accordance with the scheduling orders of the Court and the Rules of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORY NO. 63: When, if ever, did Defendant or any of its predecessor-in-interest first receive a copy of the article entitled "A Health Survey of Pipe Covering Operations in Constructing Naval Vessels", published in January, 1846 in the Journal of Industrial Hygiene & Toxicology, and authored by W. Fleischer and P. Drinker, et al ("the Fleischer-Drinker Report")? Ft'wpdocsl 1592'discovry\responsctoplaintifflmeiTOgs&rfp.001.wpd -40- a. Identify the name and position of the employee or officer who received same; b. please produce all documents generated by Defendant which discuss or in any way reference the "Fleischer-Drinker" study prior to 1968; c. please produce all documents upon which your responses above are based; d. please identify the name(s) and address(es) of any persons(s) who can verify your above responses; e. did Defendant ever rely on the Fleischer-Drinker Report in whole or in part as a basis that Defendant's asbestos products could be used in the workplace without risk of asbestos-related health impacts to the consumer and/or bystander; f. if so, please produce every document which evidences in any way that Defendant relied on the Fleischer-Drinker Report in whole or in part for the proposition stated in Interrogatory No. 63(a) above; g. if your answer to 63(e) is yes, when was the first date Defendant relied on the Fleischer-Drinker report in whole or in part for the proposition stated in 63(e) above? ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 63: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving such objections, American Standard has employed numerous persons over the course of the last century. It is unknown whether or when any employee might have received or reviewed the Fleischer-Drinker Report. This Defendant is aware of no corporate documents that discuss it. INTERROGATORY NO. 64: When, if ever, did Defendant or any of its predecessors-in-interest first receive a copy of the article entitled "A Study ofAsbestos in the Asbestos Textile Industry", published in 1938 in Public Health Bill, No. 241, U. S. Public Health Service and authored by W. C. Dreessen ("the Dreessen Report")? a. Identify the name and position of the employee or officer who received same; b. please produce all documents generated by Defendant which discuss or in any F''wpdocs\U592\discovery'responsetoplaimiffinierrogs&rfp.001.wpd -41- way reference the "Dreessen" study prior to 1968; c. please produce all documents upon which your responses above are based; d. please identify the name(s) and.address(es) ofany person(s) who can verify your above responses; e. did Defendant ever rely on the Dreessen Report in whole or in part as a basis that Defendant's asbestos products could be used in the workplace without risk of asbestos-related health impacts to the consumer and/or bystander; f. if so, please produce every document which evidences in any way that Defendant relied on the Dreessen Report in whole or in part for the proposition stated in Interrogatory 63(a) above; g. if your answer to 63(e) is yes, when was the first date Defendant relied on the Dreessen Report in whole or in part for the proposition stated in 63(e) above: ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 64: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. American Standard has employed numerous persons over the course of the last century. It is unknown whether or when any employee might have received or reviewed the Dreessen Report. This Defendant is aware of no corporate documents that discuss it. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Please produce a true and correct copy of each photograph of each asbestos-containing product identified in answer to Interrogatory No. 4. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request for Production on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs have not identified any specific American Standard asbestos containing boiler product to which they were allegedly exposed. Subject to and without waiving such objections, if Plaintiffs will specifically identify the boilers, if any, to which they claim exposure, Defendant will determine whether any responsive F'.wpdocsM 1592'discovery responsetoplaimiffinterTogs&rfp.OOl wpd -42- documents exist, by way of catalogs, brochures or manuals. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Please produce any diagrams or schematics indicating, stating or detailing the existence of any of your subsidiaries, predecessors, or divisions as defined on Page 1 of these Interrogatories and Request for Production. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request for Production on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects on the grounds that this Request for Production seeks discovery of information protected from disclosure by the attorney client communications, core work product, investigation and party communication privileges. fiDated this the ^ "day of March, 2000. Respectfully submitted, GERMER, BERNSEN & GERTZ, LLP By: State Bar No.: 15242500 805 Park Street Beaumont, Texas 77701 Telephone: (409) 838-2080 Telecopier: (409) 838-4050 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT AMERICAN STANDARD INC. F:\wpdocs\l 1592\discovery\responsetoplaintiffintem>gs&rfp.001.wpd -43- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing Defendant, American Standard, Inc.'s Answers to Plaintiffs' Master Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production, has been served by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, postage pre-paid and properly addressed on Plaintiffs counsel of record on this //f*~ day of March, 2000: Mr. Ben K. Dubose Baron & Budd, The Centrum, Suite 1100 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue Dallas, Texas 75219 CM/RRR 0*--------James R. Old, Jr. F:\wpdocs\I 1592\discovery\responsetoplaintiffinterTOgs&rfp.001 .wpd -44- VERIFICATION STATE OF NEW JERSEY COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, the within named William R. Hedden, who, having been first by me duly sworn, stated on his oath that he signed the above and foregoing Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production for and on behalf of American Standard Inc., sued as American Standard Inc., and that he is duly authorized so to do; that the matters stated in the above and foregoing Responses are not solely within his personal knowledge, but that he is informed that there is no single officer of American Standard Inc. who has personal knowledge of all such matters; that the facts stated in said Response have been assembled by various employees, agents, representatives and counsel; and that he is informed and believes that the facts set forth in said Response are true and correct as herein stated. WILLIAM R. HEDDEN CORPORATE COUNSEL SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBE] My Commission Expires: SHIRLEYA. VICKERMAN. NOTARY PUBLIC State of Now Jwisy, No. 2169163 C:\MyFiles\American Standard\Texas\TX - Response to Interog for all asbestos cases (Murphy) revised.wpd -56- JAMES R. Ol.D. JR. PvRISI-.R Germer, Bernsen & Gertz, L.L.P. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 805 Park Street Beaumont, Texas 77701 (409) 838-2080 Fax (409)838-4050 E-MAIL: postmaster@germcr.com WEB PAGE: www.germer.com e-mai1 ju>ki germer com June 16,2000 Re: Cause No.: CC-99-08033-B; Maleont Lee Murphy. Jr. and Annette Harhert Murphy vs. Owens Corning (a/k/a Owens Corning Corporation), et ah. In the County Court at Law #2; Dallas County. Texas; G & G File No.l 1592 Mr. Ben K. DuBose Barron & Budd The Centrum, Suite 1100 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue Dallas, Texas 75219 Certified Mail Retern Receipt Reoi ester Dear Ben: Enclosed please find an Attachment A which was inadvertently left offAmerican Standard's responses to Plaintiffs' Master Set of Discovery. I apologize for any inconvenience. Please do not hesitate to give me a call with any questions. Yours trulv. Germer, Bernsen & Gertz, L.L.P. i'^i^f JRO tgm Enclosure ]' wpdocs 11592 corresp dnhosti 012 upd James R. Old, Jr. Germer, Bernsen & Gertz, L.L.P. 550 Fannin Street Suite 700 Beaumont, Texas 77701 (409) 838 -- 2080 Fax (409) 835-2115 Germer, Bernsen & Gertz, L.L.P. Three Allen Center 333 Clay Suite4105 Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 650-1313 Fax (713) 739-7420 Germer, Bernsen, Gertz, Beaman & Brown, L.L.P. Bank One Tower Suite 1700 221 West 6th Street Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 472-0288 Fax (512) 472-0721 ATTACHMENT "A" Information Sheet Regarding American Standard Heating Products Containing Asbestos Components Please note that only those furnaces, winter air conditioners, boilers/bumers as to which there is current verifiable information of an asbestos component at one time are included in this list. 1. A-3, A-5 and FR-A-3 OIL FIRED BOILERS Manufactured from approximately 1963-1973. Burner Pressure Plate insulation was composed of wire woven asbestos cloth. The hanger-mount in the burner contained asbestos tape. It is believed that the tape was supplied by Johns-Manville. May have also contained asbestos gaskets. 2. A-7 OIL/STOKER/HAND-FIRED BOILERS Manufactured from approximately 1955-1973 The combustion chamber base was composed of 1" asbestos board. May have also contained asbestos gaskets. 3. APH OIL BOILER, WATER ONLY SERIES IB Manufactured from approximately 1963-1965. The combustion chamber (retainer) contained 1/4" asbestos air cell corrugated paper with aluminum foil on flat side. The paper was purchased from Grant Wilson. Inc.. Chicago. Illinois. May have also contained asbestos gaskets. 4. ARCOLINER OIL-FIRED WET BASE BOILER Manufactured from approximately 1946-1950. A layer of air cell asbestos insulation was placed beneath the flush metal jacket of the boiler. 5. EMPIRE GAS BOILER Manufactured from approximately 1928-1950. Jacket insulated with aircell asbestos insulation. 6. SUNBEAM ARLINGTON, CLIFFDALE AND ALLERTON FURNACES Contained asbestos gaskets and asbestos rope on burner mount. Coal hand fired Arlington steel pipeless furnace (but not Arlington steel pipe or Arlington square steel pipe furnaces) also contained asbestos cement 7. SUNBEAM KENWOOD FURNACE Contained asbestos paper and cement. 8. G-2 GAS BOILER Manufactured from approximately 1957-1974. The boiler jacket canopy was sealed with 1/4" asbestos wick packing, which was purchased from Johns-Manville or Janos Asbestos Company. May have also contained asbestos gaskets. 9. G-60 GAS BOILER Manufactured from approximately 1960-1968. The cover plate was sealed with 1/2" diameter integral asbestos rope gasket, supplied by Johns-Manville. May have also contained asbestos gaskets. 10. GPH PACKAGED GAS-FIRED BOILERS Manufactured from approximately 1963-1969. The canopy was sealed with Johns Manville Besto-Tac adhesive asbestos tape or approved equivalent. May have also contained asbestos gaskets. 11. GPMX and GPM PACKAGED-FIRED BOILERS Manufactured from approximately 1968-1974. The canopy was sealed with an integral asbestos gasket for gas tight seal. May have also contained asbestos gaskets. 12. GPR GAS BOILER (WATER ONLY) SERIES IB Manufactured from approximately 1962-1964. The canopy was sealed with 3/8" wide and l/l 6" thick asbestos tape. May have also contained asbestos gaskets. -7- 13. PFA-3 STEAM OR HOT WATER BOILER Manufactured from approximately 1969-1974. Contained asbestos gaskets. The Clean-Out Radiator Shield assembly was lined with asbestos air cell corrugated paper with .001 aluminum foil on the flat side. 14. V-3 OIL-FIRED BOILER-BURNER Manufactured in 1974. Asbestos tape used on burner plate. 15. MOHAWK, WINTERWAY AND CHIPPEWA WINTER AIR CONDITIONERS Contained asbestos wick packing and gaskets. 16. JACKETS FOR IDEAL TYPE A 23" AND 29" BOILERS Manufactured approximately 1920-1925. Lined with 16 ply air cell asbestos, reinforced on both sides with 1 '8" asbestos board. 17. JACKETS FOR IDEAL WATER TUBE 23" AND 29" BOILERS Manufactured approximately 1923-1947. Lined with 16 ply air cell asbestos, reinforced on both sides with 1/8" asbestos board. 18. JACKETS FOR IDEAL SMOKELESS BOILERS 29" Manufactured 1925. Lined with 16 ply air cell asbestos, reinforced on both sides with 1 '8" asbestos board. 19. KEWANEE FORCED DRAFT SCOTCH PACKAGE UNIT Manufactured 1960. Contained asbestos packing. 20. KEWANEE-PETRO BOILER BURNER UNIT Manufactured 1964. Doors sealed by a riveted asbestos tape gasket. 21. JACKETS FOR KEWANEE TYPE "R" BOILERS Manufactured 1937. Jackets lined with multi-ply asbestos insulation. 22. KEWANEE SQUARE "R" BOILER Manufactured 1952. Doors sealed with asbestos rope gasket. 23. KEWANEE TYPE "C"M" AND "R" BOILERS Upon information and belief, these boilers may have contained rubberized asbestos gaskets, asbestos rope and/or asbestos packing. 24. ARCOFLAME OIL BURNERS Burner pedestal mounting contained asbestos. I!:C \S'i \nacnrw \ -4-