Document zzNrwoywygoyQ23w4g2qg3xy0

1 Bj2 f I hile everyone agrees that victims of ships that helped the country win WW II. I asbestos-related ailments deserve Johns Manville Corp., as the world's largest l compensation, there is still some producer of asbestos, is also being blamed argument about who should foot for workers' exposure to the carcinogen. thebilL Manville has already been hit with law "It is difficult to assess blame in asbestos suits totaling several million dollars filed by cases since it can cake up to 30 years for the asbestos victims. The company responded symptoms ofasbestos exposure to surface," to the crisis by filing for Chapter 11 bank says Carl Good, NRCA's director of mem ruptcy in 1982, halting all litigation aimed bership. "Complicating the problem is the at it until the proceedings are completed. feet that many insurance policies have Manville has proposed a multi-million dol lapsed, leaving victims and their families lar trust to aid in asbestos victim compensa without coverage." tion, but technicalities stiff need to be The manufacturers, insurance compa ironed out before distribution of the fund nies and federal agencies involved are all can begin. responsible to some extent for the problem. In light of these complications, some The government exposed thousands of groups are calling for the creation of a workers to asbestos as they built the war- national commission devoted solely to han dling asbestos injury claims. Representative Pat Williams, 0-Mont., believes that the fed eral government should assume some responsibility for compensating victims of occupation-related diseases. His plan calls for federalizing workers' compensation to allowforclaimsagainst thegovemment. The congressman hopes his idea will provide a common sense, non-adversarial way to.deal with the staggering backlog of asbestos claims. Insurance hard to find Manville's problems have notgone unno ticed by the insurance industry. As a result, contractors are finding it increasingly diffi cult to locate companies willing to under write asbestos removal. Some insurers are coming to the contractors' aid, however. One Connecticut-based contractor, the Acmat Corp., and United Coastal Insurance have undertaken a joint venture to insure high-risk clients. To protect themselves, contractors not regularly involved in asbestos removal are taking a hard look at the job before pro ceeding. Ifthey find some asbestos removal Recentasbestos litigation includes the unanimously passed Senate bill will be required, they are renegotiating S. 0083, the Asbestos School Abatement Act. The bill requires schools to their contracts to allow for the extra work abate asbestos hazards. House and Senate versions of the bill would or expense involved. allocate an additional 825 million annually through 1990 for this work. The biggest difference between House and Senate amendment proposals is a provision in the House legislation that exempts contractors and school officials from liability for personal injury or property damage resulting from abatement activities unless the damages arc caused by" negligent conduct. Another provision states, "An asbestos contractor or a local educational agency who is a defendant in such an action may not be PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT held jointly liable with any other defendent in such action, but may be ]' held severaly liable in such action." BIR-424 is ROOFING SPEC BIRD 011549