Document zzd6R832oVgz0V4Zkqzjqw2b3

Barnard and Gannon BARNARD AND GANNON BY: TIMOTHY B. BARNARD, ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 03458 218 WEST FRONT STREET P. 0. BOX 289 MEDIA, PA 19063 (215) 565-4055 ESQUIRE VERNELL LONDON, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF BIRK REED VS. FLINTKOTE CO., et al ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT, BORG-WARNER CORPORATION COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PHILADELPHIA COUNTY MAY TERM, 1983 NO. 6849 (2268) DEFENDANT BORG-WARNER CORPORATION'S ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES (SECOND SET) Defendant, Borg-Warner Corporation objects to Plaintiff's definition of "asbestos product" as being overbroad, ambiguous, mislead ing and unlimited in scope. Therefore, without waiving this objection, Borg-Warner has responded to Plaintiff's Interrogatories only with regard to automotive products to which Plaintiff is claiming exposure, i.e., service brake and clutch products, and only with regard to the Borg- Warner divisions which have manufactured or sold them and only with : regard to U.S. operations. fi 1. Is it possible to distinguish the asbestos products listed by you in your answer to interrogatory #6 of Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories front those manufactured by competitors? Yes* i (a) If the answer is anyway in the affirmative# please describe how you contend your product can be distin guished# both as a' new product#~and as one which is . removed after use. Also describe how the products by trade and generic name are distinguishable# and the years in which they can be distinguished. Generally, -clutch facings may be distinguished by the part rninber inside. The physical appearance of Borg-Wamer' s driven member design differs fran that of competitors. Borg-Wamer' s disc brake pads were narked on one edge with BW-712C in either white or yellow ink. Another marking identified -the particular batch of material used (e.g. BD 069) and a blue paint stripe was on one end. Unknown. (b) If there are products which cannot be# in your opinion# distinguished from products of a similar kind manufac tured by a competitor# please state the name of such product# who manufactures it# as well as the trade name of the product manufactured by your competitor and the years in which they cannot be distinguished. 2. When did you first learn that there were or might be adverse health effects associated with the use .and fabrication and/or manufacture, cutting# splicing# slicing# removal# installation or rip-out. or tear-out of asbestos containing products; state the date# source# nature and ex tent of such information. Borg-Wamer learned that there nay be adverse health effects associated with exposure to asbestos when this became general public knowledge. Borg-Wamer objects to subpart (a) of this interrogatory on grounds that it is argumentative and asserts, as fact, matters neither in evidence nor admitted by defendant; more specifically Borg-Wamer doe* not admit that the use of its products containing asbestos-bearing components would emit asbestos-dust(a) When and how did you learn that# in the use of your as- into the air. bestos containing products# they would emit asbestos dust into the air? 3. Rave you ever conducted any inspection or made any dust counts of areas at plaintiff's place of employment or at any other facilities where workers used asbestos products manufactured by your company? No. Objection to subpart (a) on grounds that it is an improper and argumentative interrogatory. 3(b) not applicable. , tl (a) If you have not, explain why this was not done; (b) If you have, explain what action, if any, was taken by your company following the inspection or the taking of dust counts at plaintiff's place of employment or other facility. Also please give the dates and places, if any, that your company made such dust counts, and set forth the names and addresses of the persons who made, authorized, and received the results of the dust counts. 4. State whether from 1930 to the present you have promulgated any rules, written or oral, for the handling of asbestos products by your own employees. Zf so, state: (a) When such rules were promulgated; (b) The substance of the rules, if oral, and the name and title of the person who disseminated them; (c) Zf in writing, either attach a copy of the rules or identify the written rules by date, title, identifica tion number,'present location and the name and address of the custodian thereof; (d) Whether any such material was provided to plaintiff's employer or any other defendant, and, if so, when and to whom. Objection on grounds that this relates only to the internal practices and files of Borg-Wamer and is irrelevant to this action. 5. State the names, and addresses of all professional, indus trial, health and safety organizations to which you have belonged which have anything to do with the health effects of asbestos, the proper methods of working with asbestos, methods of controlling asbestos dust, setting of standards or regulations, information, lobbying, research, engineering, or use of asbestos products, materials, or fibres, stating the inclusive dates of such membership and the names and addresses of defendant's representatives attended the meetings. (a) Were you at any tine a member of the Industrial Hygiene Foundation? (b) If the answer to 5a is yes, during what years? t __ --(c)- Did-you receive the monthly digest of the IHF during the period of your membership? . (d) Did you ever request articles listed in the IHF digest? (e) If the answer to Sd is yes, please list the date of all such requests and the articlef-s) requested, (f) Did you ever request articles on asbestos from the IHF? (g) If the answer to 5f is yes, please list; a*) all articles requested; b.) date of request c.) person requesting them d.) all persons known to have received each such article Objection on grounds that these interrogatories are overly broad, vague, burdensome and harassing. Without waiving this objection Borg-Wamer states that seme of its employees have attended programs or seminars sponsored by such organizations as the National Safety Counsel and the American Society of Safety Engineers; these programs or seminars sometimes include discussions or topics mentioned in interrogatory #5. Additionally, R. Rosenberg of the Borg-Wamer Research Center has attended meetings of the Asbestos Information Association. Interrogatory 6: State whether defendant or its representatives attended any conferences, symposiums or other meetings concerning the health effects of asbestos exposure, the proper methods of working with asbestos, controlling asbestos dust, setting of standards, regula tions, information, lobbying, research, engineering, or use of asbestos products, materials or fibres. If so, state or identify: See answer to Interrogatory No. 5. (a) The person or organization that sponsored it; (b) The date and place it was held; (c) Your personnel who attended it; (d) All information provided there concerning the health consequences of asbestos exposure, the proper methods of working with asbestos, or methods of controlling asbestos dust; (e) Produce all writings distributed at or con cerning the conference, symposium or meeting. Interrogatory 7: Do you maintain a library dealing with disease, industrial hygiene, medicine, safety or engineering related to asbestos? If so, state: (See Attached Sheet.) (a) The date you established the library; (b) The location of the library; (c) The name or names of the librarian(s) since 1930; (d) All journals subscribed to by you concerning asbestos, industrial hygiene/ medicine/ safety or engineering; . (e) The date(s) such journals were acquired; (f) All books and articles dealing with asbestos and asbes tos related diseases and the date acquired; (g) The name (s) and position (s) of those for whoa the library was established; (h) If no library was established/ explain why. 8. Have you# at any time since 1940, maintained any office or department dealing with medical or scientific research? If so, state: i *" (a) The name of such department; Roy C. Ingersoll Research Center, Des Plaines, IL (b) The location of such department; Roy C. Ingersoll Research Center, Des Plaines, IL (c) The name, address, and title of each person who has been in charge of the department. (See Attached Sheet.) 9. Has defendant hired a "medical director"? If so, state: (See Attached Sheet.) (a) The reason for hiring such a medical director; 7. Objection on grounds that this interrogatory is overly broad, vague, burdenscrae and harassing. Without waiving this objection, defendant states that Richard Rosenberg established a collection of industrial and medical publications on July 12, 1976, but no longer maintains it. These materials have been located in his office at Borg-Wamer's Roy C. Ingersoll Research Center, Des Plaines, Illinois. Mr. Rosenberg's current title is Manager, Regulatory Affairs and Safety. Among the resources of this col lection was the publication Asbestos. The subscription to this publication has not been renewed for the past three years. Other materials which were collected included excerpts frati various publications too msnerous to list. 8(c) The Center was established in 1956. Its directors are 1956-58 Dr. LeVan Griffis 1958-59 Dr. John Weiffenbach 1959-75 Dr. Donald Collier 1975-present Dr. Donald Hoeg belcw: 9. Borg-Wamer has not hired a medical director to oversee the corporation in general (although sane divisions and subsidiaries of the corporation retain physicians to provide physical exams and handle minor injuries or illness). (b) The location where the medical director was assigned; (c) The duties of the medical director; (d) The names and addresses of the persons hiring such medical director and of the medical director; (e) Whether such medical director ever made recommendations ' with regard to minimizing, eliminating, or controlling asbestos dust exposure to your own workers or the work* ers exposed to your asbestos products, and if so, what were the recommendations; (f) The date defendant first hired a medical director; (g) The person(s) to whom the medical director reported; (h) If no medical director was hired, please explain why. 10* Bas defendant hired anyone in a medical advisory capacity? If so, please state:' (See Attached Sheet.) (a) The reason for hiring a medical advisor; (b) The location where the medical advisor was assigned; (c) The duties of the medical advisor; J 1 s (d) The names and addresses of the persons hiring such medical advisor and of the medical advisor; (e) Whether such medical advisor ever made recommendations with regard to minimizing, eliminating, or controlling asbestos dust exposure to your own workers or the work* ers exposed to your asbestos products, if so, what were the recommendations; (f) The date defendant fri'rst hired a medical advisor; 10. Objection on grounds that this interrogatory is overly broad, vague, burdensane, harassing and argumentative and seeks internal information completely irrelevant to the instant suit. Without waiving this objec tion, defendant vrould refer to its response to interrogatory 9. (g) The person(s) to whom the medical advisor reported; (h) If no such person was hired, explain why. 11. Has defendant ever hired an industrial hygienist, safety director, or an occupational health advisor? If so, please state: (See Attached Sheet.) (a) The reason for hiring such an individual} (b) The location where the individual was assigned; (c) The duties of the individual; (d) The names and addresses of the persons hiring such individual and of the individual} (e) Whether such individual ever made recommendations with regard to minimizing, eliminating, or controlling as bestos dust exposure to your own workers or the workers exposed to your asbestos products, and if so, what were the recommendations; (f) The date defendant first hired such individuals; (g) The person(s) to whom the individual director reported; (h) if no such individual was hired, please explain why. 12. If any of your employees or officers have testified at trial or by deposition in any litigation or before any Congressional Com mittee or administrative agency, published any articles, or made any written statements concerning asbestos exposure, pulmonary or asbestos related diseases or industrial hygiene relating to asbestos use, state: Not applicable. ii 11. Objection on grounds that this interrogatory is overly broad, vague, burdensome, harassing and argumentative and seeks internal information completely irrelevant to the instant suit. Without waiving this objection, defendant would refer to its response to interrogatory 7, indentifying Richard Rosenberg who reports to Clyde C. Robinson. Additionally, Ron Groer, located at Borg-Wamer1 s offices at 100 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, is generally responsible for enforcement of safety regulations and policies. (a) The name, address and title of each person; (b) The date, location, and forum of such statement, article or testimony; (c) Whether defendant has a copy of such statement, article or testimony. 13. Have you undertaken to investigate the occurrence alleged in Plaintiff's complaint? If so, state: Answering defendant, Borg-Wamer has undertaken to investigate the occurrence alleged in plaintiffs' canplaint through the formal discovery process. Plaintiff's counsel is aware of all information obtained through this (a) The name, address and title of the persons participating process. in such investigation; (b) List each written record pertaining to such investiga tion and its location and custodian; (c) Whether you have obtained any written statements made by the plaintiff concerning any of the allegations in bis complaint. 14. Do you contend that the detrimental effects of asbestos to human health differ between asbestos factory workers, miners, millers,' insulation workers, and users of friction products? If so, explain in detail each such contention and supply the basis for each such con tention. Yes. Asbestos contained in friction materials incorporated into Borg- Warner service brake or clutch products is not in a loose or dusty form. Ihe probab ility of asbestos exposure to the other classifications of people listed in Interroga tory 14 obviously differs from or exceeds any such probability among users of those BorgWamer products which incorporate friction materials. (Con't. on attached sheet.) 15. Have you ever maintained an outside or independent unit which was responsible for installing, modifying, replacing, reconditioning or repairing asbestos friction products at locations outside of your own manufacturing plant? If so, please state: Objection on grounds this relates only to the internal practices and files of Borg-Wamer and is irrelevant to this action. (a) When such units were created; (b) Where such units were employed or used; ii 14. (can't.) No cutting, sawing, shaping or mixing of asbestos or asbestos products is required of those who install or use Borg-Wamer' s clutch products. (c) Whether you maintained workers compensation insurance on these workers; (d) When, if ever* you received notice of an asbestos related disease* among such workers; (e) The names and addresses of the persons who notified you of their asbestos related disease. 16.Set forth each and every method# if any# used by defendant to restrict release of asbestos dust# fibres or materials out of the transport containers or from the products themselves# indicating with regard to each 6uch method the time period it was used. Objected to for the reasons set forth in asnvrer to Interrogatory 15 above. Further more, defendant does not admit that asbestos dust is released frcm Borg-Wamer's products. 17. Set forth in detail with regard to each and every sale# delivery or supply of an asbestos product to plaintiff's employer the following: (See Attached Sheet.) (a) The date of each such sale or delivery; (b) The generic name of the asbestos product; (c} The brand name of the asbestos product; (d) The trademarked name of the asbestos product; (e) The chemical composition of such asbestos product; (f) The quantity of each such sale# delivery or supply# and the price paid by employer for the shipment; (g) The invoice and purchase order number of such shipments and other information required to identify each such shipment; (h) The department and officer or employees of plaintiff's employer who: 17. As previously stated in Borg-Wamer's answar to Interrogatory 47, in its first set of Interrogatories, Borg-Wamer has no record of selling, delivering or supplying asbestos products directly to plaintiff's decedent's enployers and has no knowledge of any entities which my have done so. 1* Placed the order; 2. Accepted delivery. (i) The department and officer or employee of defendant who 1. Accepted the order; 2. Packaged the order; 3. Shipped the order; 4. Has possession at the present time of the records concerning such shipment. 18. With regard to each order of asbestos products sold, deli vered or supplied by defendant to plaintiff's employer, state whether; See Answer to Interrogatory No. 17. (a) Defendant provided employer with product specifications concerning the asbestos products sold; (b) The employer provided product specifications to defend ant concerning the asbestos products ordered .from de i 5 fendant; 1 1t (c) The defendant provided employer with any advertising or j promotional material; \ V*5 (d) The defendant provided any instructions concerning the proper use of asbestos materials; 3 i i (e) The defendant provided warnings regarding the asbestos products sold or delivered; (f) The defendant provided any warranties concerning the asbestos products delivered; (g) The defendant expressly disclaimed any warranties con cerning the asbestosiproducts delivered. 19. If any part of the Interrogatory above is answered in the affirmative: See answer to Interrogatory No. 17. (a). Describe each document in detail; (b) Identify each such document by date, title and identi fication number; (c) Indicate the name, address and job title of the person who prepared it; (d) Indicate the name, address and job title of the person who authorised its use; (e) Indicate the means of transmission of each; (f) Attach copies of all of same hereto. 20. If any of the information referred to in the interrogatory above was transmitted orally, set forth in detail; See answer to Interrogatory No. 17. . . (a) The substance of each transmission; (b) . The date of each transmission; (c) The name and address and job title of each party who so transmitted same; (d) The means of each oral transmission; (e) The name, address and job title of the party of employer who received the transmission. 23. Set forth/ in detail, all knowledge defendant had (giving date knowledge was obtained in each such instance and the name and addre of the person who obtained such knowledge) with regard to jobs, work are and general environment of plaintiff, including: None. (a) The materials used and the names of the manufacturers or suppliers; (b) Amount of asbestos friction materials use; (c)~ Grade or type of asbestos friction materials used; (d) Enviromental conditions; (e) Threshold limit values of asbestos; (f) Medical examination and treatment of employees; (g) Health and safety program and procedures used; (h) Work practices; (i) Available protective equipment. 24. Did defendant at any time make any efforts to ascertain the conditions under which their products containing asbestos were used or might be used at the plaintiff's employer's facility? If so, state: No. (a) When such efforts were made; (b) What such efforts revealed; (c) The individual and his or her job classification who made such efforts; (d) What defendant did as a result of obtaining such infor mation; (e) Zf not, explain* why. i ; ; 3 . 25. . Bas any officer, employee, or representative of defendant ; - visited any -automotive repair shop where its asbestos products were * ; used? Zf so,- state: (See Attached Sheet.) : * (a) The name, address, and title of each employee who visi ted the shop, and the name of the shop visited; (b) The purpose of each visit; (c) The person he or she saw at the shop on each occasion; (d) Whether such party or parties discussed the effects on health and safety of exposure to asbestos with any personnel at said shop> and if so, state: 1. The content of such discussions; 2* The dates of such discussions; 3 (e) Whether such party or parties attempted to impart in formation concerning health and safety ramifications of asbestos exposure, and if so, state: 1. Results of such efforts; 2. The content of the information sought to be imparted; 3. The dates of such efforts; 4. To whom such information was imparted; 25. Defendant Borg-Wamer Corporation objects to this Interrogatory as being overly-broad and unlimited in scope so as to be patently burdensome and onerous. The burden upon Borg-Wamer in terms of cost and nan hours to respond to this Interrogatory with respect to each officer, employee, or representative of Borg-Wamer who visited an automobile repair shop where its products containing asbestos-bearing components were being used would far outweith any benefit that this information could provide. (f) Whether reports, memoranda, or notes were prepared as a result of such visits, and if so, attach copies hereto. 26. - Did any representatives of the following direct any corres pondence to you? Defendant Borg-Wamer objects to this Interrogatory as being overly broad and unlimited in scope so as to be patently burdensome and harassing. (a) Any of the automotive repair facilities listed in plain tiff's complaint; (b) Any other plant or automotive repair shop employing your asbestos products in their operations; (c) Any of the named defendants or third-party defendants in this action. 27, If the answer to any of the subparts in the previous inter rogatory is in the affirmative, please indicate whether there is any part of said correspondence which can be classified in any of the following enumerated categories: see answer to interrogatory No. 26. (a) Medical policy, practices and procedures, preventive occupational medicine or industrial hygiene; (b) Asbestos product safety; (c) Knowledge of actual, alleged or possible health effects associated with exposure to asbestos fibres or products; (d) warnings to direct or indirect purchasers, employees, users, employers, and other individuals such as husband or wif<e plaintiffs concerning the health effects of asbestos, protective equipment to be worn or used when expose^ to asbestos, and the prooer method for handling asbestos; (e) Actions taken to protect direct or indirect purchasers, employees, users, employers, and other individuals such as husband or wife plaintiffs from the adverse health effects of asbestos; (f) Any actions taken to publicize the existence of the adverse health effects of asbestos; (g) Rebranding of your asbestos fibres or products by others for sale to any of the entities mentioned in interroga tory 26; (h) Rebranding of asbestos fibres or products or others for sale by you to any of the entities mentioned in inter rogatory 26; (i) Sales of your asbestos fibres or products to any of the entities mentioned in interrogatory 26; (j) Procedures for the manufacture of asbestos friction materials supplied to any of the entities mentioned in interrogatory 26; (k) Procedures for which asbestos fibres or products would be used by individuals such as husband-plaintiff; (1) Communications by you or any trade association of which you were a member with respect to any actual, alleged, or possible health effects associated with exposure to asbestos; J (m) Communications by you or any trade association of which \ you were a member with respect to actual or proposed standards or regulations concerning the manufacture , processing, use, handling or distribution of asbestos or j asbestos products; (n) Actions taken by you to improve ventilation or dust collection equipment at your asbestos facilities; . (o) Discussions or grievances or complaints filed by any person, employee or union with respect to allegedly unsafe working conditions or the adverse health effects of asbestos; (p) Discussions or complaints or warnings by any governmen tal agency with respect to allegedly unsafe working conditions or the adverse health effects of asbestos or violations of safety regulations; (q) History of asbestos linked illnesses among employees exposed to asbestos; (r) Workmen's compensation claims, contract unit claims or lawsuits alleging illnesses resulting from exposure to asbestos; (s) State of medical, scientific and industry knowledge' regarding asbestos related disease; o 28. If the answer to the above interrogatory is in the affirma tive, identify the following: See answer to Interrogatory No. 26 (a) The name and title of the person authorizing the corres pondence; (b) The date of each correspondence; t (c) Whether or not a copy of the correspondence is presently retained by this defendant or its representatives; (d) The name and address of the custodian of such corres pondence. 29. Did you direct any correspondence to any representatives of the entities mentioned in interrogatory 26? See answer to Interrogatory No. 26. 30. If the answer to any of the subparts in the previous interrogatory is in the affirmative, please indicate whether there is any part of said correspondence which can be classified in any of the following enumerated categories: see answer to Interrogatory No. 26. i (a) Medical policy, practices and procedures, preventive j occupational medicine or industrial hygiene; i (b) Asbestos product safety; (c) Knowledge of actual, alleged or possible health effects associated with exposure to asbestos fibres or products; .(d) Warnings to direct or indirect purchasers, employees, users, employers, and other individuals such as husband or wife plaintiffs concerning the health effects of asbestos, protective equipment to be worn or used when exposed to asbestos, and the proper method for handling asbestos; (e) Actions taken to protect direct or indirect purchasers, employees, users, employers, and other individuals such as husband or wife plaintiffs from the adverse health effects of asbestos; it (f) Any actions taken to publicize the existence of the adverse health effects of asbestos; (9) Rebranding of your asbestos fibres or products by others for sale to any of the entities mentioned in interroga tory 26; (h) Rebranding of asbestos fibres or products or others for sale by you to any of the entities mentioned in inter rogatory 26; (i) Sales of your asbestos fibres or products to any of the entities mentioned in interrogatory 26; (j) Procedures for the manufacture of asbestos friction materials supplied to any of the entities mentioned in interrogatory 26; (k) Procedures for which asbestos fibres or products would be used by individuals such as husband-plaintiff; (1) Communications by you or any trade association of which you were a member with respect to any actual, alleged, or possible health effects associated with exposure to asbestos; (m) Communications by you or any trade association of which you were a member with respect to actual or proposed standards or regulations concerning the manufacture, processing, use, handling or distribution of asbestos or asbestos products; (n) Actions taken by you to improve ventilation or dust collection equipment at your asbestos facilities; (o) Discussions or grievances or complaints filed by any person, employee or union with respect to allegedly unsafe working conditions or the adverse health effects of asbestos; (p) Discussions or complaints or warnings by any governmen tal agency with respect to allegedly unsafe working conditions or the adverse health effects of asbestos or violations of safety regulations; (q) History of asbestos linked illnesses among employees exposed to asbestos; (r) Workmen's compensation claims, contract unit claims or lawsuits alleging illnesses resulting from exposure to asbestos; (s) State of medical, scientific and industry knowledge regarding asbestos related disease* 31. If the answer to the above interrogatory is in the affirma tive, identify the following: See answer to Interrogatory No. 26. (a) The name and title of the person authorizing the corres pondence; (b) The date of each correspondence; (c) Whether or not a copy of the correspondence is presently retained by this defendant or its representatives; (d) The name and address of the custodian of such corres pondence. t i 4 32. From 1930 until the present, identify the individual(s) who are or were the most knowledgeable concerning the specified categories which follow, and indicate the period of time over which such person was most knowledgeable. If the most knowledgeable person is deceased or is no longer in your employ, please state his or her name and last know address and also, the name of the most knowledgeable person who is in your employs (See Attached Sheet.) (a) Medical policy, practices and procedures, preventive occupational medicine or industrial hygiene; (b) Asbestos product safety; (c) Knowledge of actual, alleged or possible health effects associated with exposure to asbestos fibres or products; (d) Warnings to direct or indirect purchasers, employees, users, employers, and other individuals such as husband or wife plaintiffs concerning the health effects of asbestos, protective equipment to be worn or used when w 1 exposed to asbestos, and the proper method for handling asbestos; (e) Actions taken to protect direct or indirect purchasers, employees, users, employers, and other individuals such as husband or wife plaintiffs from the adverse health effects of asbestos; (f) Any actions taken to publicize the existence of the adverse health effects of asbestos;' (g) Rebranding of your asbestos fibres or products by others for sale to any of the entities mentioned in interroga tory 26; (h) Rebranding of asbestos fibres or products or others for sale by you to any of the entities mentioned in inter rogatory 26; 32. Defendant Borg-Wamer Corporation objects to this Interrogatory as being overly broad, burdensome, harassing and argumentative. The burden upon Borg-Wamer Corporation in terms of cost and man hours to respond to this Interrogatory with respect to the most knowledgeable person in its employ in 22 different categories over the past 55 years would far outweigh any benefit such information would provide. II 3j }1*tli ) i i \ (i) Sales of your asbestos fibres or products to any of the entities mentioned in interrogatory 26; (j) Procedures for the manufacture of asbestos friction materials supplied to any of the entities mentioned in interrogatory 26; (k) Procedures for which asbestos fibres or products would be used by individuals such as husband-plaintiff; (1) Communications by you or any trade association of which you were a member with respect to any actual, alleged, or possible health effects associated with exposure to asbestos; (m) Communications by you or any trade association of which you were a member with respect to actual or proposed standards or regulations concerning the manufacture, processing, use, handling or distribution of asbestos or asbestos products; (n) Actions taken by you to improve ventilation or dust collection equipment at your asbestos facilities; (o) Discussions or grievances or complaints filed by any person, employee or union with respect to allegedly unsafe working conditions or the adverse health effects of asbestos; (p) Discussions or complaints or warnings by. any governmen tal agency with respect to allegedly unsafe working conditions or the adverse health effects of asbestos or violations of safety regulations; (q) History of asbestos linked illnesses among employees exposed to asbestos; (r) Workmen's compensation claims, contract unit claims or lawsuits alleging illnesses resulting from exposure to asbestos; (s) State of medical, scientific and industry knowledge regarding asbestos related disease; (t) Your corporate history; (u) Your relationship with other corporate entities under your ownership or control; (v) Location, purpose and operation of your manufacturing facilities. 33. Did this defendant ever become aware that other companies which sold or supplied asbestos friction or insulation products began to affix precautionary health warning labels to their containers of asbestos fibre or packages of asbestos products? Zf so, state: Defendant Borg-Warner became aware of the use of warning labels on asbestos products when this became a matter of public knowledge. (a) When you first became aware; (b) Names and addresses of persons who became aware; (c) Circumstances under which he or she became aware; (d) Zf your awareness was obtained through a writing, iden tify the author and date of same, and attach a copy hereto. 34. Did defendant place warnings on its containers of asbestos fibre or products that were distributed outside of the United States? NO. (a) If not, explain why, and state the names and addresses of the persons who were responsible for making this decision, and the reason for same; Objection on grounds thgrti this is an argumentative and improper Interrogatory. (b) If so, state: Not applicable 1. When defendant first placed such warnings; 2. State the verbatim content of a warning; 3. The reason why such warnings were placed in contain ers or packages. 35. If defendant did not place warnings concerning the adverse health effects of asbestos on its containers of asbestos fibre or products which were distributed or sold outside the United States, or said warnings were placed on the containers of asbestos fibres or products subsequent to their placement on containers sold within the United States, please indicate why such warnings were used in the United States but not elsewhere. Also specify: Not applicable. (a) Each and every country where such warnings were or were not used; (b) As of what date warnings were used with regard to each country; (c) The name and address of the person whose decision it was to place or not to place such warnings. 36. Describe in detail the clothing and/or equipment worn by defendant's employees engaged in the manufacturing, production, pro cessing, packaging, assembly, storage or transportation of its asbes tos fibre and/or asbestos products. Also please state: Objected to for the reason set forth in response to Interrogatory No. 15. (a) The date such clothing and/or equipment was used; (b) The names and addresses of the persons who recommended the use of such clothing or equipment; (c) The name and address of the person whose decision it was to use such clothing or equipment; - (d) State the full and complete purpose of each piece of ' equipment or clothing; (e) If the purpose was to reduce dust levels or provide protection from dust, indicate exactly which dust or dusts, and why defendant wanted to provide protection from dust or reduce the dust level. 37. If your company contends that there was no satisfactory sub stitute for friction products containing asbestos prior to 1973 state each and every fact which supports that contention, and the names and addresses of persons with any knowledge.. While Borg-Warner does contend there was no such satisfactory substitute prior to 1973, it objects to this Interroga tory insofar as it calls for a statement of each and every fact supporting this contention. Such delineation would require a report of all internal test results gathered by the Corporation. Without waiving this objection Borg-Wamer states that internal tests conducted on friction material obtained form various suppliers showed that alternate materials lacked characteristics required of (Con't. on attached sheet.) 38. If your company contends that asbestos fibres serve any pur pose other than as frictibn material when used as a friction material in friction products please state what that purpose is, when asbestos fibres first served that purpose, and each and every fact which sup ports that contention, and the names and addresses of persons with any knowledge. In addition to heat resistance, asbestos fibers supply reinforcement, providing \ strength to the material which helps to prevent breakage of friction materials. Richard Rosenberg has knowledge. 39. Is it defendant's contention that while there is a causal relationship between asbestos and disease, illness, or injury suffered by the plaintiff, the asbestos which caused same was not the defend ant's? If so, set forth in details Objection. As asked, this Interrogatory is unclear and ambiguous. Defendant does not contend that any illness, disease or disability of plaintiff's decedent was related to or caused by any product manufactured or sold by Borg-Wamer Corporation. With regard to the actual cause of plaintiff's decedent's illness and death, defendant answers that discovery is continuing. 37. friction materials. Richard Rosenberg identified above, has knowledge of these facts. 4 (a) The source of the asbestos that caused the injury# illness or disease; (b) The reasons supporting that conclusion; (c) Whether defendant ever supplied asbestos products in any fora to that source (indicating the dates of such sup ply) ? (d) -The names and addresses of persons with any knowledge. 40. Zf defendant contends that plaintiffs improperly used or misused its asbestos fibre and/or friction products, please set forth in detail in what respect the fibre and/or friction products were improperly used, the facts that support that contention, and the.names and addresses of persons with any knowledge* Defendant objects to Interroga tories 40 through 43 since these Interrogatories assume that the plaintiff's decedent used or was exposed to products manufactured or sold by defendant. By way of further answer, if it be proven that defendant's asbestos-bearing products were used in seme wa} by plaintiff's decedent, plaintiff's decedent may have been contributorily negligent or assumed a known risk in the manner in which he used such products. No further infor mation is presently available. 41. If defendant contends that plaintiff was contributorily negligent while using defendant's fibre and/or friction products please set forth in detail in what respect plaintiff was contribu torily negligent, stating each and every fact which supports that contention, and the names and addresses of persons with any knowledge. See answer to Interrogatory No. 40. 42. Zf defendant contends that plaintiff assumed the risk of injury or illness while using defendant's fibre and/or friction pro ducts, please set forth in detail in what respect plaintiff assumed the risk, stating each and every fact which supports that contention, and the names and addresses of persons with any knowledge. See answer to Interrogatory No. 41. 43. If defendant contends that there are other legally responsi ble persons or entities not named in this lawsuit, please set forth who those persons or entities are and the facts which supports that contention# and the names and addresses of persons with any knowledge. See answer to Interrogatory No. 40. 44. If defendant contends that any of the entities listed in interrogatory 26 were more knowledgeable than defendant about the dangers associated with exposure to asbestos during the plaintiff's employ at any of the facilities listed in the plaintiff's complaint# please set forth in detail the facts which support that contention# and the names and addresses of persons with any knowledge. At present, defendant does not have information sufficient to answer these Interrogatories since it does not knew what the state of knowledge of any of the J entities involved was at any given time. tJ 45. If the response to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative# please set forth why the information which was available to these entities was not also available to defendant. See answer to Interrogatory No. 44. 46. If defendant contends that it was not the proximate cause of plaintiffs' injuries# please set forth in detail in what respect it was not the proximate cause of plaintiffs' injuries# each and every fact which supports that contention# and the names and addresses of persons with any knowledge. At this time, Borg-Wamer does not believe that the plaintiff's decedent was exposed to its products or that any products which it manufactured or sold ware the proximate cause of any injuries, disease, disability or death of plaintiff's decedent. 47. If defendant contends that plaintiffs' claims are barred by the statute of limitations# please set forth# in detail# each and every fact which supports that contention# and the names and addresses of persons with any knowledge. The facts relating to the statute of limitations and its effect on the plaintiff's decedent's claim has and will be developed through discovery in which all parties will participate. 48. If defendant contends that service was not properly effected upon it, please set forth the facts which support that contention, and the names and addresses of persons with any knowledge. Not applicable. 49. If defendant contends that the various types of asbestos and asbestos products listed in answer to interrogatory #6 of plaintiff's interrogatories to defendant, first set were not (a) Removed from vehicles which were repaired at any of the facilities listed in plaintiff's complaint as places of employment; (b) Installed in vehicles which were repaired at any of the facilities listed in plaintiff's complaint as places of employment; Please set forth in detail the facts which support that contention, as well as the names and addresses of persons who have any information* At this time, defendant Borg-Wamer does not have sufficient information to respond "fully to this Interrogatory and reserves the fight to supplement this answer as discovery continues. By way of further answer, in light of the limited number of disc brake pads manufactured and sold by Borg-Wamer and the specialized vehicles for which they were used, it is highly unlikely that plaintiff used this product. 50. If defendant contends that this court does not have juris diction over the instant matter, please set forth, in detail, the facts that support that contention, and the names and addresses of persons with any knowledge. The facts relating to the court's jurisdiction and its effect on the plaintiff's decedent's claim has and will be developed through discovery in which all parties will participate. 51* If defendant contends that the "state of the art" of medical and/or scientific knowledge concerning the dangers or adverse health effects of asbestos was such that defendant should not have known of the risks to which it exposed the plaintiffs as a result of contact with its asbestos fibre or asbestos friction or automotive products, please set forth in detail the facts that support that contention, and the names and addresses of persons with any knowledge. Defendant Borg-Wamer does not have sufficient information to respond fully to this Interrogatory and reserves the right to majte supplemental answers as necessary. N 1 52. If defendant contends that it believed that if dust concen i trations (of asbestos-containing dust) were kept below 5 million particles per cubic foot, plaintiff and others similarly situated 31 would not contract asbestosis, and in support of this contention will rely upon A Study of Asbestos in the Asbestos Textile Industry* by Dreesen, Dallavale, Edwards, Miller and Sayers, U.S. Treasury Depart ment, Public Health Service, Public Health Bulletin No. 241, (1938), please state: Defendant Borg-^Wamer does not have sufficient information to respond fully to this Interrogatory and reserves the right to make supplemental answers as necessary, (a) Who is the first person in defendant's employ who read this article; (b) Where defendant obtained such article; (c) When defendant, or its employee, first read this arti cle; (d) The name of all persons in defendant's employ who read this article prior to 1970; (e) What steps, if any, defendant took to determine the ; . validity of the study upon which the article was based; . (f) If the person named in subpart (a) above is deceased, upon what facts do you base your statement that this person read this article at the aforementioned time. 4< 53. If defendant contends that plaintiff's employer failed to i take adequate precautionary measures to protect plaintiff from ex 1 posure to asbestos fibre or asbestos automotive products, please set forth, in detail, in what respect(s) plaintiff's employer did not take adequate precautionary measures, setting forth each and every fact which supports that contention, and the names and addresses of persons ii i with any knowledge. Defendant Borg-Wamer does not have sufficient infonration to respond fully to this Interrogatory and reserves the right to make supplemental answers as necessary. !3 5 * i* i I I 54. Have any of the products listed in answer to interrogatory #6 of plaintiff's interrogatories to defendant/ first set been patented at any time? If so, state: (See Attached Sheet.) (a) The patent number; (b) When the patent was acquired. 55. If defendant contends that plaintiff's injuries were in any way caused or aggravated by toxins, pollutants, or agents other than . asbestos or tobacco, please state the name of each such agent, the injury it caused or aggravated, whether it has caused or aggravated his injuries, and every fact which supports the contention that plain tiff's injuries were so caused or aggravated. Defendant Borg-Wamer does not have sufficient information at this time to respond fully to this Interrogatory and reserves the right to make a supplonental response as discovery continues. 56. Zf defendant contends that the contact of asbestos friction materials against either brake drums or flywheels does not produce asbestos-containing dust, please set forth each and every fact which supports that contention, and the names and addresses of persons with any knowledge. Not applicable; Borg-Wamer does not and has never made or sold brake shoes or drvms or friction materials for than. 57. If defendant contends that warnings are not necessary on asbestos-containing automotive products, including but not limited to friction materials, gaskets and shielding, please set forth each and every fact which supports that contention, and the names and addresses of persons with any knowledge. Defendant Borg-Wamer does not have sufficient information at this time to respond fully to this Interrogatory and reserves the right to make a supplemental response as discovery continues. 58. For each asbestos automotive product listed in your answer to interrogatory #6 of plaintiff's interrogatories to defendants, first set, set forth: , (a) The type of asbestos fibre used in the product; Borg-Wamer*s disc brake pads contained Chrysotile asbestos, organic and inorganic fillers and resin binders. The chemical composition of the asbestos-bearing friction materials supplied to Borg-Wamer by others for incorporation into defendant's clutch assemblies are. unknown to Borg-Wamer and maintained as proprietary information by such suppliers. 54. Defendant, Borg-Wamer objects to this Interrogatory as it is burdensome, onerous, and not calculated to lead to any admissible evidence. Borg-Wamer assemblies have been the subject of numerous patents over the years of the Company's existence and to list all such patents would be burdensome and irrelevant. 0 (b) The percentage of the product comprised of asbestos; Exact percentages unknown. (c) The vendor of the asbestos fibre contained in the product Asbestos-bearing friction materials incorporated in Borg-Wamer's clutch assemblies have been supplied by Raybestos Manhattan (Raymark), American Brake Shoe, Arisco, Gatke, Johns-Manville, National Friction Products, Rusco, Standco, and H.K. Porter, Inc., Dientoid Division Airco Works. Asbestos incorporated in Borg-Wamer's disc brake Pyte vas produced by Asbestos Corporation, Thatford Mines, (Con't. on attached sheet.) 59, Please set forth each and every method of affixing defendant's asbestos friction materials to metal shoes or plates from 1938 until the present,_ Disc brake pads would be riveted or glued on. Borg-Wamer has not manufactured or sold, as separate components, asbestos-bearing clutch facings, and users of BorgWamer's clutch assemblies would not need to install clutch facings, which are installed at Borg-Wamer's facilities before the clutch products are sold. 60, Please state whether defendant is aware of the practice of using compressed air to remove accumulated dust and debris from brake drums or friction mechanisms during brake or clutch maintenance or repair. Objection on grounds that this Interrogatory is argumentative and seeks information beyond the scope of Borg-Wamer's own businesses or practices. 61, Zf the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affir mative, please set forth: Not applicable. (a) The date when defendant first became aware of this practice; (b) How defendant became aware of this practice; (c) Whether defendant recommended such practice in product literature, manuals, or instruction booklets, and if so: 1. Set forth the dates during which such practices were recommended; 2. Please attach a copy of any such product literature, manuals, or instruction booklets, (d) The name and address of persons with any knowledge. i 58(c) Quebec, Canada and sold to Borg-Wamer through Donald R. Fitzgerald Ccsrpany, Chicago. 62. Please set forth whether defendant is aware of the practice of grinding or bevelling asbestos friction materials. Objection; see response to Interrogatory No. 60. 63. If-the response to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, please set forth: Not applicable. (a) The purpose for which defendant's asbestos friction materials were ground or bevelled; (b) The date when defendant first became aware of this practice; (c) How defendant first became aware of this practice; (d) Whether defendant recommended such practice in product literature, manuals, or instruction booklets, and if so: 1. Please set forth the dates during which such prac tices were recommended; 2. Please attach a copy of any such literature, manuals or instruction booklets. (e) The name and address of persons with any knowledge. 64. Please state whether defendant is aware of the practice of drilling or punching holes in their asbestos friction products in order to affix such products to metal shoes or plates. Objection; see responses to Interrogatories No. 60 and No. 62. Without waiving this objection, Borg-Wamer states that the friction mterials incorporated in products are affixed to plates at Borg-Wamer's own facilities and not by any user of Borg-Wamer`s products. ii 65. X the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affir mative, please set forth; Not applicable. (a) The date when defendant first became aware of this practice; (b) How defendant first became aware of this practice; (c) Whether defendant recommended such practice in product literature, manuals# or instruction booklets, and if so: 1. If defendant did recommend such practice, please set forth the dates during which such practice was recom mended; 2. Please attach a copy of any such literature, manuals, or instruction booklets. (d) The name and address of persons with any knowledge. 66. Please list each and every lawsuit involving your asbestos friction products in the following jurisdictions* (See Attached sheet.) (a) Any Common Pleas Court in Pennsylvania (b) Any Federal Court in Pennsylvania (c) Any State Court in: 1. Wee Jersey; 2. Hew York; 3. Delaware 4. California 5. Maryland (d) Any Federal Court in: <fcfct r> 66. Borg-Warner has not manufactured asbestos-bearing friction products except disc brake pads for a limited period of time and for limited applications as previously described. Hh& following lawsuits currently pending against Borg- Wamer allege involvement of brake or clutch products iranufactured or dis tributed by Borg-Warner. (a) Pennsylvania Cannon Pleas Courts Britton, Paul v. Keasbey-Mattison, Co., et al. Opposing Counsel: Joseph Shein, Philadelphia Connelly, Daniel v. Pacor, Inc., et al Opposing counsel: Greitzer & locks, Philadelphia Cunningham v. Wagner Elec. Corp. Opposing Counsel: Joseph Shein, Philadelphia Donald J. Davis v. Johns-Manville, et al Opposing Counsel: Jacobs and Levin, Philadelphia Frable, Earlv. Raymark Industries, Inc. Opposing Counsel: Kelly, Harrington, McLaughlin and Poster Greene, Roger E. v. Pacor, Inc. Opposing counsel: Joseph Shein, Philadelphia Landwehr v. Raymark Opposing counsel: Joseph Shein, Philadelphia London, Vemell v. Nicolet Industries, et al, including Borg-Warner Opposing counsel: Joseph Shein, Philadelphia Pannell, Ether v. Johns-itonville Corporation, et al, including Borg-Warner Opposing Counsel: Greitzer & Locks Reed, Robert v. Borg-Warner Corporation Opposing Counsel: Joseph D. Shein Sands, Richard, III v. Raymark Industries, Inc., et al, including Borg-Warner Corp. Opposing Counsel: Joseph D. Shein Scimitarra, Vincent v. Raymark Industries, Inc. Opposing Counsel: Joseph D. Shein (b) Federal Courts in Pennsylvania Corsino, William v. Ihe Celotex Corp., et al Opposing Counsel: Bolton & Pitkcw, Philadelphia Magargal, Russell v. Raymark Industries, Inc. et al, including Borg-Warner Corp. Opposing Counsel: Lawrence D. Levin, Wyncote, Pennsylvania William B. and Mary R. Robinson v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., et al Opposing Counsel: Bolton & Pitkew, Philadelphia Clarence Rouse and Hazel Rouse, v. Johns-Manville Qorp., et al Opposing Oounsel: Baskin and Sears, Pittsburg Scott v. Keane Oorp. Opposing Counsel: Hal C. Pitkow, Philadelphia Tease v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc. Opposing Counsel: Shor, Levin & Weiss, Wyncote, Pennsylvania (c-d) Objection on grounds that any suits pending in the jurisdictions listed in these subparts are irrelevant to the instant matter insofar as they involve different employers, products, marketing areas and working conditions fran those allegedly involved herein. Furthermore, such information is a matter of public record, directly obtainable by plaintiff. I' 1. New Jersey; VERIFICATION Jack L. Wentz states that he is Secretary for Borg-Waraer Corporation, the defendant herein; that he is authorized to make this Verification on behalf of said defendant; that he has reviewed the foregoing Answers to Interrogatories; and that the facts set forth therein are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. These statements are made subject to the penalties of 18 PA. C.S. Paragraph 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.