arrow left
arrow right
  • JAMES RODAMER VS. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • JAMES RODAMER VS. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • JAMES RODAMER VS. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • JAMES RODAMER VS. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • JAMES RODAMER VS. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • JAMES RODAMER VS. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY et al ASBESTOS document preview 
						
                                
Preview

                                —

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
a 1]
—
as 12
& = 13
=<
2s 14
ee 15
BE 16
Nr
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

$27787.]  166.22997

MARK A, LOVE (SBN 162028) ELECTRONICALLY

KHALED TAQIT-EDDIN (SBN 220923)

SELMAN BREITMAN LLP FILED
33 New Montgomery, Sixth Floor
San Francisco, California 94105

Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco

Telephone: (415) 979-0400 MAR 29 2007
Facsimile: (415) 979-2099 GORDON PARK-LI, Clerk
mlove@selmanbreitman.com BY: EDNALEEN JAVIER-LACSGN
ktaqieddin@selmanbreitman.com Deputy Clerk _

Attorneys for Defendant
DOUGLASS INSULATION COMPANY

SUPLRIOR COURT GF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO — UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

JAMES and NANCY RODAMER, CASENO. CGC-06-456569

Plaintiffs, DECLARATION OF VIRGINA
SMOTHERMAN IN SUPPORT OF
Vv. DOUGLASS INSULATION COMPANY
INC.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY, et al, JUDGMENT OR, IN THE
ALTERNATEVE, SUMMARY
Defendants. ADJUDICATION

Date : April 13, 2007
Time : 9:30 a.m.

Dept. : 301

Judge : Hon. Peter J. Busch

. Dates Action Filed:
: Personal Injury: September 29, 2006

Trial Date: April 30, 2007

1, Virginia Smotherman, declare and state as follows:

1. lirom 1968 to 1994, T was the office manager for Douglass Insulation Company,
Inc (heremafter “DOUGLASS”).

2, T am currently the person most knowledgeable for DOUGT.ASS. T have had my

deposition taken in the past as the person most knowledgeable and have served in this capacity
]

DECLARATION OF VIRGINA SMOTHERMAN IN SUPRORT OF DOUGLASS INSULATION COMPANY

INC..'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
& i
a
Ss 12
&2 13
Se
eg 14
a: 1s
SE 16
gon
nv
18
19
20
21
22
3
24
25
26
27
28

waar 16622997

since the dissolution of DOUGLASS.

3. As office manager of DOUGLASS, I worked directly with Thomas Douglass
regarding the daily operations of the company. ‘The daily operations of the company involved
scheduling projects, handling and distributing all paperwork associated with projects, and ordering
some materials, I am familiar with the record keeping and procurement procedures utilized by
DOUGLASS. [am also familiar with contracts between DOUGLASS and others to perform work
involving the installation or removal of asbestos-containing products.

4. DOUGLASS was an insulation contractor who performed work applying

insulation materials in the San Francisco area.

5. ‘The entire time DOUGLASS was in operation, the business was owned and
operated by Thomas Douglass. ‘Thomas Douglass was a career insulator who went into business
for himself. Mr. Douglass continued to perform hand-on work in the insulation trade.

6. Ihave been informed of the allegations against DOUGLASS in the above-
captioned matter. DOUGLASS never manufactured any products, let alone any asbestos-
containing products. The entire time DOUGLASS was in operation, it was nothing morc than an
insulation contractor, At no time did DOUGLASS ever have a manufacturing operation or own
any interest in a manufacturing operation. DOUGLASS either purchased the materials it used on
its projects or had it supplied to them by the individual or entity that contracted with them.

7. DOUGLASS was not a seller of materials.

8 [have been informed that plaintiff James Rodamer alleges that he was exposed to
asbestos as a result of insulation materials being installed at Raychem between 1959 and 1972.

9. During the time period when DOUGLASS was alleged to have worked at
Raychem, DOUGLASS had no knowledge regarding the dangers or health hazards associated with
asbestos, DOUGLASS was a very small operation and did not have any physicians, nurscs, or
doctors on staff. DOUGLASS did not employ a chemist or industrial hygienist in any capacity at
anytime. DOUGLASS had not received any documents or conclusions of any studies and/or tests
conducted by any entity relating to asbestos exposure in the workplace or the human health
consequences of such exposures. DOUGLASS did not reccive any communications prior to 1972
regarding health hazards associated with asbestos.

10. DOUGLASS, its owner, and its employees were completely unaware of the

2

DECLARATION OF VIRGINA SMOTHERMAN IN SUPPORT OF DOUGLASS INSULATION COMPANY
INC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
5 i
gs, 2
as 13
ae
oe 14
mes
BE 1
>.
n
18
19
20
21
2
23
24
25
26
27
28
lament i967

dangers or the health hazards associated with asbestos prior to 1972. DOUGLASS, its owner and
its employees were similarly situated to plaintiff regarding work with, the dangers of, and the
health hazards associated with asbestos, DOUGLASS always performed its work in conformity
with all standards and procedures in place during the time that the work was performed.
DOUGLASS could not have reasonably known about the health hazards associated with asbestos
during the relevant time periods.

I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the
foregoing is truc and correct.

Executed on March “& , 2007, at South San Francisco, California.

dye Seertrmen

VIRGINIA SMOTHERMAN

3
DECLARATION OF VIRGINA SMOTHERM AN IN SUPPORT OF DOUGLASS INSULATION COMPANY
ING.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION