Preview
IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION
ASB-FBT-CV-22-6113982S : SUPERIOR COURT
:
THOMAS TOMKO and DEBORAH TOMKO : J.D. OF FAIRFIELD
:
VS. : AT BRIDGEPORT
:
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, individually and as :
successor to Amchem Corporation, Benjamin Foster :
Company and the Bakelite Company; :
ROGERS CORPORATION; :
SPECIAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, individually and as :
successor in interest to Special Asbestos and Special :
Materials; :
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; :
MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; :
CLEAVER BROOKS, A DIVISION OF AQUA-CHEM, :
INC.; :
SUPERIOR COMBUSTION, INC.; :
SUPERIOR COMBUSTION INDUSTRIES. INC. : November 2, 2022
REVISED AMENDED COMPLAINT
COUNT I
(Product liability as against All Defendants)
1. The plaintiff, THOMAS TOMKO, is a citizen of the State of Connecticut and
resides at 33 Bobby Lane, Manchester, Connecticut.
2. The plaintiff, DEBORAH TOMKO, is a citizen of the State of Connecticut and
resides at 33 Bobby Lane, Manchester, Connecticut.
3. Each of the defendants, and/or their predecessors in interest (hereinafter referred to
as the “Defendants”), named in the caption above conducted business in the state of
Connecticut has produced, manufactured or distributed asbestos and/or asbestos products
with the reasonable expectation that such products were so used or consumed, and/or has
committed the tortious acts set forth below.
3a. The defendant, Mine Safety Appliances Company, LLC, conducted business in
the state of Connecticut and has produced, manufactured or distributed various products for
respiratory protection, including the Dustfoe 77, with the reasonable expectation that such
products were so used or consumed, and/or has committed the tortious acts set forth below.
4. The employer or employers of the plaintiff were engaged in various activities in
which it bought and/or installed asbestos and/or asbestos products and materials.
5. The plaintiff, THOMAS TOMKO, was exposed to asbestos-containing products
through his work as a plant worker at Rogers Corporation from 1973-1977. Such exposure
contributed in part or totally to the plaintiff’s contraction of asbestos-related mesothelioma
and other asbestos-related pathologies.
6. During the period of time set forth above, the plaintiff was exposed to and did
inhale and/or ingest asbestos dust, fibers, and particles, which dust fibers, and particles came
from the asbestos products which were contracted for, mined, milled, processed,
manufactured, designed, tested, assembled, fashioned, fabricated, packaged, supplied,
distributed, delivered, marketed and/or sold by the defendants.
7. Upon information and belief, the defendants, through their agents and employees,
mined, processed, manufactured, designed, tested and/or packaged various asbestos fibers
and/or asbestos-containing products, and supplied, distributed, delivered, marketed and/or
sold said asbestos-containing products and materials to such employers or to other working at
such jobsites for use by employees, including the plaintiff.
7a. Upon information and belief, the defendant, Mine Safety Appliances Company,
LLC, through its agents and employees designed, tested, manufactured, sold, distributed
and/or packaged various respiratory protection products, including the Dustfoe 77, and
supplied, distributed, delivered, marketed and/or sold said products to the plaintiff’s
employer at such jobsites for use by employees, including the plaintiff.
8. At all relevant times that the plaintiff was working, the plaintiff was exposed to
asbestos materials and products which, as part of the plaintiff’s employment, the plaintiff was
forced to come into contact with and breathe, inhale, and ingest asbestos fibers and particles
coming from said asbestos products and materials.
9. At all times pertinent hereto, the defendants were engaged in the business of
contracting for, mining, milling, processing, manufacturing, designing, testing, assembling,
fashioning, fabricating, packaging, supplying, distributing, delivering, marketing, and/or
selling asbestos and asbestos products.
10. At all times pertinent hereto, the asbestos products contracted for, mined, milled,
processed, manufactured, designed, tested, assembled, fashioned, fabricated, packaged,
supplied, distributed, delivered, marketed, and/or sold by the defendants reached the plaintiff
without any substantial change in their condition from the time they were sold.
11. The defendants have been possessed of medical and scientific data, studies and
reports since approximately 1929, which information clearly indicated that asbestos and
asbestos-containing products were hazardous to the health and safety of the plaintiff and
other human beings.
12. The defendants, during the 1930's, 1940's, 1950's, and 1960's became possessed
of voluminous medical and scientific data, studies and reports, which information
conclusively established that asbestos and asbestos-containing products were hazardous to
the health and safety of the plaintiff and all humans exposed to the products.
13. The defendants have since the 1930's had numerous workers' compensation
claims filed against them by former asbestos workers/employees.
14. The defendants, since the 1920's, have consistently failed to acknowledge,
publish, or in any way advise of studies and reports known throughout the industry, including
studies conducted by or on behalf of various defendants in the asbestos industry.
15. Notwithstanding that the defendants possessed the foregoing information, the
defendants wrongfully contracted for, mined milled, processed, manufactured, designed,
tested, assembled, fashioned, fabricated, packaged, supplied, distributed, delivered,
marketed, sold, handled, shipped, received, used, and/or stored asbestos products and
materials to the plaintiff’s employer(s) and the defendants failed to render proper, adequate
and correct warnings, advice, instruction and information and so acted in a grossly negligent,
reckless, malicious, willful and wanton manner, failed to use reasonable care under all
circumstances, and wrongfully acted in other respects.
16. The actions of the defendants described and alleged above were wrongful under
Section 52-572m, et seq., in one or more of the following ways:
(a) Strict liability – The defendants are strictly liable for the plaintiffs’
injuries in that said asbestos-containing products and/or respiratory
protection devices were unreasonably defective in one or more of the
following ways:
i. in that said products were and are unreasonably dangerous and
unavoidably unsafe, and failed to carry proper, adequate and
correct warnings about their hazards about which the defendant
knew or should have known;
ii. in that said products were and are unreasonably dangerous, in
that they were and are dangerous to an extent beyond that
which the ordinary person in the position of the plaintiff would
contemplate;
(b) Negligence – The defendants knew or should have known that said
asbestos-containing products and/or respiratory protective devices
were inherently dangerous to those who used them or were exposed to
them, yet the defendants failed to use reasonable and/or ordinary care
in one or more of the following ways:
i. the defendants failed to provide proper, adequate and correct
warnings of the dangers of said products;
ii. the defendants failed to test their products to determine the full
extent of the health hazards posed by asbestos and/or the true
limits of respiratory protection afforded by their respiratory
protection devices;
iii. the defendants failed to remove their products from market
upon learning of the health hazards of asbestos;
iv. the defendants failed to find reasonably safer alternatives
and/or substitutes for asbestos;
v. the defendants failed to market, label or otherwise package
their products in a reasonably safe manner to prevent
mishandling and to prevent exposure to asbestos and/or the
release of asbestos during ordinary use and/or during
packaging, shipping, transportation, delivery, handling and use.
(c) Failure to warn – The defendants’ products failed to carry proper,
adequate and correct warnings of the hazards about which the
defendants knew or should have known and that, to the extent such
products did carry warnings, any such warnings, information,
packaging, cautions and/or safety instructions were improper and
inadequate.
i. Any warnings, information and/or instructions of safety
precautions were improper and inadequate in that, among other
things, they failed adequately and reasonably to apprise users,
handlers and persons coming into contact with said products
and materials of the full scope and danger to their health of
contact with asbestos products and materials, including the risk
of cancer and mesothelioma.
ii. It was the continuing duty of the defendants to advise and warn
purchasers, consumers, users and/or other persons coming into
contact with their products, and all prior purchasers,
consumers, users and/or other persons who came into contact
with their products, of all dangers, characteristics, potentialities
and/or defects discovered subsequent to their initial marketing
or sale of said asbestos and asbestos products.
iii. The defendants breached their duties to warn by:
a. failing to warn the plaintiff and the surrounding
communities of the dangers, characteristics, and/or
potentialities of the product or products when they
knew or should have known that the exposure to the
product(s) would cause disease and injury;
b. failing to warn the plaintiff and the surrounding
communities of the dangers to which the plaintiff was
exposed when they knew or should have known of the
dangers;
c. failing to exercise reasonable care to warn the plaintiff
and the surrounding communities of what would be
safe, sufficient, and properly protective clothing,
equipment, and appliances when working with, near or
during exposure to asbestos and asbestos products;
d. supplying asbestos or asbestos products that were
packaged, bagged, boxed and/or supplied in packaging,
bagging, boxes or other containers that were inadequate
and/or improper;
e. supplying asbestos or asbestos products that were
delivered to and reached the plaintiff without adequate
or proper handling instructions, face masks and/or
respirators;
f. failing to test the asbestos and asbestos products in
order to ascertain the extent of dangers involved upon
exposure;
g. failing to conduct such research that should have been
conducted in the exercise of reasonable care in order to
ascertain the dangers involved upon exposure;
h. failing to remove the product or products from the
market when the defendants knew or should have
known of the hazards of exposure to asbestos and
asbestos products;
i. failing upon discovery of the dangers, hazards, and
potentialities of exposure to asbestos adequately to
warn and apprise the plaintiff and the surrounding
communities of the dangers, hazards, and potentialities
discovered;
j. generally using unreasonable, careless, negligent and
reckless conduct in the contracting for, mining, milling
processing, manufacturing, designing, testing,
assembling, fashioning, fabricating, packaging,
supplying, distributing, delivering, marketing, and/or
selling of their asbestos and asbestos products.
(d) Breach of warranty – The defendants breached warranties, either
implied or express, in that these products were not fit and/or safe for
their known and intended purposes and uses.
17. As a result of the above, the plaintiff was caused to sustain severe, painful and
permanent injuries referred to above and/or other asbestos-related pathologies caused by the
plaintiff coming into contact with and breathing, inhaling and/or ingesting asbestos fibers.
The injuries and diseases from which the plaintiff suffered caused the plaintiff to suffer great
pain, suffering, mental anxiety, distress of mind, humiliation, emotional trauma, mental
anguish and, ultimately, death.
18. The disease, diseases or injuries from which the plaintiff suffered were directly
and proximately caused by the plaintiff ‘s exposure to asbestos and asbestos products which
were mined, milled, manufactured, designed, assembled, distributed, supplied, constructed,
processed, packaged, distributed, delivered, purchased and/or sold by the defendants.
19. As a result thereof, the plaintiff's life span was shortened and the plaintiff’s
capacity to carry on life's activities was impaired along with the plaintiff’s capacity to enjoy
life and family, to engage in any gainful employment, and to participate in civic affairs.
20. As a result of said illness, the plaintiff was obligated to incur expenses for
medical, hospital and surgical treatment, drugs, medicines, x-rays and medical apparatus, and
funeral expenses.
21. As a further result of said illness, the plaintiff's earning capacity was impaired.
22.The foregoing acts and omissions of the defendants constitute a reckless disregard
for the safety of product users, consumers or others who were injured by the products,
pursuant to General Statutes § 52-240b.
23. The plaintiff brings this Count pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes Sections
52-240a, 52-240b, and 52-572m et seq.
COUNT II
(Recklessness as against All Defendants)
1.- 23. Plaintiff(s) repeat and reallege all allegations contained in all paragraphs above
as is fully set forth herein.
24. The defendants have been possessed of medical and scientific data, studies and
reports since approximately 1929, which information indicated that asbestos and asbestos-
containing products were hazardous to their health and safety of the plaintiff and other
human beings.
25. The defendants, during the 1930’s, 1940’s, 1950’s and 1960’s became possessed
of medical and scientific data, studies and reports, which information established that
asbestos and asbestos-containing products were hazardous to the health and safety of the
plaintiff and all humans exposed to those products.
26. The defendants, since the 1920’s, have failed to acknowledge, publish, or in any
way advise of studies and reports known throughout the industry, including studies
conducted by or on behalf of various defendants in the asbestos industry.
27. Notwithstanding that the defendants possess the foregoing information the
defendants committed some or all of the wrongful acts and/or omissions described and
alleged in paragraph 11 of the First Count.
28. Said acts and omissions thus constitute misconduct that is grossly negligent,
willful, wanton, malicious and/or outrageous.
29. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of the Defendant(s), Plaintiff(s)
suffered serious bodily injury and death, endured great pain and suffering, incurred medical
expenses, suffered mental anguish, lost earning capacity, and was otherwise damaged.
COUNT III
(Product liability/Substantial Certainty as against Rogers Corporation)
1-28. Plaintiff(s) repeat and reallege all allegations contained in paragraphs 1
through 28 of Count II.
29. At all relevant times, the defendant, Rogers Corporation (“Rogers”), was a
corporation licensed and/or registered to do business in the state of Connecticut.
30. Plaintiff, Thomas Tomko, was employed by Rogers Corporation from 1973-
1977 at Rogers Corporation plant in Manchester, Connecticut.
31. At all relevant times, Rogers Corporation purchased, procured, milled,
processed, manufactured, used, fabricated, fashioned, assembled, designed, distributed,
tested, packaged, supplied and/or marketed asbestos and asbestos-containing products,
including, but not limited to raw asbestos fiber, asbestos cloth, asbestos gloves, asbestos
aprons, asbestos protective clothing and asbestos-containing respirator filters.
32. At all relevant times, Rogers Corporation purchased, procured, processed,
used, fashioned and/or utilized asbestos and asbestos-containing products that were
composed in whole or in part of crocidolite and chrysotile asbestos fibers.
33. Throughout the course of his employment at Rogers Corporation, the plaintiff
was exposed to said asbestos and asbestos-containing products by way of the raw materials
used in the production process, the intermediate products during the manufacturing process,
and the finished products.
34. Throughout the course of his employment at Rogers Corporation, the plaintiff
was exposed to, inhaled and/or ingested dusts and particles composed in whole or in part of
crocidolite and chrysotile asbestos fibers.
35. Throughout the course of his employment at Rogers Corporation, the plaintiff
was not provided with proper protection or knowledge to protect himself from the hazardous
asbestos dusts and particles that she was exposed to on a regular basis.
36. At all relevant times, Rogers Corporation knew that exposure to said asbestos
and asbestos-containing products was hazardous to its employees’ health and knew that
exposure to said asbestos and asbestos-containing products could cause asbestos-related
pathologies, including, but not limited to, malignant mesothelioma.
36a. Rogers Corporation learned of the hazardous nature of asbestos, among other
ways, by its association with the Society of the Plastics Industry dating back to 1957 when it
was part of an Asbestos Technical Committee that developed a bulletin detailing the health
hazards of asbestos. Rogers Corporation, along with the other members of the Committee,
deleted all references to asbestos health hazards before sending that bulletin out to the public.
37. Rogers Corporation never warned its employees, including the plaintiff, that
being exposed to, inhaling and/or ingesting asbestos dusts and particles would be hazardous
to their health or that it could cause asbestos-related pathologies, including, but not limited
to, malignant mesothelioma.
38. Plaintiffs’ severe, permanent and life-threatening injuries enumerated in
paragraphs 12 through 16 were caused by the willful, wanton, intentional and serious
misconduct of the defendant, Rogers Corporation, in one or more of the following ways:
a. Rogers Corporation knew that asbestos was hazardous to people’s
health and knew that asbestos could cause various asbestos-related
pathologies, including, but not limited to, malignant mesothelioma;
i. Rogers Corporation learned of these hazards in various ways,
including through its association and participation in the
Society of the Plastics Industry beginning in 1957;
ii. Rogers Corporation learned of these hazards through its
correspondence in the 1960s and early 1970s with one of its
asbestos fiber suppliers, Johns-Manville, who specifically
informed Rogers Corporation about the health hazards of
asbestos, about industrial hygiene standards that should be
followed in its factory, about contemporary research efforts
underway to study asbestos-related disease, and about the fact
that there was no safe threshold for exposure below which
mesothelioma could not occur;
iii. Rogers Corporation learned about the “grave danger to
employees” posed by asbestos exposure and that “lives of
employees are at stake” when the Occupational Safety and
Health Act was passed in 1970 and began to regulate
workplace asbestos exposures in 1971;
iv. Rogers Corporation learned of these hazards through its status
as an expert in its field and its concomitant duty and obligation
to keep abreast of scientific knowledge, discoveries and
advances;
b. Rogers Corporation knew, to a substantial certainty, that people
exposed to asbestos fibers are at a substantially elevated risk for
contracting asbestos-related pathologies, including, but not limited to,
malignant mesothelioma;
i. Rogers Corporation learned of these hazards in various ways,
including through its association and participation in the
Society of the Plastics Industry beginning in 1957; its
correspondence in the 1960s and early 1970s with one of its
asbestos fiber suppliers, Johns-Manville, who specifically
informed Rogers Corporation about the health hazards of
asbestos, about industrial hygiene standards that should be
followed in its factory, and about the fact that there was no safe
threshold for exposure below which mesothelioma could not
occur;
ii. Rogers Corporation knew that cohorts of asbestos-exposed
workers reported in the medical and scientific literature in the
1960s showed consistent, predictable rates of disease,
including mesothelioma, and knew that its own workforce was
subject to the same types of exposures;
iii. Rogers Corporation learned from the National Institute of
Occupational Safety and Health in the 1970s that exposures as
short as a single day had been implicated in the development of
malignant mesothelioma;
iv. Rogers Corporation learned that the American Conference of
Governmental Industrial Hygienists (“ACGIH”) threshold limit
values and the OSHA exposure limits were intended to reduce
or prevent asbestos-related disease and knew that it was
crucially important to keep exposures below those limits;
v. Rogers Corporation did not keep exposures in its factories
below those limits, and in many cases greatly exceeded those
limits, and did not use the proper hygiene or housekeeping in
its factories;
vi. Rogers Corporation knew, from all that it had learned and been
told, that a consequence of the high exposures and poor
housekeeping was a certainty of disease among its workers;
c. Rogers Corporation knew, to a substantial certainty, that people
exposed to even small amounts of asbestos fibers (especially
crocidolite) are at a substantially elevated risk for contracting
malignant mesothelioma;
i. Rogers Corporation learned this, among other ways, through its
correspondence in the 1960s with one of its asbestos fiber
suppliers, Johns-Manville, who provided Rogers Corporation
with information about the then-existing exposure guidelines
(threshold limit values), about the ACGIH, and about ACGIH’s
warning that there was no known safe threshold for exposure to
crocidolite and that air-supplied helmets should be worn by
workers exposed to crocidolite;
ii. Rogers Corporation learned about the “grave danger to
employees” posed by asbestos exposure and that “lives of
employees are at stake” when the Occupational Safety and
Health Act was passed in 1970 and began to regulate
workplace asbestos exposures in 1971;
iii. Rogers Corporation learned from the National Institute of
Occupational Safety and Health in the 1970s that exposures as
short as a single day had been implicated in the development of
malignant mesothelioma;
d. Rogers Corporation knew that its employees, including the plaintiff,
were being exposed to asbestos and asbestos-containing products
composed in whole or in part of crocidolite and chrysotile asbestos
fibers;
i. Rogers Corporation’s first asbestos air sampling in 1972
revealed high levels of exposure up to 140 times the then-
existing Permissible Exposure Limit (5 fibers/cc) and 70 times
the Ceiling Limit (10 fibers/cc);
ii. Employees’ individual exposures were measured as high as
700 fibers/cc, with employees in the hundreds of fibers or the
tens of fibers, all levels well over the then-existing exposure
limits;
iii. Various area samples, measuring the levels of asbestos in
general areas around the plant, revealed exposures in those
areas as high as 208 fibers/cc, well over the then-existing
exposure limits;
iv. Rogers Corporation knew that the respirators it was providing
to its employees were not approved for use at exposure levels
that high, so Rogers knew that its employees’ protective
equipment was being overwhelmed by the extreme levels of
exposure;
v. Rogers Corporation continued the practice of dry sweeping
asbestos-containing debris for years after the practice had been
banned by OSHA;
vi. Rogers Corporation permitted the accumulation of asbestos-
containing dust on equipment, walls, ducts, floors and
machinery for years after the practice had been prohibited by
OSHA;
e. Rogers Corporation directed and/or required its employees, including
the plaintiff, to work with asbestos and asbestos-containing products
without proper protective equipment and without proper knowledge to
protect themselves;
i. Rogers Corporation deceptively told its employees that
asbestos was only a “nuisance dust” when in fact it was
classified as a cancer- and pneumoconiosis-producing dust;
ii. Rogers Corporation provided the wrong respirators to its
employees, knowing that the respirators were not adequate for
the types of exposures that were being experienced in the
factory, in that the respirators were only approved for
exposures to substances that had a Threshold Limit Value
(“TLV”) of 2.4 million particles per cubic foot (“mppcf”) or
greater, but the TLV for asbestos at the time was 2 mppcf;
iii. Providing the wrong respirators to the employees deceptively
gave the workers a false sense of security when they were
wearing their respirators and believed that they were using
adequate protection when in fact they were not;
iv. Rogers Corporation should have provided its employees with
respiratory protection that was specified under the OSHA
respirator rules for use with asbestos, and suitable for use at the
particularly high levels of exposure that were experienced in
various parts of the plant;
v. Rogers Corporation did not have a written respiratory
protection program in place pursuant to the 1971 OSHA law,
which incorporated the 1969 ANSI standard for respiratory
protection;
vi. Rogers Corporation did not train its employees in the proper
use, care, cleaning, storage and maintenance of their
respirators;
vii. Rogers Corporation did not provide air-supplied helmets for
use by its crocidolite workers;
f. Rogers Corporation intended for its employees, including the plaintiff
to be exposed to asbestos and asbestos-containing products in the
course of their employment and knew that its employees were not
provided proper protective equipment or proper knowledge while
working with said asbestos and asbestos-containing products;
i. Rogers Corporation deceptively told its employees that
asbestos was only a “nuisance dust” when in fact it was
classified as a cancer- and pneumoconiosis-producing dust;
ii. Rogers Corporation provided the wrong respirators to its
employees, knowing that the respirators were not adequate for
the types of exposures that were being experienced in the
factory, in that the respirators were only approved for
exposures to substances that had a Threshold Limit Value
(“TLV”) of 2.4 million particles per cubic foot (“mppcf”) or
greater, but the TLV for asbestos at the time was 2 mppcf;
iii. Providing the wrong respirators to the employees deceptively
gave the workers a false sense of security when they were
wearing their respirators and believed that they were using
adequate protection when in fact they were not;
iv. Rogers Corporation should have provided its employees with
respiratory protection that was specified under the OSHA
respirator rules for use with asbestos, and suitable for use at the
particularly high levels of exposure that were experienced in
various parts of the plant;
v. Rogers Corporation did not have a written respiratory
protection program in place pursuant to the 1971 OSHA law,
which incorporated the 1969 ANSI standard for respiratory
protection;
vi. Rogers Corporation did not train its employees in the proper
use, care, cleaning, storage and maintenance of their
respirators;
vii. Rogers Corporation did not provide air-supplied helmets for
use by its crocidolite workers;
g. Rogers Corporation knew, to a substantial certainty, that one or more
of its employees, of whom the plaintiff was one, would contract one or
more asbestos-related pathologies, including, but not limited to,
malignant mesothelioma;
i. Rogers Corporation learned of these hazards in various ways,
including through its association and participation in the
Society of the Plastics Industry beginning in 1957; its
correspondence in the 1960s and early 1970s with one of its
asbestos fiber suppliers, Johns-Manville, who specifically
informed Rogers Corporation about the health hazards of
asbestos, about industrial hygiene standards that should be
followed in its factory, and about the fact that there was no safe
threshold for exposure below which mesothelioma could not
occur;
ii. Rogers Corporation knew that cohorts of asbestos-exposed
workers reported in the medical and scientific literature in the
1960s showed consistent, predictable rates of disease,
including mesothelioma, and knew that its own workforce was
subject to the same types of exposures;
iii. Rogers Corporation learned about the “grave danger to
employees” posed by asbestos exposure and that “lives of
employees are at stake” when the Occupational Safety and
Health Act was passed in 1970 and began to regulate
workplace asbestos exposures in 1971;
iv. Rogers Corporation learned from the National Institute of
Occupational Safety and Health in the 1970s that exposures as
short as a single day had been implicated in the development of
malignant mesothelioma;
v. Despite a requirement to do so under the federal OSHA law,
Rogers Corporation never notified its workers of over-
exposures suffered by the workers, including workers who
were exposed to asbestos over the then-existing Permissible
Exposure Limit and the OSHA Ceiling Limit;
vi. Rogers Corporation provided the wrong respirators to its
employees, knowing that the respirators were not adequate for
the types of exposures that were being experienced in the
factory, in that the respirators were only approved for
exposures to substances that had a Threshold Limit Value
(“TLV”) of 2.4 million particles per cubic foot (“mppcf”) or
greater, but the TLV for asbestos at the time was 2 mppcf;
vii. Providing the wrong respirators to the employees deceptively
gave the workers a false sense of security when they were
wearing their respirators and believed that they were using
adequate protection when in fact they were not;
viii. Rogers Corporation’s first asbestos air sampling in 1972
revealed high levels of exposure up to 140 times the then-
existing Permissible Exposure Limit (5 fibers/cc) and 70 times
the Ceiling Limit (10 fibers/cc);
ix. Employees’ individual exposures were measured as high as
700 fibers/cc, with employees in the hundreds of fibers or the
tens of fibers, all levels well over the then-existing exposure
limits;
x. Various area samples, measuring the levels of asbestos in
general areas around the plant, revealed exposures in those
areas as high as 208 fibers/cc, well over the then-existing
exposure limits;
xi. numerous violations of the OSHA exposure limits continued
for a period of years throughout the 1970s and into the 1980s;
xii. Rogers Corporation knew that the respirators it was providing
to its employees were not approved for use at exposure levels
that high, so Rogers knew that its employees’ protective
equipment was being overwhelmed by the extreme levels of
exposure;
xiii. Rogers Corporation continued the practice of dry sweeping
asbestos-containing debris for years after the practice had been
banned by OSHA;
xiv. Rogers Corporation permitted the accumulation of asbestos-
containing dust on equipment, walls, ducts, floors and
machinery for years after the practice had been prohibited by
OSHA;
h. Rogers Corporation knew, to a substantial certainty, that the direction
and requirement that its employees, including the plaintiff, work with
asbestos and asbestos-containing products was substantially certain, if
not totally certain, to cause one or more of said employees to contract
one or more asbestos-related pathologies, including, but not limited to,
malignant mesothelioma;
i. Rogers Corporation learned of these hazards in various ways,
including through its association and participation in the
Society of the Plastics Industry beginning in 1957; its
correspondence in the 1960s and early 1970s with one of its
asbestos fiber suppliers, Johns-Manville, who specifically
informed Rogers Corporation about the health hazards of
asbestos, about industrial hygiene standards that should be
followed in its factory, and about the fact that there was no safe
threshold for exposure below which mesothelioma could not
occur;
ii. Rogers Corporation learned that cohorts of asbestos-exposed
workers reported in the medical and scientific literature in the
1960s showed consistent, predictable rates of disease,
including mesothelioma, and knew that its own workforce was
subject to the same types of exposures;
iii. Rogers Corporation learned about the “grave danger to
employees” posed by asbestos exposure and that “lives of
employees are at stake” when the Occupational Safety and
Health Act was passed in 1970 and began to regulate
workplace asbestos exposures in 1971;
iv. Rogers Corporation learned from the National Institute of
Occupational Safety and Health in the 1970s that exposures as
short as a single day had been implicated in the development of
malignant mesothelioma;
v. Despite a requirement to do so under the federal OSHA law for
the purpose of informing and protecting the workers, Rogers
Corporation never notified its workers of over-exposures
suffered by the workers, including workers who were exposed
to asbestos over the then-existing Permissible Exposure Limit
and the Ceiling Limit;
vi. Rogers Corporation provided the wrong respirators to its
employees, knowing that the respirators were not adequate for
the types of exposures that were being experienced in the
factory, in that the respirators were only approved for
exposures to substances that had a Threshold Limit Value
(“TLV”) of 2.4 million particles per cubic foot (“mppcf”) or
greater, but the TLV for asbestos at the time was 2 mppcf;
vii. Providing the wrong respirators to the employees deceptively
gave the workers a false sense of security when they were
wearing their respirators and believed that they were using
adequate protection when in fact they were not;
viii. Rogers Corporation’s first asbestos air sampling in 1972
revealed high levels of exposure up to 140 times the then-
existing Permissible Exposure Limit (5 fibers/cc) and 70 times
the Ceiling Limit (10 fibers/cc);
ix. Employees’ individual exposures were measured as high as
700 fibers/cc, with employees in the hundreds of fibers or the
tens of fibers, all levels well over the then-existing exposure
limits;
x. Various area samples, measuring the levels of asbestos in
general areas around the plant, revealed exposures in those
areas as high as 208 fibers/cc, well over the then-existing
exposure limits;
xi. numerous violations of the OSHA exposure limits continued
for a period of years throughout the 1970s and into the 1980s;
xii. Rogers Corporation knew that the respirators it was providing
to its employees were not approved for use at exposure levels
that high, so Rogers knew that its employees’ protective
equipment was being overwhelmed by the extreme levels of
exposure;
xiii. Rogers Corporation continued the practice of dry sweeping
asbestos-containing debris for years after the practice had been
banned by OSHA;
xiv. Rogers Corporation permitted the accumulation of asbestos-
containing dust on equipment, walls, ducts, floors and
machinery for years after the practice had been prohibited by
OSHA;
i. Rogers Corporation intentionally deceived employees, including the
plaintiff, by telling them that asbestos was only a “nuisance dust” and
by withholding the true nature of the asbestos hazard;
i. Despite a requirement to do so under the federal OSHA law,
Rogers Corporation never notified its workers of over-
exposures suffered by the workers, including workers who
were exposed to asbestos over the then-existing Permissible
Exposure Limit and the OSHA Ceiling Limit;
ii. Rogers Corporation provided the wrong respirators to its
employees, knowing that the respirators were not adequate for
the types of exposures that were being experienced in the
factory, in that the respirators were only approved for
exposures to substances that had a Threshold Limit Value
(“TLV”) of 2.4 million particles per cubic foot (“mppcf”) or
greater, but the TLV for asbestos at the time was 2 mppcf;
iii. Providing the wrong respirators to the employees deceptively
gave the workers a false sense of security when they were
wearing their respirators and believed that they were using
adequate protection when in fact they were not;
j. Rogers Corporation intentionally deceived the employees’
representatives by telling them that asbestos exposures in the factories
were under the OSHA limits, under control, and did not present a
danger to the workers;
i. Rogers Corporation wrote to union representatives in 1976,
affirmatively telling the union representatives that exposures in
the factory were below the OSHA exposure limits and directly
implying that the exposures in the plant were under control, but
that information was not true and only presented “cherry-
picked” exposure readings that were OSHA-compliant,
intentionally excluding the exposure readings that showed
serious violations of the exposure limits, including the OSHA
Ceiling Limit, which was never supposed to be exceeded;
ii. Rogers Corporation deceptively told the union representatives
that Rogers had only recently learned about the health hazards
of asbestos, but that was not true, Rogers having known about
the hazards for more than a decade by that time;
iii. Rogers Corporation’s first asbestos air sampling in 1972
revealed high levels of exposure up to 140 times the then-
existing Permissible Exposure Limit (5 fibers/cc) and 70 times
the Ceiling Limit (10 fibers/cc);
iv. Employees’ individual exposures were measured as high as
700 fibers/cc, with employees in the hundreds of fibers or the
tens of fibers, all levels well over the then-existing exposure
limits;
v. Various area samples, measuring the levels of asbestos in
general areas around the plant, revealed exposures in those
areas as high as 208 fibers/cc, well over the then-existing
exposure limits;
vi. numerous violations of the OSHA exposure limits continued
for a period of years throughout the 1970s and into the 1980s;
v. Rogers Corporation knew that the respirators it was providing
to its employees were not approved for use at exposure levels
that high, so Rogers knew that its employees’ protective
equipment was being overwhelmed by the extreme levels of
exposure;
vi. Rogers Corporation continued the practice of dry sweeping
asbestos-containing debris for years after the practice had been
banned by OSHA;
vii. Rogers Corporation permitted the accumulation of asbestos-
containing dust on equipment, walls, ducts, floors and
machinery for years after the practice had been prohibited by
OSHA;
k. Rogers Corporation intentionally deceived customers and the public by
telling them that Rogers was controlling asbestos exposures in its
factories and that asbestos-containing products could be used safely;
i. in the late 1950s and early 1960s, Rogers Corporation learned
of the hazardous nature of asbestos through its association with
the Society of the Plastics Industry when it was part of an
Asbestos Technical Committee that developed a bulletin
detailing the health hazards of asbestos. Rogers Corporation,
along with the other members of the Committee, deleted all
references to asbestos health hazards before sending that
bulletin out to the public;
ii. in November 1972, Rogers Corporation preemptively and
deceptively cleaned up its factory prior to an inspection by a
government inspector and deceived the inspector by telling him
that the plant was always that clean, when in fact the plant
conditions revealed disastrous levels of exposure and serious
hygiene and housekeeping problems throughout 1972,
including before, during and after the time of the inspector’s
visit and continuing for a period of years;
iii. In 1976, Rogers Corporation wrote to “all our customers and
friends” and represented to the recipients that Rogers was
successfully controlling asbestos in its factory, which was not
true, and did not disclose to the recipients that Rogers had
persistent violations of the OSHA exposure and housekeeping
standards before, during and after this time period, including
exceedances of the Permissible Exposure Limit and
exceedances of the Ceiling Limit;
iv. In 1978, Rogers Corporation wrote an article in an industry
periodical and made similar misrepresentations, telling the
public that it was successfully controlling asbestos in its
factory, which was still untrue, and did not disclose to the
readers that Rogers had persistent violations of the OSHA
exposure and housekeeping standards before, during and after
this time period, including exceedances of the Permissible
Exposure Limit and exceedances of the Ceiling Limit;
v. Rogers Corporation’s first asbestos air sampling in 1972
revealed high levels of exposure up to 140 times the then-
existing Permissible Exposure Limit (5 fibers/cc) and 70 times
the Ceiling Limit (10 fibers/cc);
vi. Employees’ individual exposures were measured as high as
700 fibers/cc, with employees in the hundreds of fibers or the
tens of fibers, all levels well over the then-existing exposure
limits;
vii. Various area samples, measuring the levels of asbestos in
general areas around the plant, revealed exposures in those
areas as high as 208 fibers/cc, well over the then-existing
exposure limits;
viii. numerous violations of the OSHA exposure limits continued
for a period of years throughout the 1970s and into the 1980s;
ix. Rogers Corporation knew that the respirators it was providing
to its employees were not approved for use at exposure levels
that high, so Rogers knew that its employees’ protective
equipment was being overwhelmed by the extreme levels of
exposure;
x. Rogers Corporation continued the practice of dry sweeping
asbestos-containing debris for years after the practice had been
banned by OSHA;
xi. Rogers Corporation permitted the accumulation of asbestos-
containing dust on equipment, walls, ducts, floors and
machinery for years after the practice had been prohibited by
OSHA;
xii. Rogers Corporation’s public-facing comments to “customers
and friends” attempted to portray a responsible company that
was effectively controlling asbestos exposures in its own
factories, assured customers that asbestos could be handled
safely, and promoted the continuing use of asbestos-containing
phenolics, yet Rogers Corporation knew all along that these
statements were not true and knew that it was violating the
OSHA law within its own factory;
l. As a result of these actions and omi
Preview
IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION ASB-FBT-CV-22-6113982S : SUPERIOR COURT : THOMAS TOMKO and DEBORAH TOMKO : J.D. OF FAIRFIELD : VS. : AT BRIDGEPORT : UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, individually and as : successor to Amchem Corporation, Benjamin Foster : Company and the Bakelite Company; : ROGERS CORPORATION; : SPECIAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, individually and as : successor in interest to Special Asbestos and Special : Materials; : METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; : MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; : CLEAVER BROOKS, A DIVISION OF AQUA-CHEM, : INC.; : SUPERIOR COMBUSTION, INC.; : SUPERIOR COMBUSTION INDUSTRIES. INC. : November 2, 2022 REVISED AMENDED COMPLAINT COUNT I (Product liability as against All Defendants) 1. The plaintiff, THOMAS TOMKO, is a citizen of the State of Connecticut and resides at 33 Bobby Lane, Manchester, Connecticut. 2. The plaintiff, DEBORAH TOMKO, is a citizen of the State of Connecticut and resides at 33 Bobby Lane, Manchester, Connecticut. 3. Each of the defendants, and/or their predecessors in interest (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendants”), named in the caption above conducted business in the state of Connecticut has produced, manufactured or distributed asbestos and/or asbestos products with the reasonable expectation that such products were so used or consumed, and/or has committed the tortious acts set forth below. 3a. The defendant, Mine Safety Appliances Company, LLC, conducted business in the state of Connecticut and has produced, manufactured or distributed various products for respiratory protection, including the Dustfoe 77, with the reasonable expectation that such products were so used or consumed, and/or has committed the tortious acts set forth below. 4. The employer or employers of the plaintiff were engaged in various activities in which it bought and/or installed asbestos and/or asbestos products and materials. 5. The plaintiff, THOMAS TOMKO, was exposed to asbestos-containing products through his work as a plant worker at Rogers Corporation from 1973-1977. Such exposure contributed in part or totally to the plaintiff’s contraction of asbestos-related mesothelioma and other asbestos-related pathologies. 6. During the period of time set forth above, the plaintiff was exposed to and did inhale and/or ingest asbestos dust, fibers, and particles, which dust fibers, and particles came from the asbestos products which were contracted for, mined, milled, processed, manufactured, designed, tested, assembled, fashioned, fabricated, packaged, supplied, distributed, delivered, marketed and/or sold by the defendants. 7. Upon information and belief, the defendants, through their agents and employees, mined, processed, manufactured, designed, tested and/or packaged various asbestos fibers and/or asbestos-containing products, and supplied, distributed, delivered, marketed and/or sold said asbestos-containing products and materials to such employers or to other working at such jobsites for use by employees, including the plaintiff. 7a. Upon information and belief, the defendant, Mine Safety Appliances Company, LLC, through its agents and employees designed, tested, manufactured, sold, distributed and/or packaged various respiratory protection products, including the Dustfoe 77, and supplied, distributed, delivered, marketed and/or sold said products to the plaintiff’s employer at such jobsites for use by employees, including the plaintiff. 8. At all relevant times that the plaintiff was working, the plaintiff was exposed to asbestos materials and products which, as part of the plaintiff’s employment, the plaintiff was forced to come into contact with and breathe, inhale, and ingest asbestos fibers and particles coming from said asbestos products and materials. 9. At all times pertinent hereto, the defendants were engaged in the business of contracting for, mining, milling, processing, manufacturing, designing, testing, assembling, fashioning, fabricating, packaging, supplying, distributing, delivering, marketing, and/or selling asbestos and asbestos products. 10. At all times pertinent hereto, the asbestos products contracted for, mined, milled, processed, manufactured, designed, tested, assembled, fashioned, fabricated, packaged, supplied, distributed, delivered, marketed, and/or sold by the defendants reached the plaintiff without any substantial change in their condition from the time they were sold. 11. The defendants have been possessed of medical and scientific data, studies and reports since approximately 1929, which information clearly indicated that asbestos and asbestos-containing products were hazardous to the health and safety of the plaintiff and other human beings. 12. The defendants, during the 1930's, 1940's, 1950's, and 1960's became possessed of voluminous medical and scientific data, studies and reports, which information conclusively established that asbestos and asbestos-containing products were hazardous to the health and safety of the plaintiff and all humans exposed to the products. 13. The defendants have since the 1930's had numerous workers' compensation claims filed against them by former asbestos workers/employees. 14. The defendants, since the 1920's, have consistently failed to acknowledge, publish, or in any way advise of studies and reports known throughout the industry, including studies conducted by or on behalf of various defendants in the asbestos industry. 15. Notwithstanding that the defendants possessed the foregoing information, the defendants wrongfully contracted for, mined milled, processed, manufactured, designed, tested, assembled, fashioned, fabricated, packaged, supplied, distributed, delivered, marketed, sold, handled, shipped, received, used, and/or stored asbestos products and materials to the plaintiff’s employer(s) and the defendants failed to render proper, adequate and correct warnings, advice, instruction and information and so acted in a grossly negligent, reckless, malicious, willful and wanton manner, failed to use reasonable care under all circumstances, and wrongfully acted in other respects. 16. The actions of the defendants described and alleged above were wrongful under Section 52-572m, et seq., in one or more of the following ways: (a) Strict liability – The defendants are strictly liable for the plaintiffs’ injuries in that said asbestos-containing products and/or respiratory protection devices were unreasonably defective in one or more of the following ways: i. in that said products were and are unreasonably dangerous and unavoidably unsafe, and failed to carry proper, adequate and correct warnings about their hazards about which the defendant knew or should have known; ii. in that said products were and are unreasonably dangerous, in that they were and are dangerous to an extent beyond that which the ordinary person in the position of the plaintiff would contemplate; (b) Negligence – The defendants knew or should have known that said asbestos-containing products and/or respiratory protective devices were inherently dangerous to those who used them or were exposed to them, yet the defendants failed to use reasonable and/or ordinary care in one or more of the following ways: i. the defendants failed to provide proper, adequate and correct warnings of the dangers of said products; ii. the defendants failed to test their products to determine the full extent of the health hazards posed by asbestos and/or the true limits of respiratory protection afforded by their respiratory protection devices; iii. the defendants failed to remove their products from market upon learning of the health hazards of asbestos; iv. the defendants failed to find reasonably safer alternatives and/or substitutes for asbestos; v. the defendants failed to market, label or otherwise package their products in a reasonably safe manner to prevent mishandling and to prevent exposure to asbestos and/or the release of asbestos during ordinary use and/or during packaging, shipping, transportation, delivery, handling and use. (c) Failure to warn – The defendants’ products failed to carry proper, adequate and correct warnings of the hazards about which the defendants knew or should have known and that, to the extent such products did carry warnings, any such warnings, information, packaging, cautions and/or safety instructions were improper and inadequate. i. Any warnings, information and/or instructions of safety precautions were improper and inadequate in that, among other things, they failed adequately and reasonably to apprise users, handlers and persons coming into contact with said products and materials of the full scope and danger to their health of contact with asbestos products and materials, including the risk of cancer and mesothelioma. ii. It was the continuing duty of the defendants to advise and warn purchasers, consumers, users and/or other persons coming into contact with their products, and all prior purchasers, consumers, users and/or other persons who came into contact with their products, of all dangers, characteristics, potentialities and/or defects discovered subsequent to their initial marketing or sale of said asbestos and asbestos products. iii. The defendants breached their duties to warn by: a. failing to warn the plaintiff and the surrounding communities of the dangers, characteristics, and/or potentialities of the product or products when they knew or should have known that the exposure to the product(s) would cause disease and injury; b. failing to warn the plaintiff and the surrounding communities of the dangers to which the plaintiff was exposed when they knew or should have known of the dangers; c. failing to exercise reasonable care to warn the plaintiff and the surrounding communities of what would be safe, sufficient, and properly protective clothing, equipment, and appliances when working with, near or during exposure to asbestos and asbestos products; d. supplying asbestos or asbestos products that were packaged, bagged, boxed and/or supplied in packaging, bagging, boxes or other containers that were inadequate and/or improper; e. supplying asbestos or asbestos products that were delivered to and reached the plaintiff without adequate or proper handling instructions, face masks and/or respirators; f. failing to test the asbestos and asbestos products in order to ascertain the extent of dangers involved upon exposure; g. failing to conduct such research that should have been conducted in the exercise of reasonable care in order to ascertain the dangers involved upon exposure; h. failing to remove the product or products from the market when the defendants knew or should have known of the hazards of exposure to asbestos and asbestos products; i. failing upon discovery of the dangers, hazards, and potentialities of exposure to asbestos adequately to warn and apprise the plaintiff and the surrounding communities of the dangers, hazards, and potentialities discovered; j. generally using unreasonable, careless, negligent and reckless conduct in the contracting for, mining, milling processing, manufacturing, designing, testing, assembling, fashioning, fabricating, packaging, supplying, distributing, delivering, marketing, and/or selling of their asbestos and asbestos products. (d) Breach of warranty – The defendants breached warranties, either implied or express, in that these products were not fit and/or safe for their known and intended purposes and uses. 17. As a result of the above, the plaintiff was caused to sustain severe, painful and permanent injuries referred to above and/or other asbestos-related pathologies caused by the plaintiff coming into contact with and breathing, inhaling and/or ingesting asbestos fibers. The injuries and diseases from which the plaintiff suffered caused the plaintiff to suffer great pain, suffering, mental anxiety, distress of mind, humiliation, emotional trauma, mental anguish and, ultimately, death. 18. The disease, diseases or injuries from which the plaintiff suffered were directly and proximately caused by the plaintiff ‘s exposure to asbestos and asbestos products which were mined, milled, manufactured, designed, assembled, distributed, supplied, constructed, processed, packaged, distributed, delivered, purchased and/or sold by the defendants. 19. As a result thereof, the plaintiff's life span was shortened and the plaintiff’s capacity to carry on life's activities was impaired along with the plaintiff’s capacity to enjoy life and family, to engage in any gainful employment, and to participate in civic affairs. 20. As a result of said illness, the plaintiff was obligated to incur expenses for medical, hospital and surgical treatment, drugs, medicines, x-rays and medical apparatus, and funeral expenses. 21. As a further result of said illness, the plaintiff's earning capacity was impaired. 22.The foregoing acts and omissions of the defendants constitute a reckless disregard for the safety of product users, consumers or others who were injured by the products, pursuant to General Statutes § 52-240b. 23. The plaintiff brings this Count pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes Sections 52-240a, 52-240b, and 52-572m et seq. COUNT II (Recklessness as against All Defendants) 1.- 23. Plaintiff(s) repeat and reallege all allegations contained in all paragraphs above as is fully set forth herein. 24. The defendants have been possessed of medical and scientific data, studies and reports since approximately 1929, which information indicated that asbestos and asbestos- containing products were hazardous to their health and safety of the plaintiff and other human beings. 25. The defendants, during the 1930’s, 1940’s, 1950’s and 1960’s became possessed of medical and scientific data, studies and reports, which information established that asbestos and asbestos-containing products were hazardous to the health and safety of the plaintiff and all humans exposed to those products. 26. The defendants, since the 1920’s, have failed to acknowledge, publish, or in any way advise of studies and reports known throughout the industry, including studies conducted by or on behalf of various defendants in the asbestos industry. 27. Notwithstanding that the defendants possess the foregoing information the defendants committed some or all of the wrongful acts and/or omissions described and alleged in paragraph 11 of the First Count. 28. Said acts and omissions thus constitute misconduct that is grossly negligent, willful, wanton, malicious and/or outrageous. 29. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of the Defendant(s), Plaintiff(s) suffered serious bodily injury and death, endured great pain and suffering, incurred medical expenses, suffered mental anguish, lost earning capacity, and was otherwise damaged. COUNT III (Product liability/Substantial Certainty as against Rogers Corporation) 1-28. Plaintiff(s) repeat and reallege all allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 28 of Count II. 29. At all relevant times, the defendant, Rogers Corporation (“Rogers”), was a corporation licensed and/or registered to do business in the state of Connecticut. 30. Plaintiff, Thomas Tomko, was employed by Rogers Corporation from 1973- 1977 at Rogers Corporation plant in Manchester, Connecticut. 31. At all relevant times, Rogers Corporation purchased, procured, milled, processed, manufactured, used, fabricated, fashioned, assembled, designed, distributed, tested, packaged, supplied and/or marketed asbestos and asbestos-containing products, including, but not limited to raw asbestos fiber, asbestos cloth, asbestos gloves, asbestos aprons, asbestos protective clothing and asbestos-containing respirator filters. 32. At all relevant times, Rogers Corporation purchased, procured, processed, used, fashioned and/or utilized asbestos and asbestos-containing products that were composed in whole or in part of crocidolite and chrysotile asbestos fibers. 33. Throughout the course of his employment at Rogers Corporation, the plaintiff was exposed to said asbestos and asbestos-containing products by way of the raw materials used in the production process, the intermediate products during the manufacturing process, and the finished products. 34. Throughout the course of his employment at Rogers Corporation, the plaintiff was exposed to, inhaled and/or ingested dusts and particles composed in whole or in part of crocidolite and chrysotile asbestos fibers. 35. Throughout the course of his employment at Rogers Corporation, the plaintiff was not provided with proper protection or knowledge to protect himself from the hazardous asbestos dusts and particles that she was exposed to on a regular basis. 36. At all relevant times, Rogers Corporation knew that exposure to said asbestos and asbestos-containing products was hazardous to its employees’ health and knew that exposure to said asbestos and asbestos-containing products could cause asbestos-related pathologies, including, but not limited to, malignant mesothelioma. 36a. Rogers Corporation learned of the hazardous nature of asbestos, among other ways, by its association with the Society of the Plastics Industry dating back to 1957 when it was part of an Asbestos Technical Committee that developed a bulletin detailing the health hazards of asbestos. Rogers Corporation, along with the other members of the Committee, deleted all references to asbestos health hazards before sending that bulletin out to the public. 37. Rogers Corporation never warned its employees, including the plaintiff, that being exposed to, inhaling and/or ingesting asbestos dusts and particles would be hazardous to their health or that it could cause asbestos-related pathologies, including, but not limited to, malignant mesothelioma. 38. Plaintiffs’ severe, permanent and life-threatening injuries enumerated in paragraphs 12 through 16 were caused by the willful, wanton, intentional and serious misconduct of the defendant, Rogers Corporation, in one or more of the following ways: a. Rogers Corporation knew that asbestos was hazardous to people’s health and knew that asbestos could cause various asbestos-related pathologies, including, but not limited to, malignant mesothelioma; i. Rogers Corporation learned of these hazards in various ways, including through its association and participation in the Society of the Plastics Industry beginning in 1957; ii. Rogers Corporation learned of these hazards through its correspondence in the 1960s and early 1970s with one of its asbestos fiber suppliers, Johns-Manville, who specifically informed Rogers Corporation about the health hazards of asbestos, about industrial hygiene standards that should be followed in its factory, about contemporary research efforts underway to study asbestos-related disease, and about the fact that there was no safe threshold for exposure below which mesothelioma could not occur; iii. Rogers Corporation learned about the “grave danger to employees” posed by asbestos exposure and that “lives of employees are at stake” when the Occupational Safety and Health Act was passed in 1970 and began to regulate workplace asbestos exposures in 1971; iv. Rogers Corporation learned of these hazards through its status as an expert in its field and its concomitant duty and obligation to keep abreast of scientific knowledge, discoveries and advances; b. Rogers Corporation knew, to a substantial certainty, that people exposed to asbestos fibers are at a substantially elevated risk for contracting asbestos-related pathologies, including, but not limited to, malignant mesothelioma; i. Rogers Corporation learned of these hazards in various ways, including through its association and participation in the Society of the Plastics Industry beginning in 1957; its correspondence in the 1960s and early 1970s with one of its asbestos fiber suppliers, Johns-Manville, who specifically informed Rogers Corporation about the health hazards of asbestos, about industrial hygiene standards that should be followed in its factory, and about the fact that there was no safe threshold for exposure below which mesothelioma could not occur; ii. Rogers Corporation knew that cohorts of asbestos-exposed workers reported in the medical and scientific literature in the 1960s showed consistent, predictable rates of disease, including mesothelioma, and knew that its own workforce was subject to the same types of exposures; iii. Rogers Corporation learned from the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health in the 1970s that exposures as short as a single day had been implicated in the development of malignant mesothelioma; iv. Rogers Corporation learned that the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (“ACGIH”) threshold limit values and the OSHA exposure limits were intended to reduce or prevent asbestos-related disease and knew that it was crucially important to keep exposures below those limits; v. Rogers Corporation did not keep exposures in its factories below those limits, and in many cases greatly exceeded those limits, and did not use the proper hygiene or housekeeping in its factories; vi. Rogers Corporation knew, from all that it had learned and been told, that a consequence of the high exposures and poor housekeeping was a certainty of disease among its workers; c. Rogers Corporation knew, to a substantial certainty, that people exposed to even small amounts of asbestos fibers (especially crocidolite) are at a substantially elevated risk for contracting malignant mesothelioma; i. Rogers Corporation learned this, among other ways, through its correspondence in the 1960s with one of its asbestos fiber suppliers, Johns-Manville, who provided Rogers Corporation with information about the then-existing exposure guidelines (threshold limit values), about the ACGIH, and about ACGIH’s warning that there was no known safe threshold for exposure to crocidolite and that air-supplied helmets should be worn by workers exposed to crocidolite; ii. Rogers Corporation learned about the “grave danger to employees” posed by asbestos exposure and that “lives of employees are at stake” when the Occupational Safety and Health Act was passed in 1970 and began to regulate workplace asbestos exposures in 1971; iii. Rogers Corporation learned from the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health in the 1970s that exposures as short as a single day had been implicated in the development of malignant mesothelioma; d. Rogers Corporation knew that its employees, including the plaintiff, were being exposed to asbestos and asbestos-containing products composed in whole or in part of crocidolite and chrysotile asbestos fibers; i. Rogers Corporation’s first asbestos air sampling in 1972 revealed high levels of exposure up to 140 times the then- existing Permissible Exposure Limit (5 fibers/cc) and 70 times the Ceiling Limit (10 fibers/cc); ii. Employees’ individual exposures were measured as high as 700 fibers/cc, with employees in the hundreds of fibers or the tens of fibers, all levels well over the then-existing exposure limits; iii. Various area samples, measuring the levels of asbestos in general areas around the plant, revealed exposures in those areas as high as 208 fibers/cc, well over the then-existing exposure limits; iv. Rogers Corporation knew that the respirators it was providing to its employees were not approved for use at exposure levels that high, so Rogers knew that its employees’ protective equipment was being overwhelmed by the extreme levels of exposure; v. Rogers Corporation continued the practice of dry sweeping asbestos-containing debris for years after the practice had been banned by OSHA; vi. Rogers Corporation permitted the accumulation of asbestos- containing dust on equipment, walls, ducts, floors and machinery for years after the practice had been prohibited by OSHA; e. Rogers Corporation directed and/or required its employees, including the plaintiff, to work with asbestos and asbestos-containing products without proper protective equipment and without proper knowledge to protect themselves; i. Rogers Corporation deceptively told its employees that asbestos was only a “nuisance dust” when in fact it was classified as a cancer- and pneumoconiosis-producing dust; ii. Rogers Corporation provided the wrong respirators to its employees, knowing that the respirators were not adequate for the types of exposures that were being experienced in the factory, in that the respirators were only approved for exposures to substances that had a Threshold Limit Value (“TLV”) of 2.4 million particles per cubic foot (“mppcf”) or greater, but the TLV for asbestos at the time was 2 mppcf; iii. Providing the wrong respirators to the employees deceptively gave the workers a false sense of security when they were wearing their respirators and believed that they were using adequate protection when in fact they were not; iv. Rogers Corporation should have provided its employees with respiratory protection that was specified under the OSHA respirator rules for use with asbestos, and suitable for use at the particularly high levels of exposure that were experienced in various parts of the plant; v. Rogers Corporation did not have a written respiratory protection program in place pursuant to the 1971 OSHA law, which incorporated the 1969 ANSI standard for respiratory protection; vi. Rogers Corporation did not train its employees in the proper use, care, cleaning, storage and maintenance of their respirators; vii. Rogers Corporation did not provide air-supplied helmets for use by its crocidolite workers; f. Rogers Corporation intended for its employees, including the plaintiff to be exposed to asbestos and asbestos-containing products in the course of their employment and knew that its employees were not provided proper protective equipment or proper knowledge while working with said asbestos and asbestos-containing products; i. Rogers Corporation deceptively told its employees that asbestos was only a “nuisance dust” when in fact it was classified as a cancer- and pneumoconiosis-producing dust; ii. Rogers Corporation provided the wrong respirators to its employees, knowing that the respirators were not adequate for the types of exposures that were being experienced in the factory, in that the respirators were only approved for exposures to substances that had a Threshold Limit Value (“TLV”) of 2.4 million particles per cubic foot (“mppcf”) or greater, but the TLV for asbestos at the time was 2 mppcf; iii. Providing the wrong respirators to the employees deceptively gave the workers a false sense of security when they were wearing their respirators and believed that they were using adequate protection when in fact they were not; iv. Rogers Corporation should have provided its employees with respiratory protection that was specified under the OSHA respirator rules for use with asbestos, and suitable for use at the particularly high levels of exposure that were experienced in various parts of the plant; v. Rogers Corporation did not have a written respiratory protection program in place pursuant to the 1971 OSHA law, which incorporated the 1969 ANSI standard for respiratory protection; vi. Rogers Corporation did not train its employees in the proper use, care, cleaning, storage and maintenance of their respirators; vii. Rogers Corporation did not provide air-supplied helmets for use by its crocidolite workers; g. Rogers Corporation knew, to a substantial certainty, that one or more of its employees, of whom the plaintiff was one, would contract one or more asbestos-related pathologies, including, but not limited to, malignant mesothelioma; i. Rogers Corporation learned of these hazards in various ways, including through its association and participation in the Society of the Plastics Industry beginning in 1957; its correspondence in the 1960s and early 1970s with one of its asbestos fiber suppliers, Johns-Manville, who specifically informed Rogers Corporation about the health hazards of asbestos, about industrial hygiene standards that should be followed in its factory, and about the fact that there was no safe threshold for exposure below which mesothelioma could not occur; ii. Rogers Corporation knew that cohorts of asbestos-exposed workers reported in the medical and scientific literature in the 1960s showed consistent, predictable rates of disease, including mesothelioma, and knew that its own workforce was subject to the same types of exposures; iii. Rogers Corporation learned about the “grave danger to employees” posed by asbestos exposure and that “lives of employees are at stake” when the Occupational Safety and Health Act was passed in 1970 and began to regulate workplace asbestos exposures in 1971; iv. Rogers Corporation learned from the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health in the 1970s that exposures as short as a single day had been implicated in the development of malignant mesothelioma; v. Despite a requirement to do so under the federal OSHA law, Rogers Corporation never notified its workers of over- exposures suffered by the workers, including workers who were exposed to asbestos over the then-existing Permissible Exposure Limit and the OSHA Ceiling Limit; vi. Rogers Corporation provided the wrong respirators to its employees, knowing that the respirators were not adequate for the types of exposures that were being experienced in the factory, in that the respirators were only approved for exposures to substances that had a Threshold Limit Value (“TLV”) of 2.4 million particles per cubic foot (“mppcf”) or greater, but the TLV for asbestos at the time was 2 mppcf; vii. Providing the wrong respirators to the employees deceptively gave the workers a false sense of security when they were wearing their respirators and believed that they were using adequate protection when in fact they were not; viii. Rogers Corporation’s first asbestos air sampling in 1972 revealed high levels of exposure up to 140 times the then- existing Permissible Exposure Limit (5 fibers/cc) and 70 times the Ceiling Limit (10 fibers/cc); ix. Employees’ individual exposures were measured as high as 700 fibers/cc, with employees in the hundreds of fibers or the tens of fibers, all levels well over the then-existing exposure limits; x. Various area samples, measuring the levels of asbestos in general areas around the plant, revealed exposures in those areas as high as 208 fibers/cc, well over the then-existing exposure limits; xi. numerous violations of the OSHA exposure limits continued for a period of years throughout the 1970s and into the 1980s; xii. Rogers Corporation knew that the respirators it was providing to its employees were not approved for use at exposure levels that high, so Rogers knew that its employees’ protective equipment was being overwhelmed by the extreme levels of exposure; xiii. Rogers Corporation continued the practice of dry sweeping asbestos-containing debris for years after the practice had been banned by OSHA; xiv. Rogers Corporation permitted the accumulation of asbestos- containing dust on equipment, walls, ducts, floors and machinery for years after the practice had been prohibited by OSHA; h. Rogers Corporation knew, to a substantial certainty, that the direction and requirement that its employees, including the plaintiff, work with asbestos and asbestos-containing products was substantially certain, if not totally certain, to cause one or more of said employees to contract one or more asbestos-related pathologies, including, but not limited to, malignant mesothelioma; i. Rogers Corporation learned of these hazards in various ways, including through its association and participation in the Society of the Plastics Industry beginning in 1957; its correspondence in the 1960s and early 1970s with one of its asbestos fiber suppliers, Johns-Manville, who specifically informed Rogers Corporation about the health hazards of asbestos, about industrial hygiene standards that should be followed in its factory, and about the fact that there was no safe threshold for exposure below which mesothelioma could not occur; ii. Rogers Corporation learned that cohorts of asbestos-exposed workers reported in the medical and scientific literature in the 1960s showed consistent, predictable rates of disease, including mesothelioma, and knew that its own workforce was subject to the same types of exposures; iii. Rogers Corporation learned about the “grave danger to employees” posed by asbestos exposure and that “lives of employees are at stake” when the Occupational Safety and Health Act was passed in 1970 and began to regulate workplace asbestos exposures in 1971; iv. Rogers Corporation learned from the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health in the 1970s that exposures as short as a single day had been implicated in the development of malignant mesothelioma; v. Despite a requirement to do so under the federal OSHA law for the purpose of informing and protecting the workers, Rogers Corporation never notified its workers of over-exposures suffered by the workers, including workers who were exposed to asbestos over the then-existing Permissible Exposure Limit and the Ceiling Limit; vi. Rogers Corporation provided the wrong respirators to its employees, knowing that the respirators were not adequate for the types of exposures that were being experienced in the factory, in that the respirators were only approved for exposures to substances that had a Threshold Limit Value (“TLV”) of 2.4 million particles per cubic foot (“mppcf”) or greater, but the TLV for asbestos at the time was 2 mppcf; vii. Providing the wrong respirators to the employees deceptively gave the workers a false sense of security when they were wearing their respirators and believed that they were using adequate protection when in fact they were not; viii. Rogers Corporation’s first asbestos air sampling in 1972 revealed high levels of exposure up to 140 times the then- existing Permissible Exposure Limit (5 fibers/cc) and 70 times the Ceiling Limit (10 fibers/cc); ix. Employees’ individual exposures were measured as high as 700 fibers/cc, with employees in the hundreds of fibers or the tens of fibers, all levels well over the then-existing exposure limits; x. Various area samples, measuring the levels of asbestos in general areas around the plant, revealed exposures in those areas as high as 208 fibers/cc, well over the then-existing exposure limits; xi. numerous violations of the OSHA exposure limits continued for a period of years throughout the 1970s and into the 1980s; xii. Rogers Corporation knew that the respirators it was providing to its employees were not approved for use at exposure levels that high, so Rogers knew that its employees’ protective equipment was being overwhelmed by the extreme levels of exposure; xiii. Rogers Corporation continued the practice of dry sweeping asbestos-containing debris for years after the practice had been banned by OSHA; xiv. Rogers Corporation permitted the accumulation of asbestos- containing dust on equipment, walls, ducts, floors and machinery for years after the practice had been prohibited by OSHA; i. Rogers Corporation intentionally deceived employees, including the plaintiff, by telling them that asbestos was only a “nuisance dust” and by withholding the true nature of the asbestos hazard; i. Despite a requirement to do so under the federal OSHA law, Rogers Corporation never notified its workers of over- exposures suffered by the workers, including workers who were exposed to asbestos over the then-existing Permissible Exposure Limit and the OSHA Ceiling Limit; ii. Rogers Corporation provided the wrong respirators to its employees, knowing that the respirators were not adequate for the types of exposures that were being experienced in the factory, in that the respirators were only approved for exposures to substances that had a Threshold Limit Value (“TLV”) of 2.4 million particles per cubic foot (“mppcf”) or greater, but the TLV for asbestos at the time was 2 mppcf; iii. Providing the wrong respirators to the employees deceptively gave the workers a false sense of security when they were wearing their respirators and believed that they were using adequate protection when in fact they were not; j. Rogers Corporation intentionally deceived the employees’ representatives by telling them that asbestos exposures in the factories were under the OSHA limits, under control, and did not present a danger to the workers; i. Rogers Corporation wrote to union representatives in 1976, affirmatively telling the union representatives that exposures in the factory were below the OSHA exposure limits and directly implying that the exposures in the plant were under control, but that information was not true and only presented “cherry- picked” exposure readings that were OSHA-compliant, intentionally excluding the exposure readings that showed serious violations of the exposure limits, including the OSHA Ceiling Limit, which was never supposed to be exceeded; ii. Rogers Corporation deceptively told the union representatives that Rogers had only recently learned about the health hazards of asbestos, but that was not true, Rogers having known about the hazards for more than a decade by that time; iii. Rogers Corporation’s first asbestos air sampling in 1972 revealed high levels of exposure up to 140 times the then- existing Permissible Exposure Limit (5 fibers/cc) and 70 times the Ceiling Limit (10 fibers/cc); iv. Employees’ individual exposures were measured as high as 700 fibers/cc, with employees in the hundreds of fibers or the tens of fibers, all levels well over the then-existing exposure limits; v. Various area samples, measuring the levels of asbestos in general areas around the plant, revealed exposures in those areas as high as 208 fibers/cc, well over the then-existing exposure limits; vi. numerous violations of the OSHA exposure limits continued for a period of years throughout the 1970s and into the 1980s; v. Rogers Corporation knew that the respirators it was providing to its employees were not approved for use at exposure levels that high, so Rogers knew that its employees’ protective equipment was being overwhelmed by the extreme levels of exposure; vi. Rogers Corporation continued the practice of dry sweeping asbestos-containing debris for years after the practice had been banned by OSHA; vii. Rogers Corporation permitted the accumulation of asbestos- containing dust on equipment, walls, ducts, floors and machinery for years after the practice had been prohibited by OSHA; k. Rogers Corporation intentionally deceived customers and the public by telling them that Rogers was controlling asbestos exposures in its factories and that asbestos-containing products could be used safely; i. in the late 1950s and early 1960s, Rogers Corporation learned of the hazardous nature of asbestos through its association with the Society of the Plastics Industry when it was part of an Asbestos Technical Committee that developed a bulletin detailing the health hazards of asbestos. Rogers Corporation, along with the other members of the Committee, deleted all references to asbestos health hazards before sending that bulletin out to the public; ii. in November 1972, Rogers Corporation preemptively and deceptively cleaned up its factory prior to an inspection by a government inspector and deceived the inspector by telling him that the plant was always that clean, when in fact the plant conditions revealed disastrous levels of exposure and serious hygiene and housekeeping problems throughout 1972, including before, during and after the time of the inspector’s visit and continuing for a period of years; iii. In 1976, Rogers Corporation wrote to “all our customers and friends” and represented to the recipients that Rogers was successfully controlling asbestos in its factory, which was not true, and did not disclose to the recipients that Rogers had persistent violations of the OSHA exposure and housekeeping standards before, during and after this time period, including exceedances of the Permissible Exposure Limit and exceedances of the Ceiling Limit; iv. In 1978, Rogers Corporation wrote an article in an industry periodical and made similar misrepresentations, telling the public that it was successfully controlling asbestos in its factory, which was still untrue, and did not disclose to the readers that Rogers had persistent violations of the OSHA exposure and housekeeping standards before, during and after this time period, including exceedances of the Permissible Exposure Limit and exceedances of the Ceiling Limit; v. Rogers Corporation’s first asbestos air sampling in 1972 revealed high levels of exposure up to 140 times the then- existing Permissible Exposure Limit (5 fibers/cc) and 70 times the Ceiling Limit (10 fibers/cc); vi. Employees’ individual exposures were measured as high as 700 fibers/cc, with employees in the hundreds of fibers or the tens of fibers, all levels well over the then-existing exposure limits; vii. Various area samples, measuring the levels of asbestos in general areas around the plant, revealed exposures in those areas as high as 208 fibers/cc, well over the then-existing exposure limits; viii. numerous violations of the OSHA exposure limits continued for a period of years throughout the 1970s and into the 1980s; ix. Rogers Corporation knew that the respirators it was providing to its employees were not approved for use at exposure levels that high, so Rogers knew that its employees’ protective equipment was being overwhelmed by the extreme levels of exposure; x. Rogers Corporation continued the practice of dry sweeping asbestos-containing debris for years after the practice had been banned by OSHA; xi. Rogers Corporation permitted the accumulation of asbestos- containing dust on equipment, walls, ducts, floors and machinery for years after the practice had been prohibited by OSHA; xii. Rogers Corporation’s public-facing comments to “customers and friends” attempted to portray a responsible company that was effectively controlling asbestos exposures in its own factories, assured customers that asbestos could be handled safely, and promoted the continuing use of asbestos-containing phenolics, yet Rogers Corporation knew all along that these statements were not true and knew that it was violating the OSHA law within its own factory; l. As a result of these actions and omi