Asbestos Litigation. Like most automobile manufacturers, we have been subject in recent years to asbestos-related claims. We have used some products which incorporated small amounts of encapsulated asbestos. These products, generally brake linings, are known as asbestos-containing friction products. There is a significant body of scientific data demonstrating that these asbestos-containing friction products are not unsafe and do not create an increased risk of asbestos-related disease. We believe that the use of asbestos in these products was appropriate. A number of the claims are filed against us by automotive mechanics and their relatives seeking recovery based on their alleged exposure to the small amount of asbestos used in brake components. These claims generally identify numerous other potential sources for the claimant’s alleged exposure to asbestos that do not involve us or asbestos-containing friction products, and many of these other potential sources would place users at much greater risk. Most of these claimants do not have an asbestos-related illness and may not develop one. This is consistent with the experience reported by other automotive manufacturers and other end users of asbestos. 1 Note: After the Form 10-K was filed, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal in the Young and Brewer cases. CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUESTED BY GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT Two other types of claims related to alleged asbestos exposure that are asserted against us — locomotive and premises — represent a significantly lower exposure to liability than the automotive friction product claims. Like other locomotive manufacturers, we used a limited amount of asbestos in locomotive brakes and in the insulation used in some locomotives. (We sold our locomotive manufacturing business in 2005). These uses have been the basis of lawsuits filed against us by railroad workers seeking relief based on their alleged exposure to asbestos. These claims generally identify numerous other potential sources for the claimant’s alleged exposure to asbestos that do not involve us or locomotives. Many of these claimants do not have an asbestos-related illness and may never develop one. Moreover, the West Virginia and Ohio supreme courts have ruled that federal law preempts asbestos tort claims asserted on behalf of railroad workers. Such preemption means that federal law eliminates the possibility that railroad workers could maintain sta...
Asbestos Litigation. Amend, modify or change any term or condition of any agreement, instrument, consent, order or other document with respect to the asbestos litigation relating to Parent or any of its Subsidiaries that could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect or give any consent, waiver or approval thereunder, waive any default under or any breach of any term or condition thereof, agree in any manner to any other amendment, modification or change of any term or condition of any such documents or take any other action in connection with any such documents that could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.
Asbestos Litigation. Within 45 days of the end of each Fiscal Year, a report from Parent summarizing, with respect to such Fiscal Year (i) the number of pending claims at beginning of such Fiscal Year, (ii) the number of claims asserted during such Fiscal Year, (iii) the number of claims settled during such Fiscal Year, (iv) the total settlement cost during such Fiscal Year (exclusive of defense cost), (v) the cost paid by insurance companies during such Fiscal Year (exclusive of defense costs), (vi) the cost paid by Parent and its Subsidiaries during such Fiscal Year (exclusive of defense costs), and (vii) the average settlement cost per claim, together with any other matter that is required to be reported under the securities laws and a narrative description of material developments during such Fiscal Year.
Asbestos Litigation. Within 45 days of the end of each fiscal quarter, a report from the US Borrower summarizing, with respect to such quarter (i) the number of pending claims at beginning of such quarter, (ii) the number of claims asserted during such quarter, (iii) the number of claims settled during such quarter, (iv) the total settlement cost during such quarter (exclusive of defense cost), (v) the cost paid by insurance companies during such quarter (exclusive of defense costs), (vi) the cost paid by the US Borrower and its Subsidiaries during such quarter (exclusive of defense costs), and (vii) the average settlement cost per claim, together with any other matter that is required to be reported under the securities laws and a narrative description of material developments during such quarter.
Asbestos Litigation. Amend, modify or change any term or condition of any agreement, instrument, consent, order or other document with respect to the asbestos litigation relating to the US Borrower or any of its Subsidiaries that could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect or give any consent, waiver or approval thereunder, waive any default under or any breach of any term or condition thereof, agree in any manner to any other amendment, modification or change of any term or condition of any such documents or take any other action in connection with any such documents that would impair the value of the interest or rights of the US Borrower or any of its Subsidiaries thereunder, or permit any of its Subsidiaries to do any of the foregoing; provided that this Section 7.18 shall not apply to any Approved Asbestos Insurance Settlement. Colfax Credit Agreement
Asbestos Litigation. 1. On 12/11/02, Cxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, surviving spouse of Jxxxxx Xxxxxxx, brought suit against Air Products & Chemicals, Et Al (which included Ohio Valley Electric Corporation) in Maryland alleging Mx. Xxxxxxx died of mesothelioma resulting from exposure to asbestos – containing products while working as a contractor employee at the Kxxxx Creek Plant. The Company filed a Motion To Dismiss Claims Against It And “Kxxxx Creek Power” on 7/3/03, on the grounds that the Court does not have jurisdiction over the Company and the claims against the Company are time – barred. The law firm of Kramon & Gxxxxx, P.A. located in Baltimore, Maryland is defending the Company.
Asbestos Litigation. Since 1987, Pentair’s XxXxxx (Ohio) Company subsidiary (“XxXxxx”) has been named as a codefendant in asbestos litigation involving claims by a total of approximately 9,000 tireworkers seeking damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos or talc in various tire plants. A former division of XxXxxx’x predecessor supplied tire curing presses to tire makers for which asbestos may have been used as an insulating material. Of these claims, approximately 1,500 were dismissed without payment, approximately 5,000 have been settled for an average settlement of less than approximately $2,000, and approximately 2,500 claims remain outstanding. There is no indication that future settlements would be significantly higher than the historical average. Ninety percent of the cost of defending and settling these claims has been paid by insurance carriers of XxXxxx’x predecessor, with the balance being paid by XxXxxx, pursuant to an agreement in force among the insurers and XxXxxx. In addition, over the past few years, Pentair or its subsidiaries have been named as codefendants in additional cases. The majority of the cases relate to products manufactured and sold by third parties, for which Pentair has indemnification agreements in place which were negotiated in connection with various acquisitions over the years, e. g. General Signal Pump and Plymouth Products. Other miscellaneous claims, which number fewer than 100, have also been made with respect to products of continuing Pentair businesses or those for which Pentair has retained some liability. Pentair believes that, given the factual and legal defenses to the pending claims and the applicable insurance and indemnification coverage, these asbestos claims are unlikely to result in material liability to the Company.
Asbestos Litigation. The Asbestos Litigation does not involve products or facilities of Penhall and the relationship of Penhall to any construction site that is the subject of the Asbestos Litigation is solely as a contractor to such construction site.
Asbestos Litigation. 2. See item 3 to Borrower's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1995 and Part II, item 1 to Borrower's Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 1996.
Asbestos Litigation. Seller is a party to Xxxxx X. Xxxxxxx, as Personal Representative of Xxxxx X. Xxxxx, deceased v. City of Lincoln, Nebraska, Case No. CI 20-4755 in the District Court for Lancaster County, Nebraska, which involves a claim related to asbestos exposure alleged to have occurred within Block 63, Original Plat, City of Lincoln, Lancaster County, Nebraska (“Asbestos Litigation”).
