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. 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 state law claims against us. In addition, a relatively small number of claims are brought by contractors ...
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.
Asbestos Litigation. 1. On 12/11/02, Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, surviving spouse of Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx, brought suit against Air Products & Chemicals, Et Al (which included Ohio Valley Electric Corporation) in Maryland alleging Xx. Xxxxxxx died of mesothelioma resulting from exposure to asbestos – containing products while working as a contractor employee at the Xxxxx Creek Plant. The Company filed a Motion To Dismiss Claims Against It And “Xxxxx 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 & Xxxxxx, P.A. located in Baltimore, Maryland is defending the Company.
2. On April 28, 2003, the Company was served with a summons and complaint in the case of a group of plaintiffs vs 20th Century Glove Corporation of Texas, Et Al (including Ohio Valley Electric Corporation) which was filed in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia. (See note below).
3. On June 19, 2003, the Company was served with a summons in the case of a group of plaintiffs vs 20th Century Glove Corporation of Texas, Et Al (including Ohio Valley Electric Corporation) which was filed in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia. (See note below).
4. On January 27, 2004, the Company was served with a summons and complaint in the case of Xxx Xxxxx Xxxxx vs 20th Century Glove Corporation, Et Al (including Ohio Valley Electric Corporation) which was filed in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia. (See note below).
5. On February 5, 2004, the Company was served with a summons and complaint in the case of Xxx X. Xxxxxxx vs X. X. Xxxxxxxxxx Company, Et Al (including Indiana-Kentucky Electric Corporation) which was filed in the Xxxxxx County Superior Court, Indiana. (See note below).
Asbestos Litigation. In August 2004, certain of our predecessor companies, along with numerous other defendants, were named in four lawsuits filed in the Circuit Courts of Xxxxx and Xxxxx Counties in Mississippi. These four lawsuits seeking damages include 118 individual plaintiffs alleging that they suffer various illnesses from exposure to asbestos. The lawsuits assert claims of unseaworthiness, negligence and strict liability, all based upon the status of our predecessor companies as Xxxxx Act employers. The plaintiffs were required to complete data sheets specifying the companies they were employed by and the asbestos-containing products to which they were allegedly exposed. Through this process, approximately 25 plaintiffs have identified us or the relevant predecessor companies as their employer. Amended lawsuits were filed by four individuals against us and the remainder of the original claims (114) were dismissed. Of these four lawsuits, three failed to name the Borrower or any of its subsidiaries as an employer or manufacturer of asbestos containing products, so we were thereby dismissed from these three lawsuits. Subsequently, an individual from one of these lawsuits brought his own action against us. As a result, we are currently named as an employer in two of the Mississippi lawsuits. It is possible that as many as 21 other claimants who identified us or the relevant predecessor companies as their employer could file suit against us, but they have not done so at this time. Only minimal medical information regarding the alleged asbestos-related disease suffered by the plaintiffs in the two lawsuits has been provided. Accordingly, we are unable to estimate our potential exposure to these lawsuits. We and the relevant predecessor companies in the past maintained insurance which may be available to respond to these claims. In addition to the Xxxxx Act cases, we have been named in a small number of additional asbestos cases. The allegations in these cases vary, but generally include claims that we provided some unspecified product or service which contained or utilized asbestos, or that an employee was exposed to asbestos at one of our facilities or customer job site. Some of the allegations involve claims that we are the successor to the Xxxxx Xxxxxxx Company. To date, we have been successful in obtaining dismissals of such cases without any payment or settlements or judgments, although some remain pending at the present time. We intend to defend ourselves vigorously i...
Asbestos Litigation. (a) Within ten (10) days after the effective date of this Agreement, Seller and Purchaser will develop a plan, to the satisfaction of Purchaser in Purchaser's sole discretion, for the removal or mitigation of any and all ACM in or at the main office of the Bank located in Quincy, Florida (the "Quincy Office"). Within forty-five (45) days after the development of such plan, Seller shall remove or mitigate any and all ACM in accordance with such plan. Upon completion of the removal or mitigation of such ACM, Seller shall promptly notify Purchaser of such completion and Purchaser shall be permitted to conduct additional site inspections and environmental assessments of the Quincy Office to confirm that the ACM has been removed or mitigated to Purchasers' satisfaction. Purchaser and Seller shall work together to assure the removal or mitigation of any remaining ACM to Purchaser's satisfaction prior to the Closing Date.
(b) Notwithstanding any limitations set forth in Section 5.2(c)(ii) and (iii), Seller agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Purchaser and its directors, officers, employees, shareholders, agents, and affiliates harmless from, against and in respect of, any current or future Asbestos Loss (as defined below) arising out of or related to (i) the exposure to ACM from or at the Quincy Office prior to the Effective Time, (ii) the disturbance, mitigation, or removal, prior to the Effective Time, of ACM from or at the Quincy Office, and (iii) the pending litigation between John Wesley Stxxxxxx, Xx. xxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxtt, Jx. xxx Xxxxxx Xxate Bank and Tarpon Electric Inc., as more fully described in Schedule 3.1(o) of Seller's Disclosure Memorandum (collectively, "Asbestos Litigation"). Seller agrees to assume all costs of and responsibility for any and all Asbestos Litigation and to conduct the defense of such Asbestos Litigation, except that Seller agrees that neither Seller nor any of its affiliates will take any action, or fail to take any action, that would result in Seller taking a position that is adverse or harmful to Purchaser's or any of its affiliates' rights on and after the Effective Time to occupy and possess the Quincy Office. If Purchaser so elects in its sole discretion, Purchaser or its affiliates may assume control of the defense of any Asbestos Litigation from Seller, including the employment of attorneys (which may be counsel for Seller), at Purchaser's sole cost and expense for such attorneys, provided that Seller shall remain re...
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. 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.
