Common use of Asbestos Litigation Clause in Contracts

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 who are seeking recovery based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products while working on premises owned by us. These claims generally identify numerous other potential sources for the claimant’s alleged exposure to asbestos that do not involve us.

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 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 Xxxxxx cases. 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 who are seeking recovery based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products while working on premises owned by us. These claims generally identify numerous other potential sources for the claimant’s alleged exposure to asbestos that do not involve us.

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 Xxxxxx 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 who are seeking recovery based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products while working on premises owned by us. These claims generally identify numerous other potential sources for the claimant’s alleged exposure to asbestos that do not involve us. We or our wholly-owned subsidiary OnStar Corporation or both of us are parties to more than 20 putative class actions filed in various states, including Michigan, Ohio, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and California. All of these cases have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in a multi-district proceeding under the caption In re OnStar Contract Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The litigation arises out of the discontinuation by OnStar of services to vehicles equipped with analog hardware. OnStar was unable to provide services to such vehicles because the cellular carriers which provide communication service to OnStar terminated analog service beginning in February 2008. In the various cases, the plaintiffs are seeking certification of nationwide or statewide classes of owners of vehicles currently equipped with analog equipment, alleging various breaches of contract, misrepresentation and unfair trade practices. This proceeding is in the early stages of development and has been stayed while the court considers the defendants’ motions to dismiss the claims. Class certification motions have not been filed and the parties have completed minimal document discovery. It is not possible at this time to determine whether class certification or liability is probable as to GM or OnStar or to reasonably ascertain the amount of any recoverable damages.