IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
`
`MARLENE RUHL, Executrix of the Estate of
`RICHARD RUHL, deceased, and MARLENE
`
`RUHL, in her own right,
`
`CIVIL DIVISION-ASBESTOS
`
`NO. G.D. 15-013208
`
`PLEADING FILED:
`REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO
`DEFENDANT POWER PIPING
`COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`JUDGNIENT BASED ON LACK OF
`PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION
`
`FILED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT:
`
`W C
`
`ounsel of Record for This Defendant:
`
`Concetta A. Silvaggio, Esquire
`PA ID. #43712
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION,
`successor-by merger to Buffalo Pumps, Inc., et
`a1.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Ronald J. Richert, Esquire
`PA ID. #88317
`
`Erica A. Lombardo, Esquire
`PA ID. #316196
`
`WILLMAN & SILVAGGIO, LLP
`Firm #465
`
`One Corporate Center
`5500 Corporate Drive, Suite 150
`Pittsburgh, PA 15237
`412-366-3333
`Fax: 366-3462
`
`

`

`IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
`
`MARLENE RUHL, Executrix of the Estate of
`RICHARD RUHL, deceased, and MARLENE
`RUHL, in her own right,
`
`NO. G.D. 15-013208
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`VS.
`
`AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION,
`successor-by merger to Buffalo Pumps, Inc., et
`a1.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT POWER PIPING COMPANY’S
`MOTION FOR SUNflVIARY JUDGMENT
`
`NOW comes Defendant, Power Piping Company, by and through its attorneys, Willman &
`
`Silvaggio, LLP, and sets forth the following Reply to Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant Power Piping
`
`Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment:
`
`To date, Plaintiff has failed to set forth sufficient evidence upon which liability of this Defendant
`
`could attach in order to defeat Power Piping Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Lack
`
`of Product Identification. Plaintiff alleges that Decedent-at-issue, Richard Ruhl, worked in the presence of
`
`employees from Power Piping Company and that said employees utilized asbestos-containing materials.
`
`However, the record does not support Plaintiff’s position. The evidence does not demonstrate that Mr.
`
`Ruhl (I) worked in the presence of Power Piping Company employees and (2) that said employees
`
`utilized asbestos-containing materials during the course of their work in his presence. The evidence set
`
`forth by Plaintiff does not prove either allegation. As such, Plaintiff failed to establish that Mr. Ruhl was
`
`exposed to asbestos fiber that caused his injury by the work of Power Piping employees with the requisite
`
`frequency, proximity, and regularity as required by the laws of this Commonwealth.
`
`

`

`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiff Marlene Ruhl, Executrix of the Estate of Richard Ruhl, filed a Complaint in the Court of
`
`Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania on August 3, 2015. Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Ruhl
`
`sustained injuries as a result of his alleged occupational exposure to asbestos-containing products
`
`throughout his work history.
`
`Prior to his passing on May 28, 2015, Mr. Ruhl was deposed in his prior asbestos-related lawsuit.
`
`His deposition occurred on February 5, 1991. He testified to working for a number of employers in a
`
`variety of capacities. The facility that is at issue concerning this Defendant is the US Steel Duquesne
`
`Works. Regarding this steel mill, Mr. Ruhl testified that he first worked there for one (1) or two (2)
`
`months as a bricklayer helper in 1948 or 1949. E Exhibit A. Deposition of Richard Ruhl (February 5,
`
`1991), 21, 20-23, 22, l-7. He next returned to the mill in 1957 for less than six (6) months as an oiler. Id.
`
`During that period, he worked solely in the 38-inch mill. Finally, Mr. Ruhl testified that he returned to the
`
`Duquesne Works in 1964 and remained there until 1984 when the facility closed.
`
`I_d. at 41, 4-l4. During
`
`that 20 year period, he worked as a millwright helper and millwright. I_d. at 41, 14-22. In this capacity, he
`
`was responsible for mechanical work throughout the plant. Mr. Ruhl did not identify this Defendant at his
`
`deposition. Moreover, no testimony was established that he worked in the vicinity of fly outside
`
`contractor throughout the course of his employment at the Duquesne Works.
`
`Additionally, Mr. Ruhl’s work records from his time at the mill set forth his job duties,
`
`departments where he worked, and time periods spent during each. The chart below sets forth the
`
`information contained in these work records. E Exhibit B for full US Steel Duquesne Works’ work
`
`record.
`
`1/16/1946—3/12/1948
`8/20/1948 — 12/22/1948
`1/2/1951 —4/20/1951
`9/3/1953 — 10/ 10/ 1953
`3/9/1964 — 3/19/1964
`4/5/1964 — 10/16/1965
`
`1/9/ 1966 — 1/22/ 1966
`
`

`

`
`
`t
`
`2/21/1966 — 9/16/1967
`
`9/ 17/ 1967 — 6/8/1968
`
`Bar Mill
`
`Bar Mill
`
`Greaser
`
`Millwri -
`
`Furthermore, co-worker John Kulyk was deposed on January 25, 2016 in the case at bar. He was
`
`previously deposed in 1989 as well. Mr. Kulyk testified that he only saw Mr. Ruhl coming and going
`
`from the Duquesne Works. He never worked alongside Mr. Ruhl. m Exhibit C. Deposition of John
`
`M (January 25, 2016), 30, 6-16.
`
`In addition, Mr. Kulyk did not identify this Defendant as an outside
`
`contract at the mill. The only contractor he recalled was a roofing company - not Power Piping Company.
`
`1g. at 40, 2-14. Because he never worked alongside Mr. Ruhl, Mr. Kulyk cannot place Mr. Ruhl in the
`
`presence of any outside contracting company. He also was unable to place Mr. Ruhl in the presence of
`
`outside contractor employees using asbestos-containing materials.
`
`11.
`
`ARGUlVIENT
`
`In order to defeat a motion for summary judgment, a plaintiff must (1) establish that the injuries
`
`sustained were caused by a product of a particular manufacturer El (2) set forth evidence showing that
`
`he “inhaled fibers shed” by that specific manufacturer’s product. Guttenridge v. A.P. Green Services, Inc.,
`
`804 A.2d 643 (Pa. Super. 2002). Thus, evidence must be presented that establishes the required
`
`frequency, proximity, and regularity of exposure so that a jury may reasonably conclude that the alleged
`
`exposure to the product in question was a substantial, contributing factor to the development of the injury
`
`alleged.
`
`Additionally, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania indicated that, whether direct or circumstantial
`
`evidence of exposure is alleged, proof of frequency, proximity, and regularity of the exposure is necessary
`
`

`

`in a_ll cases. See Gregg V. V-J Autoparts Co., 943 A.2d 216 (Pa. 2007) (emphasis added). The Supreme
`
`Court in Gregg held that
`
`to make a reasoned
`the summary judgment stage,
`is appropriate for courts, at
`It
`assessment concerning whether, in light of the evidence concerning frequency, regularity,
`and proximity of a plaintiff’ s/decedent’s asserted exposure, a ju_ry would be entitled to
`make the necessagy inference of a sufficient causal connection between the defendants’
`product and the asserted injury.
`
`IQ. at 226 (emphasis added). The Supreme Court strengthened this principle in the M case, stating
`
`that “[b]are proof of some de minimus exposure to a defendant’s product is insufficient to establish
`
`substantial-factor causation for dose-responsive diseases.” Ravert V. A.W. Chesterton, Nos. 48, 49, and 50
`
`EAP 2012 (Pa., September 26, 2013).
`
`Likewise, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that deposition and interrogatory excerpts that
`
`suggest the presence of a product that may or may not contain asbestos during the applicable time period
`
`
`could not defeat summary judgment. E Krauss V. Trane US. Inc., 2014 PA Super 241 (holding plaintiff
`
`cannot survive summary judgment when “mere speculation would be required” for jury to find for
`
`plaintiff).
`
`When viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, she failed to set forth
`
`sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment. No evidence set forth by Plaintiff demonstrates that
`
`Mr. Ruhl was exposed to an asbestos-containing product used by Power Piping employees with the
`
`necessary frequency, proximity, and regularity as required by Eckenrod. Therefore, Defendant Power
`
`Piping Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment Based upon Lack of Identification must therefore be
`
`granted.
`
`In the case at bar, Plaintiff relies on the testimony of historical co-workers Edward Arnold and
`
`Joseph Angle in addition to previously answered discovery requests by this Defendant, along with the
`
`testimony of former Power Piping employees William Patterson, and Steven Janaszek. Here,
`
`the
`
`testimony of Mr. Arnold and Mr. Angle is inadmissible against this Defendant. Power Piping Company
`
`was not present at either individual’s deposition and was not a party to either lawsuit in which they
`
`testified. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4020, “at the trial, any part or all of a
`
`

`

`deposition, so far as admissible under the rules of evidence, may be used against any pfly who was
`
`present or represented at the taking of the deposition or who had notice thereof if required, in accordance
`
`with any one of the following provisions...” (emphasis added). As Power Piping Company was not a
`
`party to either lawsuit in which Mrs. Angle and Mr. Arnold testified, this Defendant had no notice of
`
`either deposition as required under the Rules of Civil Procedure. Thus, this Defendant was unable to
`
`defend and protect its interests.
`
`Moreover, Mr. Arnold’s and Mr. Angle’s testimony constitutes hearsay. Their statements
`
`regarding this Defendant are out of court statements that are being offered to prove the truth of the matter
`
`asserted. E Pa.R.Evid. 8011c). This Defendant was not provided with an opportunity to cross-examine
`
`either co-worker, because Power Piping Company was not a party to either lawsuit and had not notice of
`
`these depositions. As such, the testimony of Mr. Arnold and Mr. Angle must be excluded as to Power
`
`Piping Company pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 802. These individuals’ testimony does not
`
`qualify for any hearsay exception as set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence and is therefore
`
`inadmissible.
`
`Further, Plaintiff did not list either Mr. Arnold or Mr. Angle in her Fact Witness List for use
`
`against this Defendant. E Exhibit D. According to the Case Management Order for asbestos litigation in
`
`the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, individuals not listed on a party’s fact
`
`witness list may not testify at trial unless compelling circumstances are shown. To date, no compelling
`
`circumstances have been demonstrated by Plaintiff that would permit the admission of Mr. Arnold’s and
`
`Mr. Angle’s testimony at trial. As such, they are ineligible to testify at trial pertaining to Defendant Power
`
`Piping Company. The testimony regarding this Defendant as elicited from these co-workers is
`
`inadmissible and insufficient to overcome Defendant Power Piping Company’s Motion for Summary
`
`Judgment.
`
`Assuming in arguendo that the testimony of Mr. Arnold and Mr. Angle is admissible, it is
`
`insufficient
`
`to defeat
`
`this Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Mr. Arnold worked as a
`
`steamfitter for Power Piping at the Duquesne Works at some time after 1965. E Exhibit E. Deposition
`
`

`

`of Edward Arnold. (Feb. 7, 1996), 45, 7-9, 12-24. According to Mr. Arnold, this was new construction,
`
`which he believed occurred in a furnace area. IQ. at 45-46, 1-2. Similarly, Mr. Angle worked for Power
`
`Piping in 1968 for one (1) summer. He worked in the rod mill and oxygen plant. E Exhibit F.
`
`Deposition of Joseph Angle (Oct. 20, 1991), 138, 4-25, 139, 3-11.
`
`Here, both Mr. Arnold and Mr. Angle worked for Power Piping Company at the Duquesne
`
`Works. Yet, neither individual placed this Defendant in any department where Mr. Ruhl worked during
`
`these time periods. Moreover, neither co-worker offered any testimony that Mr. Ruhl was in their
`
`presence while working for Power Piping Company at the mill. There mere placement of this Defendant
`
`at US Steel Duquesne Works during Mr. Ruhl’s employment is insufficient to defeat this Defendant’s
`
`
`Motion for Summary Judgment. This is the type of situation that the Superior Court discussed in Krauss.
`
`Even if Mr. Arnold and Mr. Angle’s testimony is admitted,
`
`it falls utterly short of establishing the
`
`required frequency, regularity and primary of Mr. Ruhl’s exposures as they pertain to this Defendant
`
`under Eckenrod. The record remains devoid of any evidence to establish that Mr. Ruhl ever worked in
`
`proximity of Power Piping employees using asbestos-containing materials. Without establishing
`
`proximity, Plaintiff cannot meet the required elements set forth in Eckenrod to defeat this Defendant’s
`
`Motion for Summary Judgment.
`
`Plaintiff next relies on the prior testimony of Steven Janaszek, who was the former president of
`
`Power Piping Company. E Exhibit G. Deposition of Steven Janaszek. (Sept. 20, 1996). 4, 20-23.
`
`During the 1960s, for two (2) or three (3) years, he was an estimator for the company. 1g. at 23, 11-15.
`
`During that period, Mr. Janaszek recalled that Power Piping purchased asbestos-containing gaskets. He
`
`believed that such gaskets were purchased throughout the mid-1970s.
`
`Id. at 25, 6-13, 37, 8-13. Mr.
`
`Janaszek did not testify to any work that was completed by Power Piping employees at the Duquesne
`
`Works during the years that Mr. Ruhl worked there that involved the use of asbestos-containing materials.
`
`Although Mr. Janaszek testified that Power Piping Company procured asbestos-containing
`
`gaskets, Plaintiff still fails to meet her burden under Eckenrod. Mr. Ruhl did not testify to ever working in
`
`the presence of Power Piping employees. Co-worker John Kulyk failed to establish that Mr. Ruhl ever
`
`

`

`worked in the presence of Power Piping employees, let alone in the presence of fly outside contract at the
`
`Duquesne Works. No evidence has been set forth by Plaintiff to establish frequency or regularity of any
`
`potential exposures to asbestos through the work of Power Piping employees. Therefore, Plaintiff has not
`
`and cannot establish fly of the requirements that are necessary under Eckenrod to defeat this Defendant’s
`
`Motion for Summary Judgment.
`
`Likewise, William Patterson worked from Power Piping from 1963 through 1995. As a manager
`
`of production planning for the company, between 1964 and 1968, Mr. Patterson was responsible for
`
`maintaining a stock of materials for use by Power Piping employees. m Exhibit H, Deposition of
`
`William Patterson (Nov. 12, 1996), 20, 19-22. He testified that only preformed gaskets were used and did
`
`not testify that these gaskets contained asbestos. IQ. at 22, 11-25; 23, l-3. In addition to maintaining a
`
`stock of materials, Mr. Patterson visited jobsites during this period, which included US Steel Duquesne
`
`Works.
`
`IQ. at 28, 18-25; 29,
`
`l-4, 23-25. According to him, between 1964 and 1969, Power Piping
`
`employees worked in the Blast Furnace Department at the Duquesne Works. lg. 33, 11-25; 34, 1-8.
`
`Furthermore, from 1969 through 1980, Mr. Patterson continued to visit steel mills were Power Piping
`
`Company had secured contracts. This again included the Duquesne Works. lg. 57, 14-22. At no time,
`
`however, did he testify that any material used by Power Piping employees during the course of their work
`
`contained asbestos. Mr. Patterson had no knowledge that any such material was used.
`
`Moreover, the only specific department in which Mr. Patterson placed Power Piping employees
`
`was in the Blast Furnace at the Duquesne Works. He did not testify as to how long these employees
`
`worked there, what their job entailed, and offered no testimony that their work involved the use of
`
`asbestos-containing materials. During this five (5) year window that Power Piping employees worked at
`
`some point in the Blast Furnace, Mr. Ruhl was a millwright. He never testified to working in the Blast
`
`Furnace during that period. Additionally, he offered no testimony whatsoever of ever working in the
`
`presence of any outside contractor throughout his entire career at the Duquesne Works. Based on Mr.
`
`Ruhl’s work records from the mill, between 1964 and 1969, he worked in the Bar Mill almost exclusively
`
`— except for a four (4) day period where he worked in the Masonry Department. See Exhibit B. Mr. Ruhl
`
`

`

`worked in an entirely different department. Again, no frequency, proximity, or regularity of potential
`
`exposures to asbestos through the work of Power Piping employees can be established by Plaintiff.
`
`Finally, Plaintiff attempts to rely on previously answered discovery requests submitted by this
`
`Defendant. These answers indicate that Power Piping Company secured a contract to work at the US Steel
`
`Duquesne Works at some time between October 31, 1963 and 1983. These answers provide no specific
`
`date(s) as to when such work took place. Even though these discovery responses place Power Piping
`
`employees at the mill, no evidence has been set forth to raise a question of fact that Mr. Ruhl ever worked
`
`in the presence of Power Piping employees and that their worked involved the use of asbestos-containing
`
`materials. The mere placement of a defendant in a facility, without supporting evidence concerning
`
`exposure, is insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment as set forth by the Superior Court as
`
`per Km.
`
`In summary, Plaintiff failed to establish the required elements of frequency, proximity and
`
`regularity as they concern potential exposures so as to defeat Defendant Power Piping Company’s Motion
`
`for Summary Judgment. Instead, Plaintiff is asking that a jury be permitted to speculate as to all three (3)
`
`requirements as set forth by the laws of this Commonwealth in regards to the alleged asbestos exposures
`
`from this Defendant. Mr. Ruhl did not identify Power Piping Company as an outside contractor at any
`
`facility at which he worked, and based on the evidence to date, Plaintiff has only generally placed Power
`
`Piping employees in the Duquesne Works during Mr. Ruhl’s employment. Based on the record to date,
`
`Mr. Ruhl’s career was spent almost exclusively in the Bar Mill. This is further supported by the testimony
`
`of Mr. Kulyk who testified that it is possible that Mr. Ruhl spent his entire career working in one (1)
`
`department at the mill. E Exhibit C, at 56, 4-7. Plaintiff has failed to set forth evidence that Power
`
`Piping employees ever worked in that department during his tenure there. Thus, Plaintiff failed to set forth
`
`sufficient evidence to create a question fact so as to survive summary judgment against Defendant Power
`
`Piping Company.
`
`

`

`III.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Overall, Plaintiff failed to meet her burden of proof of setting forth evidence upon which to
`
`establish liability of Defendant Power Piping Company. The mere placement of Power Piping employees
`
`in the US Steel Duquesne Works during the applicable time period that Mr. Ruhl worked at the mill does
`
`not rise to the level overcoming summary judgment. Plaintiff failed to establish proximity, frequency, and
`
`regularity of potential exposures to asbestos through this work of Power Piping employees as is required
`
`under Eckenrod. Discovery closed in this matter on April 1, 2016. Since then, Plaintiff has not presented
`
`any evidence to support the proximity prong under Eckenrod let alone either the frequency or regularity
`
`prongs as they pertain to this Defendant. Without meeting all three (3) requirements, Plaintiff does not
`
`have sufficient evidence to overcome summary judgment against Power Piping Company.
`
`WHEREFORE, Defendant Power Piping Company respectfully requests that this Honorable
`
`Court grant its Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Lack of Product Identification.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`Willman& Silvaggio, LLP
`One Corporate Center
`5500 Corporate Drive, Suite 150
`Pittsburgh, PA 15237
`412-366-3333
`
`BY_/s/Erica A. Lombardo
`Erica A. Lombardo, Esquire
`Counsel for Defendant, Power Piping Company
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the within pleading has been sent Via First Class
`
`Mail, Postage Prepaid this 20th day of May, 2016 to Plaintiff’s counsel, Holly L. Deihl, Esquire,
`
`GOLDBERG, PERSKY & WHITE, PC, 11 Stanwix Street, Suite 1800, Pittsburgh, PA 15222.
`
`Notice of the same has been sent to all counsel of record Via e-mail.
`
`WILLMAN & SILVAGGIO LLP
`
`One Corporate Center
`5500 Corporate Drive, Suite 150
`Pittsburgh, PA 15237
`412-366-3333
`
`elombardo@willmanlaw.com
`
`BY/s/Erica A. Lombardo
`
`Erica A. Lombardo, Esquire
`Counsel for Defendant,
`Power Piping Company
`
`

`

`IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
`
`MARLENE RUHL, Executrix of the Estate of
`RICHARD RUHL, deceased, and MARLENE
`
`NO. G.D. 15-013208
`
`RUHL, in her own right,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`VS.
`
`AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION,
`successor-by merger to Buffalo Pumps, Inc., et
`a1.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`ORDER OF COURT
`
`AND NOW, to wit, this
`
`day of
`
`, 2016, it is hereby ORDERED
`
`ADJUDGED and DECREED that the within REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT
`
`POWER PIPING COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON LACK OF
`
`PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION is hereby
`
`
`
`BY THE COURT:
`
`
`
`

`

`RICHARD H. RUHL
`
`IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
`
`OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY,
`
`PENNSYLVANIA
`
`CIVIL DIVISION
`
`NO. G.D. 87*04096
`
`EXHIBIT
`
`RICHARD H. RUHL and MARLENE
`
`M. RUHL, his wife,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`GAF CORPORATION;
`
`RAYMARK
`
`INDUSTRIES,
`
`INC.;
`
`THE CELOTEX
`
`CORPORATION; KEENE CORPORATION;
`
`EAGLE-PICHER INDUSTRIES,
`
`INC.;
`
`OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORP.;
`
`OWENS—ILLINOIS,
`
`INC.; GARLOCK,
`
`INC.; A“BEST PRODUCTS COMPANY;
`
`PITTSBURGH CORNING CORPORATION;
`
`ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES,
`
`INC.;
`
`NICOLET,
`
`INC.;
`
`H. K. PORTER
`
`COMPANY,
`
`INC.;
`
`FIBREBOARD CORP.;
`
`GENERAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY,
`
`U!
`
`IO
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`l6
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`LANA M. BYER COURT REPORTING
`
`SERVICE
`
`

`

`RICHARD H. RUHL
`
`A.
`
`I washed the airplanes, filled them with
`
`gasoline, stored them for
`
`the evening.
`
`Q.
`
`To your knowledge, were you exposed to any
`
`asbestos—containing products when you were working
`
`at Bettie Airport?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Not
`
`to my knowledge.
`
`Do you remember
`
`the names of any of your
`
`co-workers who would still be living from Bettie
`
`Airport?
`
`A.
`
`No.
`
`I know a
`
`few names, but
`
`they all have
`
`been deceased.
`
`They were much older than I was.
`
`Q.
`
`For every job,
`
`I'm going to be asking you
`
`about your co—workers, but
`
`I really am only
`
`concerned with those who would still be living, all
`
`right?
`
`A.
`
`Umuhmm.
`
`
`
`Q.
`
`After Bettie Airport, you went
`
`into the
`
`Marine Corps, right?
`
`A.
`
`Yes.
`
`Q.
`
`You came back from the Marine Corps and
`
`went
`
`to U.S. Steel Duquesne.
`
`Steel Duquesne.
`
`When you first started at U.S. Steel
`
`LANA M. BYER COURT REPORTING SERVICE
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`l3
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`l7
`
`l8
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`

`

`RICHARD H. RUHL
`
`Duquesne, what was your first job?
`
`A.
`
`The only job I had there at
`
`that period of
`
`time was
`
`a bricklayer's helper.
`
`Q.
`
`Were you working in.a particular
`
`department, or were you working all over
`
`the mill?
`
`A. Well, we worked all over
`
`the mill, but
`
`I
`
`worked in the masonry department.
`
`Q.
`
`Could you describe for me what
`
`a
`
`bricklayer's helper does?
`
`A.
`
`Stacks brick, mixes mortar, does Cleanup
`
`work, whatever
`
`the bricklayer wants him to do.
`
`More or
`
`less like a general
`
`laborer
`
`in that
`
`department.
`
`Q.
`
`Did you hold any other jobs the first time
`
`were at U.S. Steel Duquesne in 1948,
`
`'49?
`
`
`
`No,
`
`that's the only....
`
`Just bricklayer helper?
`
`That's all.
`
`Now,
`
`just confining it to that
`
`'48/‘49
`
`time period, do you believe you were exposed to any
`
`asbestos—containing products at Duquesne?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`At
`
`that
`
`time,
`
`I didn't know that
`
`I was.
`
`Do you now believe that you were?
`
`LANA M. BYER COURT REPORTING SERVICE
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`l3
`
`14
`
`15
`
`l6
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`

`

`RICHARD H. RUHL
`
`41
`
`That‘s Jack.
`
`Anyone else that you remember?
`
`Not
`
`to my knowledge, no.
`
`What was your next
`
`job after Gray Flooring?
`
`U'I
`
`Was 0.5. Steel.
`
`Duquesne Works again?
`
`Yes, ma'am.
`
`What year was
`
`that
`
`that you went back to
`
`U.S. Steel?
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`l6
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`time?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`1964.
`
`And then how long did you work there this
`
`Until
`
`they shut
`
`the plant down in 1984.
`
`What was your first job when you went back
`
`to U.S.
`
`Steel?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q-
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`I was
`
`a millwright helper.
`
`How long were you a millwright helper?
`
`Six months.
`
`And then what was your next
`
`job?
`
`I was
`
`a millwright after that.
`
`And how long were you a millwright?
`
`Until 1984.
`
`Did you hold any other jobs besides
`
`LANA M. BYER COURT REPORTING SERVICE
`
`

`

`,2"
`
`PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE COVER
`OFI CONCEAL IN ANY WAY THIS
`ARCHIVES REFERENCE SLIP. ANY
`ATED T0
`ADDITIONAL DATA REL
`SUCH MATERIAL SHOULD BE STA-
`PLED BENEATH THIS SLIP.
`
`
`
`3:131:11:Iggqumumumummmmnu-
`
`0010028
`
`W
`
`RUHL, RICHARD H
`Royxréon' nn ' a 9
`
`W"
`
`3”.“ I.
`.’m
`
`
`BOX NO.
`
`"SEC 0 EW
`
`DATE SHIPPED
`
`EXHIBIT
`
`Lfi_
`
`Ruhl - US. Steel 0001
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ruhl 4 US. Steel 0066
`
`

`

`JOHN G. KULYK
`
`IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
`
`ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
`
`MARLENE RUHL, Executrix
`
`of the Estate of
`
`RICHARD RUHL, deceased,
`
`and MARLENE RUHL in her
`
`own right,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Civil Division — Asbestos
`
`VS.
`
`G. D. 15—13208
`
`ALLIED GLOVE
`
`CORPORATION, et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`EXHHNT
`
`DEPOSITION OF JOHN G. KULYK
`
`MONDAY,
`
`JANUARY 25, 2016
`
`REPRODUCTION AND/OR DISTRIBUTION OF THIS TRANSCRIPT
`
`IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM
`
`THE CERTIFYING AGENCY
`
`724-869-7705
`
`amarsilio@comcast.net
`
`Marsilio Court Reporting Service
`
`Electronically signed by Pamela Rose (101-245-868-5768)
`
`a76908f6—4078-4aa3-82eb-47e9b86e5658
`
`

`

`JOHN G. KULYK
`
`the same shift or what, but
`
`I rotated shifts, see.
`
`Q.
`
`Do you know the job that he held at
`
`Duquesne?
`
`A.
`
`I really don't know what
`
`job he had, but
`
`I'd say he had to be some sort of maintenance man.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Why do you say that?
`
`Because at first when I recognized him,
`
`he'd be walking out. As a matter of fact, it's on
`
`here.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Go ahead.
`
`He'd be walking out, and it always seemed
`
`here (indicating) because the main road comes down
`
`to be the same spot. Every day when I would see
`
`him, it would be in that same spot, you know.
`
`Q. Where?
`
`A.
`
`It was on the road walking towards the
`
`gate.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Show me on the map, please.
`
`All right, Let me see if I can find it
`
`again. That's (indicating)
`
`the open hearth.
`
`It's
`
`between there (indicating) and here (indicating).
`
`That's (indicating)
`
`the primary mill, blast
`
`furnace, open hearth. This must be the road right
`
`724-869-7705
`
`amarsilio@comcast.net
`
`Marsilio Court Reporting Service
`
`Electronically signed by Pamela Rose (101-245-868-5768)
`
`a76908f6-4c78—4aa3—82eb-47e9b86e5658
`
`

`

`JOHN G. KULYK
`
`A.
`
`You're welcome.
`
`Q.
`
`I read through your prior deposition, and
`
`it looks like during your prior deposition nobody
`
`asked you about any outside contractors that may
`
`have worked at the mill.
`
`Do you, sitting here
`
`today, recall any outside contractors that worked
`
`at Duquesne?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Oh, yeah.
`
`Do you remember the names of the companies
`
`or the outfits?
`
`A.
`
`There was a Ruth Roth,
`
`I
`
`think, but I think
`
`that was like heating and air conditioning.
`
`they'd just tear them all out and
`
`Q.
`
`Roof?
`
`I
`
`think it was Ruth, R—u—t—h.
`
`Oh, Ruth,
`
`I'm sorry, okay.
`
`Oh, geez, because you'd see that truck
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`riding around all over the place, you know, during
`
`shift changes and everything. But a lot of these
`
`other contractors that would come in,
`
`those
`
`outfits, when I was in the primary mill for a short
`
`period of time,
`
`they'd bring their products in to
`
`reline the soaking pits.
`
`Some of them,
`
`instead of
`
`relining them,
`
`724-869-7705
`
`amarsilio@comcast.net
`
`Marsilio Court Reporting Service
`
`Electronically signed by Pamela Rose (101-245-868-5768)
`
`a76908f6-4c78—4aa3—82eb-47e9b86e5658
`
`

`

`IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
`
`MARLENE RUHL, Executrix of the Estate of
`RICHARD RUHL, Deceased, and
`MARLENE RUHL, in her own right,
`
`CIVIL DIVISION — ASBESTOS
`
`GD NO. 15—013208
`
`PLAINTIFF’S FACT WITNESS LIST
`
`Filed on Behalf of Plaintiffs.
`
`Counsel of Record for this Party:
`
`Holly L. Deihl, Esquire
`PA ID. No. 94091
`
`GOLDBERG, PERSKY & WHITE, P.C.
`1030 Fifth Avenue
`
`Pittsburgh, PA 15219
`(412) 471-3980
`Firm # 744
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`EXHIBIT
`
`D
`
`3t
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS
`
`CORPORATION, et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`

`

`IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
`
`CIVIL DIVISION — ASBESTOS
`
`MARLENE RUHL, Executrix of the Estate
`of RICHARD RUHL, Deceased, and
`
`MARLENE RUHL, in her own right,
`
`GD No. 15-013208
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`V.
`
`AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS
`
`CORPORATION, et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ FACT WITNESS LIST
`
`AND NOW COMES the Plaintiff, by and through her attorneys, GOLDBERG, PERSKY
`
`& WHITE, PC. and files the following Fact Witness List:
`
`DAMAGE WITNESSES AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS
`Marlene Ruhl
`
`FACT WITNESSES AS TO ALL DEFENDAN'I‘S
`
`Richard Ruhl deposition 2/5/1991
`Marlene Ruhl deposition
`John Kulyk deposition
`Rich Barker deposition
`
`AIR & l,l( UII) SYSTEMS
`
`
`Corporate Representatives
`
`ALLIED GLOVE
`
`Andrew Hrizo affidavit and deposition 10/26/1980, 4/22/2008
`Arthur Everett affidavit and deposition 6/2/1997, 8/12/1998
`Albeit Forcina deposition 7/13/1990
`Frank Basista deposition 9/1 1/1990
`Corporate Representatives
`
`

`

`Joseph Proeacina affidavit and deposition 1/3/2005, 3/3/2005
`Thomas Conway affidavit and deposition 11/24/2002, 4/ 1 5/2004
`Russell Lorber affidavit and deposition 7/21/2008
`Corporate Representatives
`
`POWER PIPING
`
`William Patterson deposition 11/12/1996
`Corporate Representatives
`
`PREMIER REFIMCTORIES
`
`Denver Grace deposition 7/22/2013
`John Kite deposition 2/18/2005
`Reginald Bates deposition 9/24/1990
`Russell Lorber affidavit 7/21/2008
`
`Glenn Andres affidavit and deposition 7/ 15/2008
`Corporate Representatives
`
`RILEY POWER
`
`Corporate Representatives
`
`SAFETY FIRST
`
`Andrew Hrizo affidavit and deposition 10/26/1980, 4/22/2008
`Meldrurn Stephenson deposition 7/ 12/ 1990, 6/3/1991
`Orman Grinage deposition 5/30/1990
`Guy Bmce deposition 4/18/2004
`Reginald Bates deposition 9/24/ 1990
`Clarence Jenkins deposition 7/25/ 1990
`James Sweeney affidavit 7/1/2009
`Robert Hanks deposition 11/23/2005
`Corporate Representatives
`
`SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC
`
`Corporate Representatives
`
`SEALITE
`
`John Kite deposition 2/18/2005
`Thomas Conway affidavit 11/24/2002
`Corporate Representatives
`
`
`SEPCO
`
`Corporate Representatives
`
`THIEM/MCCANN SHIELDS
`
`William Daley deposition 12/21/1982
`Andrew Hrizo affidavit and deposition 10/26/1980, 4/22/2008
`Albeit Forcina affidavit and deposition 8/ 19/ 1991, 7/ 13/ 1990
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`,;
`\,
`"
`\\,
`{3
`3‘
`
`{H a
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
`
`0F ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
`
`EDWARD ARNOLD and
`
`CIVIL DIVISION
`
`MARILYN ARNOLD, his wife,
`
`‘Plaintiffs,
`
`vs
`
`GD 95—20283
`
`ANCHOR PACKING COMPANY, et a1.
`
`Defendants.
`
`DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT OF:
`Edward Arnold
`
`DEPOSITION DATE:
`
`February 7, 1996
`
`PARTY TAKING DEPOSITION:
`Defendant
`'
`
`Chicago Fire Brick
`
`COUNSEL OF RECORD
`FOR THIS PARTY:
`
`*
`
`Thomas Shumaker, Esq.
`TUCKER ARENSBERG
`
`1500 One PPG Place
`
`.
`
`Pittsburgh, PA
`
`15222
`
`REPORTED BY:
`
`Marjorie Peters, RPR
`Notary Public
`
`EXHIBIT
`r’
`
`.
`
`mm
`N56
`
`
`
`A? l ,7
`
`Erie, PA
`
`Pijtsburgh,‘PA
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`fifi
`
`
`
`45
`
`Works or Carey Furnace?
`
`I believe Duquesne when I first came back.
`
`Now, earlier, you had told me about working at the
`
`U.S. Steel Duquesne Works approximately 1963. Was
`
`that job before or after you went to Maryland?
`
`That was before, I believe.
`
`I would say before.
`
`Can you recall how many times you worked at the
`
`Duquesne Works?
`
`No.
`
`I don’t know how many times, no.
`
`Was it on more than one occasion?
`
`I believe.
`
`This subsequent _- your subsequent
`
`time at U.S.
`
`Steel Duquesne Works, do you know the name of your
`
`employer?
`
`You mean after Foster and this?
`
`Well, after you came back from Maryland.
`
`I worked for Power Piping.
`
`And what were you doing?
`
`Installing pipe.
`
`Was that outside work?
`
`Most of it was inside/outside. About that time I
`
`started welding.
`
`I was doing welding there.
`
`Which portion of the mill do you recall working?
`
`Not sure.
`
`Furnace areas, usually.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`Erie, PA
`A
`
`[If I ,7
`
`Pifisburgh, PA
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`And was this new construction?
`
`46
`
`Yes.
`
`Do you remember the name of any foreman or
`
`co-workers?
`
`No.
`
`Do you believe you were exposed to any
`
`asbestos~containing products while you worked at the
`
`Duquesne Works?
`
`Yes.
`
`Which products?
`
`Pipe covering.
`
`Any other products?
`
`Grinding wheels, gaskets.
`
`Do you recall the name of the manufacturer or
`
`supplier of this pipe covering?
`
`Specific name of the pipe covering, no.
`
`Did you ever see the word asbestos contained on this
`
`product?
`
`Yes, on some bags I remember —— basically I have
`
`
`
`seen that word on them.
`