George F. Evans to Clark Burnham on Co-Defendants in Four Fibreboard Cases (1981)

A one-page letter of March 11, 1981, from George F. Evans, a Johns-Manville attorney, to Clark Burnham of the Oakland law firm Moore, Clifford, Wolfe, Larson & Trutner, on four asbestos suits: Benson, Eaton, Hagle and Riggs v. Fibreboard. Evans thought the Hagle and Eaton cases "way out of line" in value and that Benson might settle for $10,000 to $20,000. Because the co-defendants named in J-M's cross-complaint seemed "somewhat reluctant to contribute to the settlement," he suggested persuading plaintiffs' counsel to amend the complaint to bring them in: "It might even be worth a payment to plaintiff if he would agree to help us. Frankly, even if it winds up costing us more money I would like very much to have some of these co-defendants stung."

In Johns-Manville's chronology

Johns-Manville's own chronology of what the company knew describes this document as follows:

Letter to Clark Burnham, Esq. of Moore, Clifford, Wolfe, Larson & Trutner from George F. Evans, 3/11/81, re Benson v. Fibreboard, Eaton v. Fibreboard, Hagel v. Fibreboard, Riggs v. Fibreboard, Evans discusses the fact that Manville's co-defendants named in the cross-complaint appeared somewhat reluctant to contribute to the settlement, Green suggests that Manville do everything within its power to persuade plaintiff's counsel to amend the complaint to bring in the cross-defendants. Evans further states that it might even be worth a payment to plaintiff if he would agree to help Manville. He then says that "even if it winds up costing Manville more money", he would "like very much to have some of these co-defendants stung".

Editor's note: J-M's description says "Green suggests" bringing in the cross-defendants. The suggestion is Evans's own in this letter. The letter names the case "Carl Hagle vs. Fibreboard," not Hagel.