County Sues 13 Firms That Used Asbestos in Building Courthouse, Jail

San Diego County sued 13 building manufacturers Friday whose asbestos-containing products were used anywhere from 15 to 30 years ago in the county courthouse and its adjoining jail, officials said.

The lawsuit, authorized by the County Board of Supervisors and filed in the U.S. District Court in downtown San Diego, seeks to recover the expense of removing asbestos discovered in the county buildings in October, 1988.

The exact amount sought was not included in the lawsuit because officials have not yet determined the extent of the damage, county spokesman Bob Lerner said. But, he added, “It will run into the millions.”

The lawsuit alleges that the manufacturers, including primary defendant W. R. Grace & Co. of New York, either knew or should have known of the health hazards associated with asbestos when the material was sold to the county, said Tom Penfield, an attorney with Casey, Gerry, Casey, Westbrook, Reed & Hughes. The San Diego-based law firm, which has extensive experience in asbestos litigation, is representing the county.

‘Knew It Was Harmful’

“We’re taking this action because, ultimately, the manufacturer was responsible. . . . They knew it was harmful,” said Supervisor Susan Golding about the cancer-causing agent that was outlawed in 1979. Federal law also requires removal of asbestos before a building’s renovation or demolition to prevent the release of asbestos fibers into the environment.

“People working in buildings or just visiting buildings with loose asbestos can be harmed,” Golding said. “That’s why we’re determined to correct the problem. But the cost of removing asbestos is astronomical. There is no question that we do not have enough money in the county budget to do it.”

The suit targets only the asbestos found in the courthouse and the jail. County officials believe the material could have been placed in the two facilities during its construction from 1959 to 1961 and during seven major renovations, the last one reaching into the mid-1970s.

More lawsuits may soon follow, Golding added.

“We are surveying all county buildings, and we will specify the highest-priority buildings and address them as quickly as possible,” Golding said. “After taking a look, if we determine that a lawsuit is required, we will file them. We really don’t have a choice in the matter.”

A Lengthy Process

Growing concern in recent years over the dangers of asbestos has spurred governments to either remove or encapsulate loose microscopic asbestos fibers commonly found in more than 3,000 building products such as cable insulation, roof shingles and fireproofing coatings or materials. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that more than 733,000 public and commercial buildings in the United States contain asbestos.

“Discovering asbestos is a somewhat lengthy process,” Penfield said. “You have to have people who are specially trained to identify the substance, which then has to be confirmed in the lab.”

Besides recovering the cost of replacing the asbestos with non-hazardous materials, the lawsuit seeks to receive reimbursement for testing and other associated costs. Efforts to inform employees about the presence of asbestos, instituting strict work requirements and installing warning labels are all costly procedures, Penfield said.

Penfield’s firm is also representing the city of San Diego in similar cost-recovery litigation. The case, involving the discovery of asbestos in eight city buildings, is scheduled to go to trial Aug. 1, 1990. Another case, involving more city buildings, is scheduled to go to trial Aug. 1, 1991.

Besides W. R. Grace & Co., the county lawsuit names Thorpe Insulations, Fibreboard Corp., Armstrong World Industries, Durabla Corp., Francis Steam Generator Co., Garlock Inc., H.K. Porter Co. Inc., Keene Corp., Keene Building Products Corp., Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp., Owens-Illinois Glass Co. and Pabco Inc.