Pittsburgh Corning: A Key Player in Asbestos Litigation and Corporate Accountability
Pittsburgh Corning Corporation, a joint venture between Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company (PPG) and Corning Glass Works, played a significant role in the history of asbestos exposure and litigation. Known for manufacturing asbestos-containing products, particularly "Unibestos" insulation, the company became a central figure in mesothelioma lawsuits and corporate negligence cases. Its practices and eventual bankruptcy highlight the broader issues of corporate accountability, public health risks, and the legal battles surrounding asbestos exposure.
Pittsburgh Corning was established in 1937 as a joint venture between PPG and Corning Glass Works. In 1962, the company acquired the Unibestos product line from Union Asbestos and Rubber Company (Unarco). Unibestos, made with amosite asbestos, was widely used in industrial and commercial insulation applications. However, the dangers of asbestos exposure were already well-documented by this time.
Internal communications and historical records reveal that Pittsburgh Corning executives were aware of the health risks associated with asbestos. For instance, in 1962, PPG's Manager of Plant Safety, Clyde C. Ruddick, sent multiple articles to Pittsburgh Corning Vice President Karl Baumler, warning about the hazards of asbestos dust. Despite these warnings, the company continued manufacturing Unibestos without implementing adequate safety measures or issuing warnings to workers and consumers.
In 1965, Ronald K. Francis, an assistant works manager at the Port Allegany plant, recommended installing engineering dust controls to mitigate the risks of asbestosis and cancer. His proposal was rejected by Pittsburgh Corning President Russell Brittingham, who cited financial concerns. This decision exemplifies the prioritization of profits over worker safety, a recurring theme in asbestos litigation.
Pittsburgh Corning's involvement in asbestos litigation began in the 1970s as workers and their families filed lawsuits alleging exposure to Unibestos caused mesothelioma, asbestosis, and other asbestos-related diseases. The company faced accusations of negligence, failure to warn, and deliberate concealment of health risks.
Scientific studies have long established the link between asbestos exposure and severe health conditions, including mesothelioma, lung cancer, and asbestosis. The use of amosite asbestos in Unibestos made it particularly hazardous, as this form of asbestos is among the most carcinogenic. Legal discovery processes uncovered internal documents showing that Pittsburgh Corning had knowledge of these risks but failed to act.
In 2000, overwhelmed by asbestos-related claims, Pittsburgh Corning filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The bankruptcy proceedings led to the establishment of an asbestos trust fund to compensate victims, a common outcome for companies involved in large-scale asbestos litigation.
The legacy of Pittsburgh Corning continues to influence asbestos litigation and public health policy. The company's bankruptcy and the creation of its asbestos trust fund serve as a cautionary tale for corporations prioritizing profits over safety. The trust fund has provided compensation to thousands of victims, but the legal and financial fallout underscores the long-term consequences of corporate negligence.
Today, Pittsburgh Corning's story is a critical case study in the importance of corporate transparency, regulatory oversight, and worker protection. It also highlights the ongoing challenges in addressing the health and legal ramifications of asbestos exposure, as new cases of mesothelioma continue to emerge due to the long latency period of the disease.
One notable case involving Pittsburgh Corning is the deposition of Ronald K. Francis in T.D. Lyons and D. Lyons v. GAP Corp. (1983). Francis testified about his efforts to implement dust controls at the Port Allegany plant and the company's refusal to act. This testimony provided compelling evidence of Pittsburgh Corning's knowledge of asbestos hazards and its failure to protect workers, strengthening the plaintiffs' claims of negligence.
Pittsburgh Corning's history serves as a stark reminder of the human and financial costs of ignoring occupational health risks. Its role in asbestos litigation continues to shape legal strategies, public health initiatives, and corporate accountability standards.
