Asbestos lawsuit gets set to appear on docket here.

Trizec battles makers over Southland building woes

Parties to a five-year-old lawsuit seeking at least $60 million in damages from asbestos manufacturers confirmed that they are scheduled to appear in court in Los Angeles this week.

Toronto-based Trizec Properties Inc., one of North America's biggest commercial property owners, wants major asbestos manufacturers to reimburse Trizec for the cost of removing or otherwise "abating" the banned fire retardant from a half dozen of its Los Angeles-area office buildings.

In addition to the $30 million-plus Trizec claims as its asbestos abatement costs, the suit is seeking $30 million in punitive damages tied to the suppliers' alleged misrepresentation of asbestos hazards.

The case is scheduled to be assigned a Superior Court judge and courtroom April 5 in the main County Courthouse in downtown L.A., according to attorneys for plaintiff Trizec and the remaining defendants -- United States Gypsum Co., W.R. Grace & Co. and United States Mineral Products Co.

Trizec originally filed the complaint in 1988. But the trial has been delayed for various reasons, including the financial troubles of several of the original defendants -- some of which have become insolvent while fighting and/or paying other asbestos-related claims.

The Trizec case is somewhat unusual -- and its outcome could set an important precedent -- because it is one of few cases involving a property owner suing asbestos manufacturers. Asbestos installers and removers have initiated most of the previous and ongoing trials testing asbestos manufacturers' liability, explained Pat Breen, an attorney specializing in environmental matters with the Los Angeles law firm of Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory.

In a similar federal case decided in 1990, W.R. Grace was not held responsible for damages at a Mid-Wilshire building, Breen added. An attorney for Trizec noted that owners of a Minnesota office building are also suing asbestos manufacturers over similar claims.

Breen suggested that a Trizec victory "could spawn a series of lawsuits against (asbestos) manufacturers, and possibly even (asbestos) retailers" by building owners who say they face marketing problems due to asbestos contamination.

"It may give a lead as to how a jury would look at these claims," Breen commented.

But Larry Teplin, an attorney at the Century City law firm Cox Castle & Nicholson, said a Trizec victory is "unlikely to unleash a wave of new suits" because previous asbestos liability cases have shown that juries side with either plaintiffs or defendants "based solely on the facts of the individual cases."

Trizec claims in its suit that the manufacturers were aware of asbestos hazards, but didn't disclose the information, when asbestos-containing building materials were installed in six office properties completed in the early 1970s.

Trizec purchased the buildings -- which include Wilshire Center in the Mid-Wilshire district, Airport Freeway Center in Inglewood, Hollywood Center in Hollywood, Valley Center in Encino and the two Marina Towers in Marina del Rey -- in 1974.

Trizec claims in its suit that it didn't realize until 1987 that the asbestos materials may have released contaminating fibers. That realization came after a tenant in one of its L.A. buildings conducted a test that revealed the building contained asbestos. The lawsuit alleges that the manufacturers concealed their knowledge about the health hazards associated with asbestos and "disseminate(d) false and misleading statements" about these hazards.

The complaint also states that Trizec first became aware in April of 1987 that the contamination posed a threat to building occupants, and that the defendants refused to honor requests that the hazards be remedied.

Therefore, Trizec began removing and/or repairing hazardous materials, the suit explains. The firm expects total associated costs to exceed $30 million.

Breen predicted that attorneys for the manufacturers will stress that the latest scientific discoveries -- and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recommendations -- suggest that building owners should refrain from disturbing most asbestos-containing materials altogether.

He also suggested that Trizec's representatives will likely point out that the firm was operating under the information available at that time. Hence, the new EPA recommendations don't negate Trizec's conclusion in 1987 that abatement was necessary.

A Trizec attorney noted that the EPA "still says you need proactive (asbestos) management, and we've continued to be very active in this." The attorney also said Trizec has continued to abate asbestos while recently installing fire sprinklers in all six buildings, as required by a City of Los Angeles ordinance.

An attorney for one of the defendants countered that the manufacturers "have strong defenses on the merits of (Trizec's) complaint and statutes of limitations."