b'1000 Power 8Light Bldg.,Kansas City, Missouri64105May-June,1973 ROOFMATEFR Followingasix-weektrialandafterdeliberatingonehourandfortyfiveminutes,ajuryinSanFranciscoreturnedaverdictof$65,000actual damagesand$500,000punitivedamagesinfavoroftheplaintiffcontractor andagainstdefendantDowChemicalCompany.Thefactsandlegaltheory areverywellstatedinaletterwerecentlyreceivedfromRobertE. - Gooding,Jr.,Esq.,Howard,Prim,Rice,Nemerovski,Canady&Pollak,SanFrancisco,attorneyforplaintiff,thetextofwhichfollows: "DearMr.Lyons: "IaminreceiptofyourlettertotheInstitutNational TechniquedatedMay4,1973,inwhichyourequestedmetocommunicatedirectlywiththatorganization,andIhavedoneso. "Foryourinformation,Iamcertainlyhappytocomment brieflyonourcase.TheactionwasentitledDinwiddieConstructionCompanyv.TheDowChemicalCompany,SanFranciscoSuperior CourtActionNo.591-157.Thecaseinvolvedthefailureofthe roofattheEmporiumdepartmentstorelocatedintheNorthgate ShoppingCenterinSanRafael,California,justnorthofSan Francisco.Thebuilding,whichisapproximately90,000square feetinsize,wasconstructedin1963-64,andtheroofingsystem consistedofoneandone-eighthinchRoofmateFR,a33lb.coated basesheet,threeplysof15lb.felts,afloodcoatofasphalt, andgravel.Theinsulationwasseparatedfromtheconcretedeck byasizalkraftslipsheet.Theproblemsonthisroofbeganin approximatelyNovember1966,withpullingawayfromtheparapet wall,andthedevelopmentofsplitsthroughouttheroof.Ultimately,anewroofwasplacedovertheentireareawhichincorporatedthestyrofoam. "Afterasix-weektrial,whichcommencedinthemiddleof Marchofthisyear,thejurydeliberatedforonehourandfortyfiveminutesandreturnedaverdictinourfavorforthe$65,000 whichhasbeenexpendedonrepairstodate,plus$500,000of punitivedamages.Beforethecasewenttothejury,weeliminatedseverallegaltheoriesfromourComplaint;theverdictwas baseduponaclaimofstrictliability(i.e.thattheRoofmate FRwasdefectiveandcausedtherooffailure)andbreachofimpliedwarranty(i.e.thattheRoofmateFRwasnotsuitablefor itsintendedusewithinthebuilt-uproofingsystem).Theaward ofpunitivedamagesisbaseduponafindingofmalice(i.e.that Dowknewoftheproblemsinherentinitsproductwhenitsold theproductandactedinrecklessdisregardoftherightsof'