Chicago Bridge & Iron Company: Asbestos Exposure History and Legal Background

Chicago Bridge & Iron Company (CB&I) is a name closely associated with large-scale industrial construction in the United States — tank farms, pressure vessels, refineries, chemical plants, and other heavy infrastructure built across the twentieth century. For workers who spent careers on those jobsites, the company’s name may also be linked to a more troubling legacy: asbestos-containing insulation materials applied during construction and maintenance work, and the serious diseases those materials can cause decades later.

This reference article is intended to help workers, their families, and legal professionals research the documented history of asbestos use in CB&I operations and understand what legal options may remain available.

Company History

Chicago Bridge & Iron Company was founded in Chicago, Illinois, and grew to become one of the most recognized names in heavy industrial engineering and construction. Despite its name, the company’s work extended far beyond bridges. By the mid-twentieth century, CB&I had established itself as a major contractor for petroleum storage tanks, liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities, nuclear power plant components, water towers, and large-scale chemical processing infrastructure.

CB&I operated across the full span of the postwar industrial boom — precisely the era when asbestos-containing materials were considered standard, often mandatory components of industrial construction. Its crews worked in shipyards, refineries, power plants, and petrochemical facilities throughout the country, environments in which asbestos insulation was applied to pipes, vessels, and equipment as a matter of routine industrial practice.

The company underwent multiple ownership and structural changes over the decades. In 2018, CB&I’s engineering and construction divisions were acquired by McDermott International. The original CB&I corporate entity no longer operates in its historical form, which has direct implications for workers attempting to pursue asbestos-related legal claims today.

Asbestos-Containing Products and Materials

Chicago Bridge & Iron was primarily an engineering and construction contractor rather than a manufacturer of asbestos-containing products. As a result, the asbestos exposure associated with CB&I typically arose from materials that the company specified, procured, directed workers to install, or worked alongside on jobsites it controlled or contributed to.

According to asbestos litigation records, pipe insulation is the product category most frequently associated with CB&I’s construction activities. Plaintiffs alleged that workers employed by or working alongside CB&I crews were regularly exposed to asbestos-containing pipe insulation during the construction and maintenance of industrial facilities — particularly petroleum refineries, LNG storage facilities, and chemical processing plants.

Court filings document that the installation and removal of pipe insulation was a core activity on CB&I-managed worksites throughout the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Pipe insulation during this period frequently contained chrysotile or amosite asbestos, and its installation — which involved cutting, fitting, and securing pre-formed insulation sections — routinely generated airborne asbestos dust.

Plaintiffs alleged in litigation that CB&I, in its capacity as general contractor or construction manager on major industrial projects, had authority over the selection and use of materials on its worksites, and that the company directed or supervised work involving asbestos-containing insulation products. According to asbestos litigation records, this supervisory role forms a central basis for CB&I’s involvement in exposure claims, even where the company did not itself manufacture the insulation products at issue.

Workers most directly implicated in these exposure allegations included pipefitters, pipe coverers, insulators, and laborers who handled or worked in close proximity to pipe insulation installation and removal on CB&I projects.

Occupational Exposure Risks

The nature of CB&I’s work — heavy industrial construction on large, complex infrastructure projects — created conditions in which asbestos exposure could be substantial and prolonged. Petroleum refineries and chemical plants in particular required extensive networks of insulated piping to manage high-temperature and high-pressure processes, meaning that insulation work was not incidental but central to project completion.

Court filings document that many of the occupational settings associated with CB&I’s operations were enclosed or semi-enclosed industrial environments where asbestos dust could accumulate. In tank farm and refinery construction, pipe systems often ran through confined spaces — valve rooms, pipe chases, and equipment enclosures — where ventilation was limited and asbestos fiber concentrations could reach dangerous levels.

Plaintiffs alleged exposure through several mechanisms common to insulation-heavy industrial construction:

Primary exposure occurred among workers who directly handled pipe insulation — cutting preformed sections to length, wrapping fittings, mixing asbestos-containing cements, and securing insulation with wire or banding. These tasks generated visible dust that workers inhaled directly.

Bystander exposure occurred among other tradespeople — welders, pipefitters, boilermakers, electricians, and painters — who worked in the same areas where insulation was being applied or removed. Asbestos litigation records reflect numerous claims from bystander workers who were not themselves insulators but spent years working in proximity to insulation activities on CB&I-associated jobsites.

Maintenance and repair exposure represents a particularly significant category. Many CB&I projects involved facilities that operated for decades, and maintenance workers who later removed, repaired, or worked around aging pipe insulation faced exposure to deteriorating asbestos-containing materials. According to asbestos litigation records, this “second wave” of maintenance exposure has been the basis for many claims involving CB&I-constructed facilities.

The diseases associated with occupational asbestos exposure — mesothelioma, asbestosis, lung cancer, and other asbestos-related conditions — typically develop 20 to 50 years after initial exposure, meaning workers exposed during CB&I projects of the 1950s through early 1980s may only now be receiving diagnoses.

Chicago Bridge & Iron does not have a dedicated asbestos bankruptcy trust fund. The company has not undergone an asbestos-related bankruptcy reorganization of the type that would result in the establishment of a trust to compensate claimants on an ongoing basis.

According to asbestos litigation records, CB&I has been named as a defendant in asbestos personal injury lawsuits filed across multiple jurisdictions. Plaintiffs alleged that the company bore responsibility for asbestos exposures arising from its role as a contractor and construction manager on industrial projects where asbestos-containing pipe insulation and related materials were used.

Court filings document that CB&I’s litigation posture, like that of many contractor defendants, has centered on questions of control — specifically, what authority the company exercised over the selection of materials and the conditions of work on its projects. These are fact-intensive inquiries that vary by case, project, and timeframe.

Because CB&I does not have an asbestos trust, claims against the company are pursued through the civil tort system rather than through a trust claims process. This distinction has practical significance for claimants: there is no standardized claims form or trust payment matrix applicable to CB&I. Instead, individuals must file or threaten civil litigation to seek compensation, and outcomes depend on the specific evidence available in each case.

CB&I’s corporate evolution — including its acquisition by McDermott International and McDermott’s subsequent bankruptcy proceedings — adds complexity to the question of which corporate entities bear legal responsibility for historical CB&I asbestos claims. Attorneys handling asbestos matters involving CB&I must carefully evaluate the chain of corporate succession and which entities remain viable defendants.

If you or a family member worked on CB&I construction projects — particularly in refineries, LNG facilities, chemical plants, or tank farm construction — and has been diagnosed with mesothelioma, asbestosis, lung cancer, or another asbestos-related disease, the following points are relevant to understanding your legal options:

No asbestos trust fund exists for CB&I. Unlike many asbestos defendants that reorganized through bankruptcy and established compensation trusts, CB&I does not have a dedicated trust fund. Claims cannot be filed through an administrative trust process.

Civil litigation is the available legal avenue. Compensation from CB&I-related exposure claims is pursued through personal injury or wrongful death lawsuits in civil court. The viability of such claims depends on evidence establishing that a diagnosed individual worked on CB&I jobsites where asbestos-containing pipe insulation was present, and that CB&I had relevant control over those work conditions.

Other trust funds may also apply. Because asbestos exposure on CB&I projects often involved products manufactured by companies that have since established bankruptcy trusts, individuals exposed on CB&I worksites may have claims against multiple defendants — including trust fund defendants — in addition to any civil claim against CB&I itself. An attorney experienced in asbestos litigation can identify all potentially responsible parties.

Statutes of limitations apply. Asbestos-related disease claims are subject to time limits that vary by state and typically begin running from the date of diagnosis or discovery of the disease, not from the date of exposure. Consulting with an asbestos attorney promptly after diagnosis is important to preserve legal options.

Corporate successor issues require legal analysis. Given CB&I’s history of corporate transactions and acquisitions, identifying the appropriate legal defendants requires careful analysis of successor liability and corporate structure — a task best handled by attorneys with experience in industrial asbestos litigation.

Workers who built America’s refineries, storage facilities, and chemical plants deserve accurate information about what they were exposed to and what recourse remains available to them. This article is intended to support that research.