Quigley Company: Asbestos-Containing Refractory and Pipe-Insulation Products

Quigley Company manufactured a line of refractory cements and joint sealants that were widely used on American industrial jobsites from the 1930s through the mid-1970s. According to asbestos litigation records, several of the company’s best-known products contained asbestos as a functional ingredient, exposing generations of tradespeople — including pipefitters, boilermakers, ironworkers, and industrial maintenance workers — to airborne asbestos fibers over the course of their careers. Quigley is understood to have ceased asbestos use in approximately the early 1980s, roughly concurrent with tightening federal regulations governing asbestos in the workplace.

Company History

Quigley Company operated as a United States–based manufacturer of specialty refractory and construction materials. The company’s product lines were oriented toward high-heat and industrial applications, supplying cements, fireproofing compounds, and joint sealants designed for use in furnaces, boilers, kilns, pipe systems, and other settings where heat resistance and durability were paramount.

Quigley’s products reached a wide range of industrial sectors, including steel and metals processing, power generation, chemical manufacturing, and shipbuilding — industries that relied heavily on refractory materials to line and protect high-temperature equipment. The company’s trade names, particularly “Insulag” and related variants, became recognizable to skilled tradespeople who specified or applied these materials as part of routine construction and maintenance work.

Court filings document that Quigley products were present on jobsites throughout the mid-twentieth century, a period during which asbestos was commonly added to refractory and insulating materials to enhance heat resistance, binding strength, and structural integrity after application. Quigley is reported to have phased out asbestos from its product formulations in approximately the early 1980s, consistent with broader industry trends driven by regulatory action and emerging scientific consensus on the hazards of asbestos exposure.

Asbestos-Containing Products

Plaintiffs alleged in multiple proceedings that a number of Quigley’s core product lines contained asbestos during defined periods of manufacture. The following products have appeared in asbestos litigation records:

Quigley Insulag Refractory Cement (approximately 1935–1974)

Insulag Refractory Cement was among Quigley’s most established products. According to asbestos litigation records, this cement was formulated with asbestos content during the documented period. A notable characteristic of this product was that it was designed to swell after application, a property intended to improve sealing and coverage in refractory installations. Workers who mixed, applied, or worked in proximity to the application of Insulag were potentially exposed to asbestos fibers released during these processes.

Quigley Panelag Refractory Cement (approximately 1940–1974)

Panelag Refractory Cement was another product in Quigley’s refractory line. Court filings document that this cement was alleged to contain asbestos during its period of manufacture. Like other refractory products of its era, Panelag was used in high-heat industrial settings where asbestos was valued for its thermal stability.

Quigley Insulag Fireproofing Cement (approximately 1963–1977)

This product extended the Insulag trade name into fireproofing applications. According to asbestos litigation records, Insulag Fireproofing Cement was alleged to contain asbestos during its documented period of manufacture, which spanned from approximately 1963 to 1977. Workers who applied or disturbed this fireproofing material in the course of construction, renovation, or industrial maintenance work may have been exposed to released asbestos fibers.

Insulbox Refractory Cement (approximately 1935–1974)

Insulbox Refractory Cement has appeared in court filings as an additional Quigley product alleged to have contained asbestos. The product name suggests an application in enclosed or boxed refractory installations, consistent with use in furnace or boiler construction.

Insuline Refractory Cement (approximately 1940–1970)

Insuline Refractory Cement was another product in Quigley’s industrial line. Plaintiffs alleged that this cement contained asbestos during its period of manufacture, running from approximately 1940 through 1970.

Waterproof Cement (approximately 1959–1974)

Quigley’s Waterproof Cement has appeared in asbestos litigation records during its documented production period. According to court filings, this product was alleged to contain asbestos, and its use in sealing and waterproofing applications may have brought workers into regular contact with the material.

Damit Joint Sealant (approximately 1940–1970)

Damit Joint Sealant was a product specifically oriented toward plumbing and pipefitting applications, used to seal pipe joints in industrial and commercial installations. According to asbestos litigation records, plaintiffs alleged that this sealant contained asbestos during its documented period of manufacture. Pipefitters and plumbers who applied Damit as part of routine pipe assembly work, or who disturbed existing joints during repairs, were among those potentially exposed.

Occupational Exposure

The trades most directly associated with Quigley products — pipefitters, plumbers, boilermakers, ironworkers, industrial insulators, and furnace and boiler maintenance workers — were occupational groups with documented histories of asbestos exposure across the mid-twentieth century. The specific nature of Quigley’s product lines meant that workers encountered these materials in particularly high-risk circumstances.

Refractory cements, when mixed from dry powder or applied by trowel and brush, can generate significant concentrations of airborne dust. If that dust contains asbestos fibers, workers in the immediate area — and bystanders in nearby trades — are subject to inhalation exposure. The swelling property noted in the Insulag Refractory Cement formulation suggests a product specifically engineered for tight-fitting refractory applications, where surface coverage and expansion during curing were functionally important. Application of such materials in confined spaces, such as boiler fireboxes or furnace interiors, could concentrate airborne fiber levels significantly.

The Damit Joint Sealant’s use in pipefitting and plumbing applications introduced a separate exposure pathway. Pipe joint work is a routine and repetitive trade task. Workers who applied joint sealants daily, or who cut into existing pipe systems sealed with older asbestos-containing compounds, may have accumulated substantial cumulative exposures over the course of a working career.

Court filings document that Quigley products were used across a wide range of industrial settings, including power plants, steel mills, refineries, shipyards, and manufacturing facilities. Workers in these environments often encountered multiple asbestos-containing products simultaneously — refractory cements, pipe insulation, gaskets, and joint compounds — which complicates the attribution of any individual’s total exposure but does not diminish the documented presence of Quigley materials at these sites.

Bystander trades — electricians, laborers, and other workers present on the same jobsite but not directly applying Quigley products — may also have been exposed to fibers released during nearby mixing and application work.

Quigley Company has been named as a defendant in asbestos personal injury litigation. However, as of the time of this writing, no Quigley asbestos bankruptcy trust has been established. This distinguishes Quigley from manufacturers such as Johns-Manville or Owens Corning, which resolved mass asbestos liability through Chapter 11 reorganization and the creation of dedicated compensation trusts under Section 524(g) of the federal bankruptcy code.

Because no trust exists, claims arising from alleged exposure to Quigley products are pursued through the civil litigation system rather than through an administrative trust claim process. Plaintiffs who believe they were exposed to asbestos-containing Quigley products and who have received a diagnosis of an asbestos-related disease — including mesothelioma, asbestosis, lung cancer, or other asbestos-attributable conditions — may have the option to file a lawsuit against the company or its successors in interest.

The availability and viability of litigation options will depend on individual circumstances, including the nature and duration of documented exposure, the specific disease diagnosis, applicable statutes of limitations, and the ability to establish product identification through work history, co-worker testimony, jobsite records, or other documentation.

Summary for Workers and Families

If you or a family member worked with or around Quigley refractory cements or the Damit Joint Sealant at any point from the 1930s through the early 1980s, and have since been diagnosed with mesothelioma, asbestosis, lung cancer, or another asbestos-related condition, the exposure history documented in asbestos litigation records may be relevant to a legal claim.

Because Quigley has not established an asbestos bankruptcy trust, compensation is not available through a streamlined trust claim process. Claims against Quigley are pursued through civil litigation. An attorney with experience in asbestos personal injury cases can evaluate your work history, help establish product identification, and advise on whether a lawsuit represents a viable path to compensation. Detailed records of jobsites, employers, and the specific products you worked with are valuable in building any such claim.