Tamko Building Products and Asbestos-Containing Roofing Materials

Company History

Tamko Building Products is an American manufacturer of roofing and building materials headquartered in Joplin, Missouri. Founded as a regional supplier, Tamko grew over several decades into one of the larger independent roofing product manufacturers in the United States, distributing products across a broad national market under multiple brand names. The company produces asphalt shingles, roll roofing, underlayment, modified bitumen membranes, and related construction materials.

During the mid-twentieth century, asbestos was a common additive in roofing and waterproofing products throughout the building materials industry. Manufacturers incorporated chrysotile and other asbestos fiber types into asphalt-based products to improve durability, fire resistance, tensile strength, and resistance to weathering. Tamko, like many roofing manufacturers of the era, produced lines of product that were formulated with asbestos-containing materials during this period. According to asbestos litigation records, the company’s use of asbestos in roofing products is alleged to have continued through at least the early 1980s, when regulatory pressure and evolving industry standards drove most manufacturers toward asbestos-free formulations.

Tamko remains an active, privately held company and has not established an asbestos bankruptcy trust. Legal claims against the company have proceeded through civil litigation rather than through a structured trust fund process.

Asbestos-Containing Products

According to asbestos litigation records, Tamko manufactured and sold a range of roofing products that plaintiffs alleged contained asbestos fiber during the period roughly spanning the 1940s through the early 1980s. The specific product lines identified in court filings and litigation discovery have varied by case, but the categories most frequently referenced include asphalt roofing shingles, roll roofing materials, and roofing felts — products that were standard components of residential and commercial roofing systems throughout this era.

Asphalt Roofing Shingles: Court filings document allegations that certain Tamko asphalt shingles sold during the mid-twentieth century were manufactured with asbestos-reinforced asphalt. Asbestos fiber was commonly blended into asphalt compounds to improve product longevity and stability. Plaintiffs alleged that cutting, nailing, trimming, and removing these shingles generated respirable asbestos dust.

Roofing Felt and Underlayment: Roofing felt — a saturated felt paper applied beneath finished roofing surfaces — was among the most widespread asbestos-containing products in the roofing trade during this period. According to asbestos litigation records, Tamko-branded roofing felt and underlayment products have been identified in litigation as alleged sources of asbestos exposure. These materials were used extensively in both residential and commercial construction as moisture barriers under shingles, tile, and other finished roofing.

Roll Roofing: Plaintiffs have alleged in civil litigation that Tamko produced roll roofing products — asphalt-saturated materials applied as a finished or base surface on low-slope roofs — that contained asbestos fiber during the relevant decades.

It is important to note that the presence of asbestos in any specific Tamko product, and the degree to which that product contributed to a given plaintiff’s exposure, are matters that have been contested in litigation. Court filings document these allegations, but liability has not been established as a universal legal fact applicable to all claims.

Occupational Exposure

Workers in the roofing trades represent the population most likely to have encountered Tamko asbestos-containing products during the mid-twentieth century. According to asbestos litigation records, roofers, roofing contractors, sheet metal workers, and construction laborers who installed, repaired, or removed roofing systems are among those who have alleged exposure through contact with the company’s products.

Installation Work: Roofers cutting shingles and roll roofing materials to fit roof dimensions, driving nails through asphalt shingles, and handling roofing felt on job sites were potentially exposed to asbestos dust generated by these activities. Dry-cutting asphalt products with hand tools or power saws was a routine practice on roofing job sites during this era and is associated with the release of airborne asbestos fiber.

Tear-Off and Renovation Work: Workers engaged in removing existing roofing systems — particularly during renovation or re-roofing projects — faced the additional hazard of disturbing aged, friable roofing materials. Asbestos-containing roofing products that have weathered and deteriorated over time may release fiber more readily during disturbance than intact new materials. Court filings document allegations by workers who performed tear-off operations on roofs containing Tamko and other manufacturers’ materials.

Bystander Exposure: Carpenters, plumbers, HVAC technicians, and other tradespeople working on job sites where roofing work was being performed in proximity may have experienced bystander asbestos exposure without directly handling roofing materials themselves. This type of secondary exposure has been documented in asbestos litigation across multiple trades.

Secondary or Household Exposure: Family members of roofing workers have alleged in some civil actions that asbestos fiber was carried home on work clothing, tools, and vehicles, resulting in secondary exposure within the household. While this category of claim is less directly tied to specific product identification, it appears in the broader litigation landscape involving roofing material manufacturers.

Workers who handled roofing products on job sites across the United States during the 1940s through the early 1980s — the approximate period of alleged asbestos use — may have encountered Tamko materials as part of routine construction work. Because Tamko distributed products nationally, exposure sites are not limited to any particular region.

Trust Fund / Legal Status

Tamko Building Products has not filed for bankruptcy protection in connection with asbestos liability and has not established a dedicated asbestos bankruptcy trust fund. This distinguishes Tamko from manufacturers such as Johns-Manville, Owens Corning, and Armstrong World Industries, which resolved asbestos liabilities through the federal bankruptcy process and created structured trusts that continue to accept and pay claims.

Because no Tamko trust fund exists, individuals who believe they were harmed by exposure to Tamko asbestos-containing products must pursue compensation through civil litigation filed directly against the company. These cases proceed in the tort system, subject to applicable statutes of limitations and the evidentiary requirements of each jurisdiction.

According to asbestos litigation records, Tamko has been named as a defendant in asbestos personal injury and wrongful death cases filed in courts across the country. The outcomes of individual cases — including any settlements or verdicts — vary and are a matter of public court record where those records are not sealed. This site does not attribute specific settlement figures or verdicts to the company.

What This Means for Claimants:

For workers or family members pursuing an asbestos exposure claim potentially involving Tamko products, the practical implications of the company’s non-trust status include:

  • Claims must be pursued through retained legal counsel filing suit in civil court
  • Product identification — establishing that a specific Tamko product was present at the claimant’s worksite during the relevant period — is a central element of any case
  • Other manufacturers whose products were present at the same job sites may have established trust funds, and claims against those trusts may be pursued in parallel with litigation against Tamko
  • Statutes of limitations for asbestos claims typically begin running from the date of diagnosis of an asbestos-related disease, not the date of exposure; the rules vary by jurisdiction and claim type

Workers diagnosed with mesothelioma, lung cancer, asbestosis, or other asbestos-related diseases who worked in the roofing trades between the 1940s and early 1980s may have grounds to investigate whether Tamko Building Products was a source of their asbestos exposure. Because Tamko has not established a bankruptcy trust, compensation is pursued through direct civil litigation.

At the same time, roofing workers frequently encountered products from multiple manufacturers on the same job sites. Materials from companies that did establish asbestos bankruptcy trusts — including roofing felts, adhesives, mastics, and shingles from other manufacturers — may have also been present. Exposure histories involving multiple products and multiple defendants are common in roofing trade cases, and trust fund claims against other responsible parties may proceed alongside litigation against Tamko.

Anyone researching a potential claim should consult an attorney experienced in asbestos litigation who can evaluate the specific exposure history, identify all potentially responsible parties, and advise on applicable filing deadlines. Medical documentation of an asbestos-related diagnosis is a necessary component of any claim.