United States Mineral Products Company — Asbestos Manufacturer Reference

Company History

United States Mineral Products Company was an American manufacturer that, according to asbestos litigation records, produced a broad line of spray-applied fireproofing, insulation, and acoustical treatment materials under the Cafco brand name from at least the mid-1950s through the early 1980s. The company operated primarily during the postwar construction boom, a period when spray-applied asbestos fireproofing became a standard method of protecting structural steel in high-rise office buildings, industrial facilities, power plants, and public institutions across the country.

Court filings document that United States Mineral supplied its Cafco-branded products to commercial and industrial construction projects throughout the United States during this period. The Cafco product line was marketed to building contractors, insulation applicators, and mechanical trades workers as a cost-effective and code-compliant solution for fireproofing and thermal insulation of structural steel, pipe fittings, and building interiors.

The company is understood to have ceased incorporating asbestos into its products in approximately the early 1980s, consistent with broader industry shifts following the Environmental Protection Agency’s increasing restrictions on asbestos-containing materials and the promulgation of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA). The precise founding date of United States Mineral Products Company has not been conclusively established in publicly available records.

Asbestos-Containing Products

Plaintiffs alleged, across numerous asbestos personal injury cases, that United States Mineral Products Company manufactured and sold a range of asbestos-containing products under the Cafco trade name. These products spanned two primary categories: spray-applied fireproofing and insulation and pipe insulation cements. The following products have been identified in asbestos litigation records and regulatory documentation:

Spray Fireproofing and Insulation Products

  • Cafco Spray and Cafco Spray Type 1 (approximately 1954–1958): Early-generation spray products marketed for fireproofing, insulation, and acoustical treatment of buildings. These products represent some of the earliest entries in the Cafco line documented in litigation records.

  • Cafco Blaze-Shield (approximately 1958–1972): The flagship fireproofing product in the Cafco line, formulated for application to structural steel and steel floors. According to asbestos litigation records, this product contained asbestos as a primary component and was applied by spray equipment on construction sites nationwide.

  • Cafco Blaze-Shield Type D (approximately 1958–1971): A variant of the standard Blaze-Shield product, also used for fireproofing structural steel and steel floors, with a formulation distinguished from the base product.

  • Cafco Blaze-Shield Patching Fiber (approximately 1954–1972): Court filings document this product as a fiber-modified version of Cafco Blaze-Shield, designed to be mixed with water and hand applied, allowing workers to patch and repair spray-fireproofed surfaces without spray equipment.

  • Cafco Blaze-Shield Patching Fiber Type D (approximately 1965–1971): A patching formulation corresponding to the Blaze-Shield Type D product, similarly modified for hand application with water.

  • Cafco Blaze-Shield Type H (approximately 1969–1971): According to asbestos litigation records, this product shared the same formulation as Cafco Blaze-Shield Type D and was generally specified for exposed acoustical areas where appearance was a consideration.

  • Cafco Blaze-Shield Type M (approximately 1964–1965): A modification of the Cafco Heat-Shield product with organic binders added, documented in court filings related to building insulation applications.

  • Cafco Heat-Shield (approximately 1958–1972): Marketed as a building insulation product and applied by spray methods. Plaintiffs alleged this product contained asbestos and was used across a wide range of commercial and institutional construction projects.

  • Cafco Heat-Shield Type 2 (approximately 1961–1962): A modified variant of the Heat-Shield product, documented over a narrower production window.

  • Cafco Power-Shield (approximately 1964–1971): Marketed as a high-temperature insulation product for power generation and industrial process applications. Court filings document its use in power plants and heavy industrial facilities where workers faced intensive and prolonged exposure.

  • Cafco Sound-Shield (approximately 1958–1969): Formulated specifically for acoustical absorption in buildings. According to asbestos litigation records, this product was applied to ceilings and interior structural surfaces in commercial buildings, theaters, schools, and similar structures.

  • Cafco Weather-Shield (approximately 1970–1972): A coating designed for application over other Cafco spray products to protect against weathering and elemental exposure. Litigation records identify this as a product used in exterior or exposed-environment applications.

  • Mark II Coating (approximately 1966–1972): A protective coating for application over Cafco products in areas subject to high air velocity or abrasion. Court filings document its use in mechanical and industrial spaces.

  • J Spray (approximately 1964–1967): A high-temperature spray insulation product for power and process piping, documented in asbestos litigation records as used in industrial settings.

Pipe Insulation Cements

A separate category within the Cafco product line consisted of asbestos-containing insulating cements used for covering and finishing elbow fittings and irregular pipe surfaces. These cements were marketed under several names that appear to have been used interchangeably or sequentially:

  • Cominco (documented in litigation records from approximately 1961–1972, with some records suggesting association as early as 1902): An insulating cement for elbow fittings and pipe work. Plaintiffs alleged this product contained asbestos and was applied by pipefitters and insulation workers on mechanical piping systems.

  • Cominco Monoply (approximately 1963–1971): A related insulating cement product for the same elbow-fitting applications.

  • All-Purpose Cement (documented from pre-1958 through approximately 1971): Court filings identify this as an alternate name for the Cominco insulating cement.

  • Ace-Tite Cement (documented from pre-1958 through approximately 1971): Another alternate name for the Cominco insulating cement product, according to asbestos litigation records.

Occupational Exposure

According to asbestos litigation records, workers across numerous trades encountered United States Mineral Products Company’s Cafco-branded materials during the course of ordinary construction and industrial work. The spray-applied nature of the Blaze-Shield, Heat-Shield, Sound-Shield, and Power-Shield products was central to the exposure risk alleged in court filings: spray application generates significant airborne fiber concentrations that can affect not only the applicator but also other workers present in the same area.

Plaintiffs alleged that the following occupational groups faced exposure to Cafco asbestos-containing products:

  • Insulation workers and applicators who mixed, loaded, and sprayed Cafco products directly onto structural steel, ceilings, and pipe systems
  • Ironworkers and structural steel workers present on job sites where spray fireproofing was being applied overhead or nearby
  • Pipefitters and pipe coverers who applied Cominco, All-Purpose Cement, and Ace-Tite Cement to pipe elbow fittings
  • Sheet metal workers, electricians, and carpenters who worked in shared spaces during spray fireproofing operations
  • Maintenance and renovation workers who later disturbed dried Cafco spray products during drilling, cutting, demolition, or abatement work
  • Power plant workers who worked around Cafco Power-Shield and J Spray insulation on high-temperature process piping

Court filings document exposure in a variety of settings, including high-rise commercial and office construction, industrial manufacturing plants, power generation facilities, schools, and government buildings — essentially any structure built or renovated during the approximate period of 1954 to 1982 where spray fireproofing or pipe insulation cement was specified.

The patching fiber products (Cafco Blaze-Shield Patching Fiber and its Type D variant) are specifically relevant to maintenance workers, as plaintiffs alleged these hand-applied materials were used for ongoing repair and touch-up work, extending potential exposure timelines beyond the original construction period.

United States Mineral Products Company has been named as a defendant in asbestos personal injury litigation. This company does not have an established asbestos bankruptcy trust fund. Unlike manufacturers that reorganized under Chapter 11 bankruptcy and created Section 524(g) trusts to pay future asbestos claims, United States Mineral Products Company’s legal status does not currently include a publicly documented trust fund mechanism.

According to asbestos litigation records, claims against United States Mineral Products Company have proceeded through the civil court system. Plaintiffs alleged that the company manufactured and sold asbestos-containing products that caused mesothelioma, asbestos-related lung cancer, asbestosis, and other asbestos-related diseases. No specific verdicts or settlement figures are cited here.

Plain-Language Summary for Workers and Families

If you or a family member worked in construction, insulation, pipefitting, or power generation between the mid-1950s and early 1980s and were exposed to Cafco brand spray fireproofing, building insulation, or pipe insulation cement products, you may have a legal claim related to asbestos exposure from United States Mineral Products Company products.

Because this company does not appear to have established an asbestos bankruptcy trust, compensation claims would likely be pursued through direct civil litigation rather than a trust fund claim process. An attorney experienced in asbestos exposure cases can review your work history, identify applicable product exposures, assess whether other defendants with active trust funds may also be responsible, and advise on the appropriate legal avenue for your situation.

The products documented on this page were manufactured across a wide period and used on job sites throughout the United States. Even workers who did not apply these products directly — but were present when spray application was occurring — may have viable exposure histories worth evaluating.