United States Mineral Products Company (Cafco)

Headquarters: Stanhope, New Jersey Founded: 1950 Ceased Asbestos Use: 1972 (alleged) Product Categories: Spray-applied fireproofing

United States Mineral Products Company, operating under the Cafco brand name, was one of the leading manufacturers of spray-applied fireproofing materials in the United States from the 1950s through the early 1970s. Based in Stanhope, New Jersey, the company competed directly with industry peers such as W.R. Grace & Company — the manufacturer of Monokote — in supplying fireproofing products to the commercial construction, industrial, and institutional building sectors. According to asbestos litigation records, Cafco-branded spray fireproofing products contained asbestos as a primary component throughout much of the company’s production history, with alleged asbestos-containing formulations reaching the market as late as 1972.

Workers who applied Cafco products to structural steel beams, decking, and other building components during the postwar construction boom may have experienced significant asbestos exposure. Ironworkers, insulators, plasterers, painters, electricians, pipefitters, and other tradespeople who worked in proximity to spray fireproofing operations have been identified in litigation as potentially affected occupational groups.

Company History

United States Mineral Products Company was founded in 1950 and established its manufacturing base in Stanhope, New Jersey. The company developed its commercial identity around the Cafco product line — a name that became recognized in the construction industry as shorthand for spray-applied fireproofing systems.

The postwar period created enormous demand for fireproofing solutions. High-rise office towers, industrial plants, schools, hospitals, and government buildings were being constructed across the country at an accelerating pace, and building codes increasingly required that structural steel components be protected against fire. Spray-applied fireproofing offered a faster, more cost-effective method of protecting steel than traditional encasement techniques, and Cafco products were marketed as a practical solution for meeting code requirements on large-scale projects.

According to asbestos litigation records, U.S. Mineral Products incorporated asbestos fibers — valued for their thermal resistance, binding properties, and low cost — into Cafco spray fireproofing formulations beginning in the early 1950s. Court filings document that the company’s use of asbestos in these products continued until approximately 1972, when regulatory pressure and evolving awareness of asbestos health hazards prompted manufacturers across the industry to reformulate or discontinue asbestos-containing products.

Asbestos-Containing Products

Plaintiffs alleged that the following Cafco and associated products manufactured by U.S. Mineral Products Company contained asbestos:

Cafco Blaze-Shield (1958–1972)

The flagship product in the Cafco fireproofing line, Blaze-Shield was a spray-applied material designed for application to structural steel in commercial and institutional buildings. According to asbestos litigation records, this product contained asbestos throughout its production run.

Cafco Blaze-Shield Type D (1958–1971)

A variant formulation of the standard Blaze-Shield product, Type D was marketed for specific structural applications. Court filings document this product among the asbestos-containing Cafco materials alleged to have caused worker exposure.

Cafco Heat-Shield (1958–1972)

Cafco Heat-Shield was applied in industrial and commercial settings where elevated heat resistance was required. Plaintiffs alleged that this product contained asbestos fibers as a principal component of its thermal-protective formula.

Cafco Power-Shield (1964–1971)

According to asbestos litigation records, Cafco Power-Shield was among the company’s product offerings during the mid-1960s through the early 1970s and is alleged to have contained asbestos in its formulation.

Cafco Sound-Shield (1958–1969)

Cafco Sound-Shield was marketed for acoustic as well as fire-resistant properties. Plaintiffs alleged that this product contained asbestos, and workers who applied or disturbed it may have been exposed to asbestos-containing dust.

Cafco Spray (1954–1958)

Among the earliest products in the Cafco line, Cafco Spray represents the company’s initial spray fireproofing formulation. According to asbestos litigation records, this product predates the better-known Shield line and allegedly contained asbestos from the outset of commercial production.

Cafco Blaze-Shield Patching Fiber (1954–1972)

Used to repair and patch areas of spray-applied fireproofing, Blaze-Shield Patching Fiber had one of the longest alleged production runs of any Cafco product. Court filings document this material as an asbestos-containing product used through 1972.

Cafco Weather-Shield (1970–1972)

Introduced toward the end of the company’s asbestos-era production, Weather-Shield was applied in exterior or semi-exposed environments. Plaintiffs alleged that this product contained asbestos during its short commercial lifespan.

Cominco / Ace-Tite Cement (pre-1958–1971)

Court filings document Cominco/Ace-Tite Cement as an asbestos-containing product associated with U.S. Mineral Products Company’s broader product portfolio, with alleged use spanning from before 1958 through 1971.

Mark II Coating (1966–1972)

According to asbestos litigation records, Mark II Coating was an asbestos-containing material produced during the latter portion of the company’s asbestos-era manufacturing activity.

Cominco Monoply (1963–1971)

Plaintiffs alleged that Cominco Monoply, associated with U.S. Mineral Products Company’s production, contained asbestos and was commercially available from the mid-1960s through 1971.

Occupational Exposure

The spray-applied fireproofing process was among the most hazardous asbestos-related operations on American construction jobsites. When Cafco products were mixed, pumped through hoses, and sprayed onto steel beams and decking, they generated substantial quantities of airborne asbestos-containing dust. According to asbestos litigation records, this dust was not confined to the immediate work area — it dispersed throughout open building floors, settling on equipment, tools, and the clothing of workers in the vicinity.

Workers in the following trades have been identified in court filings as potentially exposed to asbestos from Cafco spray fireproofing operations:

• Ironworkers and structural steel workers, who often worked directly beneath or alongside spray fireproofing operations
• Fireproofing applicators and plasterers, who mixed, handled, and sprayed the materials
• Pipefitters and plumbers, who installed mechanical systems on floors where fireproofing was being applied
• Electricians, who ran conduit and wiring in proximity to fireproofing operations
• Sheet metal workers and HVAC installers, whose work frequently overlapped with fireproofing schedules on large commercial projects
• Painters and drywall finishers, who worked after fireproofing application and could disturb settled asbestos material
• Building maintenance workers and custodians, who may have disturbed previously applied fireproofing during routine upkeep or renovation

Cafco products were applied on high-rise commercial buildings, industrial manufacturing facilities, schools, hospitals, stadiums, and government structures throughout the country during the 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s. Workers on these projects typically received no warning about asbestos content in the materials they handled or worked near. Plaintiffs in litigation have alleged that U.S. Mineral Products Company knew or should have known of the health hazards associated with asbestos exposure during the period in which its products were manufactured and distributed.

The latency period for asbestos-related diseases — including mesothelioma, asbestosis, and asbestos-related lung cancer — typically ranges from 20 to 50 years following initial exposure. As a result, workers who applied or worked near Cafco products during the 1950s through early 1970s may only now be receiving diagnoses related to that historical exposure.

Trust Fund / Legal Status

U.S. Mineral Products Company / Cafco does not have an established asbestos bankruptcy trust fund. The company has not, to the knowledge of public litigation records, undergone the Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization that leads to the creation of an Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust under Section 524(g) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

Individuals seeking compensation for asbestos-related disease connected to Cafco product exposure have historically pursued claims through civil litigation rather than through a trust fund claims process. According to asbestos litigation records, U.S. Mineral Products Company has been named as a defendant in asbestos personal injury cases brought by workers and their families alleging exposure to Cafco spray fireproofing products.

Because no trust fund exists, the path to potential compensation for documented Cafco exposure typically involves filing a civil lawsuit rather than submitting a standardized trust claim form. Claims may also potentially be filed against other entities in the asbestos supply chain, including asbestos raw material suppliers, distributors, or other product manufacturers whose materials were present on the same jobsite.

If you or a family member worked with or near Cafco spray fireproofing products and have been diagnosed with mesothelioma, asbestosis, or asbestos-related lung cancer, your exposure history — including the specific products, dates, and job locations you can document — is important information for evaluating your legal options. An attorney experienced in asbestos litigation can review your work history, identify all potentially responsible parties, and advise you on the viability of a civil claim. Because asbestos claims are subject to statutes of limitations that vary by state and by disease type, consulting with an attorney promptly after diagnosis is advisable.