GAF Vinyl Asbestos Floor Tile (VAT), LURAN Sheet Vinyl, and Asphalt Tile

Product Description

GAF Corporation, operating through its successor entity G-I Holdings, manufactured a broad line of resilient flooring products sold across the United States from approximately 1959 through 1981. This product family included Vinyl Asbestos Tile (VAT), the LURAN brand of sheet vinyl flooring, and asphalt-composition floor tile. These products were marketed for commercial, industrial, and residential installation and were widely distributed through flooring supply chains, building materials wholesalers, and contractor networks throughout the country.

GAF was among the largest flooring manufacturers in the United States during this period. Its tile and sheet vinyl products were installed in factories, warehouses, schools, hospitals, office buildings, and multi-family housing. The broad reach of GAF flooring meant that tradespeople working in virtually any commercial or industrial setting during these decades were likely to encounter these materials. Because asbestos-containing resilient flooring was considered a durable and cost-effective solution, GAF products were installed in high-traffic areas where repeated maintenance, repair, and eventual removal were anticipated parts of the building lifecycle.

The LURAN sheet vinyl line represented GAF’s entry into the backing-reinforced sheet flooring market, while the asphalt tile offerings were among the company’s earlier product types, carrying forward from mid-century flooring conventions. Vinyl Asbestos Tile became the dominant product category during the 1960s and 1970s, marketed heavily to institutional and industrial buyers who valued its resistance to heavy loads, moisture, and surface wear.

Asbestos Content

GAF’s VAT, LURAN sheet vinyl, and asphalt tile products contained chrysotile asbestos as a primary functional ingredient. Chrysotile, the most commercially prevalent form of asbestos, was incorporated into resilient flooring products for several practical reasons: it improved tensile strength, provided dimensional stability under thermal cycling, and enhanced the tile’s resistance to cracking under point loads.

In vinyl asbestos tile, chrysotile fibers were blended into the polyvinyl chloride (PVC) matrix along with plasticizers, fillers, and pigments. The resulting composite was calendered into sheets and die-cut into standard tile dimensions. In asphalt tile, chrysotile was mixed with asphalt binders, fillers, and stabilizers before being pressed into finished units. In sheet vinyl products such as LURAN, chrysotile appeared in backing layers or felt underlayment components, bonded into the product’s structure rather than the wear surface alone.

Litigation records document that internal company documents and product formulation records were introduced as evidence in multiple proceedings, establishing that asbestos was a known and deliberate component of these flooring lines throughout the production period. The presence of chrysotile in intact tile is generally considered bound and less friable than some other asbestos-containing materials; however, cutting, sanding, grinding, scraping, or otherwise disturbing these products releases respirable chrysotile fibers into the breathing zone of nearby workers.

How Workers Were Exposed

Industrial workers and building trades workers encountered GAF vinyl asbestos tile, LURAN sheet vinyl, and asphalt tile at multiple stages of the product lifecycle. Exposure did not require primary installation work; maintenance, renovation, and demolition activities generated fiber releases from products that had already been installed for years or decades.

Installation: During original installation, workers scored, snapped, and cut tiles to fit irregular floor dimensions using utility knives, hand saws, or mechanical tile cutters. These cutting operations generated dust containing chrysotile fibers. Adhesive application, tile fitting, and seam work all brought installers into close proximity with the cut edges and undersides of tile products.

Maintenance and Repair: Industrial facilities routinely performed floor maintenance that included buffing, stripping, and recoating tile surfaces. High-speed floor buffing and stripping machines abraded tile surfaces, releasing fibers into the air above the work area. Workers operating buffing equipment or working in the same space during these operations were subject to inhalation exposure.

Renovation and Removal: Litigation records document that tile removal operations—carried out when flooring was damaged, worn, or being replaced—presented some of the highest-intensity exposure scenarios. Workers used floor scrapers, chisels, and rotary grinding tools to break the bond between tile and substrate. Dry scraping of adhered VAT and asphalt tile is recognized in occupational health literature and regulatory guidance (including AHERA and EPA guidance documents) as a significant source of airborne chrysotile fiber. OSHA’s asbestos standard for general industry (29 C.F.R. § 1910.1001) and the construction standard (29 C.F.R. § 1926.1101) both address resilient floor tile disturbance as a regulated activity requiring engineering controls and respiratory protection.

Bystander Exposure: Industrial workers who were not directly performing flooring work but who shared work areas during installation, maintenance, or removal were also exposed. In large industrial facilities, flooring work often continued while other trades or production workers remained in adjacent or connected spaces, particularly when adequate containment was not established.

Plaintiffs alleged in litigation that GAF and its corporate successors were aware of the hazards associated with asbestos-containing flooring products and failed to provide adequate warnings to installers, maintenance workers, and end users about the risks of fiber release during routine disturbance.

Documented Trust Fund / Legal Options

GAF Corporation and its successor G-I Holdings do not maintain an active asbestos bankruptcy trust fund. Unlike some asbestos defendants that resolved their liabilities through Chapter 11 reorganization proceedings and the establishment of Section 524(g) trusts, G-I Holdings pursued a different litigation and corporate resolution path. As a result, there is no dedicated claim submission process through a structured trust for these products.

Individuals who were exposed to GAF VAT, LURAN sheet vinyl, or asphalt tile and who subsequently developed mesothelioma, asbestos-related lung cancer, asbestosis, or other asbestos-attributable disease may have legal options through the civil tort system. Litigation records document that claims involving GAF flooring products have been brought in state and federal courts, with plaintiffs alleging negligence, failure to warn, and products liability on theories including strict liability for defective design and defective marketing.

Because litigation involving these products proceeds through the courts rather than a claims administration process, individuals with potential claims should consult a qualified asbestos attorney who can evaluate the specific facts of the exposure history, identify all responsible parties—which may include other product manufacturers, premise owners, or employers—and assess applicable statutes of limitations in the relevant jurisdiction. Co-defendants in floor tile litigation have historically included asbestos adhesive manufacturers, building owners who failed to disclose known hazards during renovation, and employers who did not implement required controls.

Anyone who believes they were exposed to GAF flooring products during installation, maintenance, or removal operations between 1959 and 1981, or during later disturbance of materials installed during that period, should seek both a medical evaluation from a physician experienced in occupational lung disease and a legal consultation to understand available options.