KR 1202/1204 M/C Brick
Product Description
KR 1202/1204 M/C Brick refers to a line of monolithic and modular refractory brick products that appear in asbestos litigation records under the Kaiser name. Refractory brick of this classification was engineered to withstand the extreme thermal demands of industrial furnaces, kilns, boilers, and high-temperature process vessels. The “M/C” designation in the product name is consistent with industry terminology for castable or modular compositions used in lining applications, where materials must resist both intense heat and the mechanical stress of thermal cycling.
Products in this category were staples of heavy industry throughout much of the twentieth century. Steel mills, foundries, cement plants, glass manufacturers, petrochemical refineries, and power generation facilities all relied on refractory brick products to protect structural equipment from temperatures that would otherwise cause rapid degradation. The KR 1202 and KR 1204 grades suggest a product line differentiated by temperature rating, density, or compositional variation — a common practice among refractory manufacturers who offered tiered products to meet varying industrial specifications.
Kaiser, as a corporate name, appears across multiple industrial product lines in asbestos litigation. Claimants and their legal representatives have identified this specific brick designation in occupational exposure claims. Because the manufacturer identification in some case records requires affidavit-level confirmation of the claimant’s specific exposure context, individuals pursuing legal remedies should work with qualified asbestos attorneys to establish the precise corporate entity involved in their claims.
Asbestos Content
Litigation records document claims that KR 1202/1204 M/C Brick contained asbestos as a functional component of its refractory composition. Plaintiffs alleged that asbestos fibers — most commonly chrysotile, although amphibole varieties including amosite were also used in certain industrial refractory products of this era — were incorporated into the brick matrix to enhance thermal insulation properties, increase structural integrity under high heat, and reduce the risk of thermal shock fracture.
Asbestos was a logical additive for refractory manufacturers prior to widespread regulatory action. Its heat-resistant properties complemented the ceramic and silica compounds used in standard refractory formulations. When combined with binding agents, asbestos fibers created a product that could maintain structural integrity at temperatures that would otherwise cause cracking or crumbling.
The precise asbestos content percentage for KR 1202/1204 M/C Brick has not been uniformly established in publicly available documentation for all product variants. Plaintiffs alleged that the asbestos concentration was sufficient to present a meaningful health hazard during normal installation, maintenance, and removal activities. Refractory products of comparable type and era have been documented through industrial hygiene testing and product analysis introduced in litigation to contain asbestos in proportions ranging from trace amounts to concentrations exceeding twenty percent by weight, depending on the specific grade and application.
AHERA regulations, which govern asbestos-containing materials in certain building and industrial contexts, define a material as asbestos-containing if it contains more than one percent asbestos by weight. Litigation records involving products of this classification have consistently alleged that the threshold was exceeded.
How Workers Were Exposed
Industrial workers who installed, maintained, repaired, or removed refractory brick linings in high-temperature industrial settings faced potential asbestos exposure through several distinct pathways. Litigation records document that these exposures occurred across the full lifecycle of refractory brick products, from initial installation to tear-out and replacement during scheduled maintenance outages.
Installation: Workers cutting, shaping, or fitting refractory brick to line furnaces, kilns, boilers, and process vessels generated dust. Plaintiffs alleged that this dust contained respirable asbestos fibers released from the brick matrix during mechanical handling.
Mortar and Jointing Work: Refractory brick installations typically involved mortar compounds, castable materials, or jointing agents applied alongside the brick units. Workers mixing, applying, or tooling these companion materials in proximity to asbestos-containing brick were alleged to have experienced concurrent exposure.
High-Temperature Operations: Litigation records document claims that repeated thermal cycling — the heating and cooling of lined industrial equipment during normal operations — caused progressive degradation of refractory brick, releasing fibers into the ambient air of confined industrial workspaces.
Maintenance and Repair: Periodic maintenance of industrial furnaces and kilns required workers to enter vessels and remove damaged or worn brick sections. Plaintiffs alleged that breaking out degraded refractory lining produced concentrated dust exposures in environments with limited ventilation.
Neighboring Trades: Industrial workers performing other tasks in proximity to refractory installation or tear-out activities were also alleged to have experienced secondary exposure. In heavy industrial settings, multiple trades typically worked simultaneously, and asbestos fiber dispersion was not confined to the immediate work area.
OSHA’s asbestos standards, codified at 29 CFR 1910.1001 for general industry, recognize that maintenance and renovation activities involving asbestos-containing materials can generate fiber concentrations requiring engineering controls, respiratory protection, and regulated work area protocols. Litigation records involving refractory products of this type allege that such protections were historically absent or inadequate during the years of peak industrial use.
Documented Trust Fund / Legal Options
KR 1202/1204 M/C Brick is classified as a Tier 2 litigated product. No dedicated asbestos bankruptcy trust fund has been identified in available records as the primary resolution vehicle for claims involving this specific product under the Kaiser designation. Legal claims have proceeded, and continue to proceed, through civil litigation rather than through structured trust fund disbursement.
Individuals who were exposed to KR 1202/1204 M/C Brick and subsequently diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease — including mesothelioma, asbestos-related lung cancer, asbestosis, or pleural disease — may have grounds to pursue legal action. Litigation records document that plaintiffs alleged manufacturers and distributors of asbestos-containing refractory products knew or should have known of the health hazards associated with asbestos fiber inhalation and failed to provide adequate warnings to end users.
Steps for Affected Workers and Families:
Document exposure history: Specific job sites, employers, approximate dates of work, and the names or descriptions of products handled are all relevant to establishing a viable claim. The product designations KR 1202 and KR 1204 should be included in any exposure narrative provided to legal counsel.
Consult a qualified asbestos attorney: Because the manufacturer identification for this product may require affidavit-level confirmation, experienced asbestos litigation counsel can assist in identifying the correct corporate entity and any successor liability relationships.
Preserve medical records: A confirmed diagnosis of an asbestos-related disease from a qualified pulmonologist or oncologist is a foundational element of any legal claim.
Be aware of statutes of limitations: Filing deadlines vary by state and typically begin running from the date of diagnosis or discovery of the disease, not the date of exposure. Delay can permanently foreclose legal options.
Workers in steelmaking, foundry operations, cement production, glass manufacturing, petrochemical refining, and power generation who handled refractory brick products in Kaiser product lines are encouraged to seek legal consultation if they have received a relevant diagnosis.