Kaylo Insulation
Product Description
Kaylo insulation was a calcium silicate pipe and block insulation product manufactured by Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation beginning in 1953. Designed for high-temperature industrial applications, Kaylo was marketed primarily to power plants, refineries, chemical processing facilities, shipyards, and heavy manufacturing operations where insulating steam lines, boilers, and high-pressure piping systems was essential to efficient and safe operation.
The product was sold in preformed pipe sections and flat block configurations, allowing it to be cut, shaped, and fitted around pipes and equipment of varying diameters and geometries. Its calcium silicate base gave Kaylo excellent compressive strength and the ability to withstand sustained elevated temperatures, making it a preferred choice among industrial insulators and plant engineers throughout the 1950s and 1960s. Owens-Corning produced Kaylo until 1973, when the product was reformulated and asbestos-containing versions were discontinued.
Kaylo was widely specified in construction and maintenance contracts during its production run, meaning that large quantities of the product were installed across a broad range of industrial facilities throughout the United States. Many of those installations remained in place for decades after production ceased, creating ongoing exposure risks for workers involved in renovation, repair, and demolition activities long after 1973.
Asbestos Content
Kaylo insulation contained chrysotile asbestos as a reinforcing and binding component within its calcium silicate matrix. Chrysotile — commonly referred to as white asbestos — is a serpentine asbestos fiber that was the most commercially abundant form of asbestos used in American manufacturing during the mid-twentieth century.
In Kaylo, chrysotile fibers were integrated into the product’s structure to improve tensile strength, reduce cracking, and help the material withstand the mechanical stresses associated with thermal expansion and contraction in high-temperature piping systems. Without the asbestos component, calcium silicate insulation of that era was more prone to structural failure under the demanding conditions found in industrial plants and shipboard engine rooms.
The presence of chrysotile asbestos in Kaylo is documented in product testing records, industrial hygiene studies, and litigation evidence developed over decades of personal injury litigation. Although chrysotile is sometimes described as less biologically aggressive than amphibole asbestos varieties, regulatory agencies including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) classify all forms of asbestos as known human carcinogens. There is no established safe level of occupational exposure to any asbestos fiber type.
How Workers Were Exposed
Workers were exposed to Kaylo insulation at multiple points in the product’s lifecycle — during initial installation, subsequent maintenance and repair, and eventual removal.
Installation: When Kaylo pipe sections and blocks were installed, tradespeople were required to cut and shape the rigid insulation to fit existing pipe configurations. Sawing, filing, and abrading the calcium silicate material generated airborne asbestos dust that could remain suspended in enclosed or poorly ventilated industrial workspaces for extended periods. Workers performing these tasks, as well as colleagues in adjacent work areas, could inhale fibers without necessarily recognizing any hazard was present.
Maintenance and repair: Industrial piping systems require regular maintenance, and insulation is frequently removed and replaced during that work. Workers who stripped aging or damaged Kaylo insulation from pipes disturbed material that had become brittle over time, often generating concentrated clouds of asbestos-laden dust. OSHA records and industrial hygiene literature from the 1960s and 1970s document that thermal insulation removal was among the highest-exposure tasks performed by insulation workers.
Bystander exposure: Industrial workers generally — including pipefitters, boilermakers, engineers, and general laborers working in the same facilities where Kaylo was being installed or removed — could be exposed as bystanders. Asbestos dust released during insulation work does not remain confined to the immediate work zone, and litigation records document that bystander exposures in shipyards, refineries, and power plants were a recurring and significant source of asbestos-related disease.
Renovation and demolition: Facilities built during Kaylo’s production years often contained extensive installed quantities of the product. Workers involved in plant renovations or decommissioning activities — sometimes many years after original installation — faced exposure risks when undisturbed Kaylo was cut into, broken apart, or removed without adequate protective measures.
The diseases associated with occupational asbestos exposure include mesothelioma (a rare cancer of the mesothelial lining surrounding the lungs and abdominal organs), asbestos-related lung cancer, asbestosis (a progressive scarring of lung tissue), and pleural diseases including pleural plaques and pleural thickening. These conditions typically have latency periods of ten to fifty years between initial exposure and clinical diagnosis, meaning that workers exposed to Kaylo during its production years may only now be receiving diagnoses.
Documented Trust Fund / Legal Options
Kaylo insulation is classified as a Tier 2 — Litigated product. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation did file for bankruptcy protection in 2000, and an asbestos personal injury trust — the Owens Corning/Fibreboard Asbestos Personal Injury Trust — was established as part of those bankruptcy proceedings. However, Kaylo claims present a specific evidentiary issue that individuals and their legal counsel must carefully evaluate.
Litigation records document that a significant portion of Kaylo personal injury claims have centered on establishing which corporate entity bears liability for the product during different periods of its production history. Plaintiffs alleged that exposure to Kaylo caused mesothelioma, lung cancer, and asbestosis resulting from both direct occupational contact and bystander exposure in industrial settings. Courts in multiple jurisdictions have considered Kaylo-related claims over the course of several decades of asbestos litigation.
For individuals who may have a claim related to Kaylo insulation exposure, the following considerations apply:
Trust fund eligibility: The Owens Corning/Fibreboard Asbestos Personal Injury Trust may have eligibility criteria relevant to Kaylo claims depending on the specific exposure period and work history. Claimants and attorneys should review current trust distribution procedures and claim matrices directly with the trust.
Documented exposure evidence: Because Kaylo claims may involve questions of corporate successor liability and exposure dating, thorough work history documentation — including employer records, union records, co-worker affidavits, and facility records establishing Kaylo’s presence — is especially important.
Applicable disease categories: Litigation records document claims involving mesothelioma, lung cancer, and asbestosis among industrial workers alleging exposure to Kaylo insulation. Claim categories available through litigation or trust processes typically correspond to diagnosed disease type and confirmed asbestos exposure.
Statute of limitations: Asbestos claims are subject to statutes of limitations that vary by state and typically begin running from the date of diagnosis rather than the date of exposure. Individuals recently diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease should consult with a qualified asbestos litigation attorney promptly.
Workers and their families who believe they were exposed to Kaylo insulation should retain an attorney experienced in asbestos personal injury litigation to evaluate available legal options, identify all potentially responsible parties, and determine whether trust fund claims, litigation, or a combination of remedies is appropriate given the specific facts of the exposure history and diagnosis.