Monospray Fireproofing — Keene Corporation

Monospray was a spray-applied fireproofing material manufactured by Keene Corporation and used in commercial and industrial construction during the 1960s. Like many spray fireproofing products of its era, Monospray contained chrysotile asbestos as a primary component of its heat-resistant formulation. Workers who applied or worked near this material during its years of production — roughly 1963 through 1970 — faced potential exposure to airborne asbestos fibers. Litigation records document that Keene Corporation faced numerous asbestos-related personal injury claims connected to this product.

Product Description

Monospray was a factory-blended, spray-applied fireproofing compound marketed to the commercial and industrial construction industries during the 1960s. The product was designed to provide passive fire protection to structural steel components, including beams, columns, and decking, slowing the transfer of heat and helping to maintain structural integrity during a fire event.

Spray-applied fireproofing of this kind became widely adopted following changes in building codes and fire safety standards that recognized the need to protect exposed steel framing in large-scale structures. Keene Corporation, a diversified manufacturing company with interests in building materials and acoustical products, produced and distributed Monospray as part of its construction products line throughout the product’s active period of 1963 to 1970.

The product was typically applied using pneumatic spray equipment in the early phases of interior construction, before finish materials were installed. Once applied, the material formed a dense, fibrous coating over structural surfaces. Production of Monospray ceased around 1970, coinciding with the period when the construction industry began responding to mounting evidence about the health hazards of asbestos-containing spray materials.

Asbestos Content

Monospray contained chrysotile asbestos, the most widely used variety of asbestos in American industrial and construction products throughout the twentieth century. Chrysotile, sometimes referred to as “white asbestos,” is a serpentine-form fiber that was prized by manufacturers for its flexibility, tensile strength, and resistance to heat and chemical degradation. These properties made it an effective binder and insulating agent in spray fireproofing formulations.

In spray-applied fireproofing products like Monospray, chrysotile asbestos served a structural function within the matrix of the compound, helping the sprayed material adhere to metal surfaces and maintain cohesion under thermal stress. The asbestos content in such products was typically substantial, often comprising a significant portion of the dry mixture by weight.

Regulatory attention to asbestos in spray-applied fireproofing intensified in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The Environmental Protection Agency eventually addressed spray-applied asbestos products through regulations under the Clean Air Act, and the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) later established standards for identifying and managing asbestos-containing materials in buildings. Products such as Monospray, when present in existing structures, may be subject to AHERA-compliant inspection and abatement requirements.

How Workers Were Exposed

Industrial workers and construction tradespeople were the population most directly at risk from exposure to Monospray. The spray application process was a primary source of fiber release. When the dry mixture was loaded into spray equipment and combined with water or other carriers for application, the mechanical agitation involved in mixing and spraying could release asbestos fibers into the surrounding air. Workers operating spray equipment or working in proximity to active spray operations were at risk of inhaling these airborne fibers.

Beyond the spray operation itself, adjacent workers on a job site — those in trades working simultaneously in the same interior spaces — could also be exposed. The fine, respirable chrysotile fibers released during spraying could remain suspended in poorly ventilated construction environments for extended periods, creating exposure risks for workers who were not directly involved in the fireproofing application.

Plaintiffs alleged in litigation that workers were not adequately warned of the respiratory hazards posed by asbestos-containing fireproofing materials during the years Monospray was in production and use. Personal protective equipment standards and industrial hygiene practices of the 1960s often failed to prevent asbestos inhalation, and regulatory requirements mandating respiratory protection and exposure monitoring had not yet been implemented in the form that OSHA would later establish following the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.

Secondary or bystander exposure was also a documented concern. Maintenance workers, inspectors, and later renovation crews who disturbed previously applied Monospray — through drilling, cutting, demolition, or other disturbance of the cured material — faced exposure risks years or decades after the original application. Disturbed or deteriorating spray-applied asbestos fireproofing releases fibers in a manner comparable to the original application process.

Litigation records document that mesothelioma, lung cancer, and asbestosis have been among the diagnoses reported by plaintiffs who alleged occupational exposure to Keene Corporation’s asbestos-containing products, including Monospray. The latency period for asbestos-related diseases can span several decades, meaning that workers exposed to Monospray during its production years of 1963 to 1970 may have been diagnosed with asbestos-related illness many years or decades later.

Documented Trust Fund / Legal Options

Keene Corporation does not have an active, independently administered asbestos bankruptcy trust fund in the manner of many other asbestos defendants. Accordingly, Monospray claims are classified as Tier 2 matters addressed through civil litigation rather than through a structured trust fund claims process.

Litigation records document that Keene Corporation was named as a defendant in asbestos personal injury cases filed by workers and their families who alleged exposure to Monospray and other asbestos-containing products bearing the Keene name. Plaintiffs alleged that Keene Corporation knew or should have known of the hazards associated with asbestos-containing spray fireproofing and failed to adequately warn workers or take steps to prevent harmful exposure.

Individuals who believe they were exposed to Monospray and have received a diagnosis of an asbestos-related disease — including mesothelioma, lung cancer, asbestosis, or pleural disease — should consult with an attorney experienced in asbestos litigation. Key information relevant to a potential claim includes:

• Work history documentation establishing presence on job sites where Monospray was applied, including dates, employer names, and location of work
• Medical records and diagnosis confirming an asbestos-related condition
• Corroborating evidence such as co-worker testimony, union records, contractor records, or building inspection reports identifying Monospray on a specific site

Because asbestos litigation involves statutes of limitations that vary by state and typically begin running from the date of diagnosis rather than the date of exposure, individuals and family members of deceased workers should seek legal counsel promptly. Wrongful death claims may be available to surviving family members in cases where an exposed worker has died from an asbestos-related disease.

Attorneys handling asbestos cases typically offer free case evaluations and work on a contingency fee basis, meaning no upfront legal costs are required to pursue a claim.