Kaylo

Kaylo: A Hazardous Asbestos-Containing Insulation Material

Introduction: Kaylo, a thermal insulation product manufactured by Owens-Illinois and later Owens Corning, became a significant focus in asbestos-related litigation and public health discussions. Containing a substantial percentage of asbestos, Kaylo was widely used in industrial and construction settings during the mid-20th century. Its production and use have been linked to severe health risks, including asbestosis and mesothelioma, making it a critical subject in asbestos exposure cases and corporate negligence lawsuits.

Historical Background: Kaylo was introduced in the 1940s as a lightweight, durable insulation material. Initially marketed for its strength and thermal properties, it was later revealed that Kaylo contained 12-18% asbestos, primarily chrysotile and amosite fibers. Early internal studies, such as those conducted by the Saranac Laboratory, demonstrated that prolonged exposure to Kaylo dust caused asbestosis in guinea pigs. These findings were communicated to Owens-Illinois as early as 1948, with reports explicitly stating that Kaylo should be treated as a hazardous material.

Despite this knowledge, Owens-Illinois and later Owens Corning continued to produce and distribute Kaylo without adequately warning workers or consumers about its dangers. Internal memos and correspondence from the 1950s and 1960s reveal that the companies were aware of the health risks but prioritized profits over safety. For example, a 1952 report noted that Kaylo dust could cause peri-bronchiolar fibrosis, a hallmark of asbestosis, and recommended protective measures for workers. However, these warnings were not widely implemented or disclosed.

Legal and Scientific Context: The legal and scientific scrutiny surrounding Kaylo intensified as evidence of its health hazards emerged. Key aspects include:

Lawsuits and Legislation: Kaylo became a central focus in asbestos litigation, with numerous lawsuits filed by workers and their families. Plaintiffs alleged that Owens-Illinois and Owens Corning failed to warn about the risks of asbestos exposure, despite having internal knowledge of its dangers. These cases often relied on internal documents, such as memos and reports, to prove corporate negligence and liability.
Scientific Findings: Studies conducted on Kaylo dust consistently demonstrated its potential to cause asbestosis and other asbestos-related diseases. Research also highlighted the difficulty of extrapolating animal study results to humans, raising concerns about the underestimation of risks. Dr. Irving Selikoff’s groundbreaking work on asbestos exposure further underscored the dangers of products like Kaylo.
Corporate Practices: Internal communications reveal efforts to downplay the risks associated with Kaylo. For instance, a 1966 memo acknowledged that even a single asbestos fiber could cause cancer, yet the company continued to market Kaylo without adequate warnings. Additionally, the lack of labeling or public disclosure about Kaylo’s asbestos content exemplifies the industry’s broader pattern of concealment.

Impact and Modern Relevance: Kaylo remains a significant example of corporate negligence in asbestos litigation. The product’s history has shaped modern occupational safety standards and influenced regulatory changes, such as the establishment of stricter asbestos exposure limits by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Today, Kaylo-related lawsuits continue to provide compensation for victims of asbestos exposure, while also serving as a cautionary tale for industries handling hazardous materials.

The legacy of Kaylo has also contributed to increased public awareness of asbestos-related diseases and the importance of workplace safety. Efforts to remove asbestos-containing materials from buildings and industrial sites often include addressing remnants of Kaylo insulation.

Example or Case Study: One notable case involved workers at the Bath Iron Works, where Kaylo was extensively used. Internal documents revealed that dust concentrations in certain areas exceeded safe limits, and workers were provided with respirators only in specific situations. Lawsuits filed by former employees and their families highlighted the company’s failure to implement adequate safety measures, resulting in significant settlements and judgments.