Garlock Sealing Technologies: Asbestos History & Liability

History of Garlock as an Asbestos Gasket Manufacturer

Garlock Sealing Technologies traces its origins to 1887, when the company began operations in Palmyra, New York. Over the following decades Garlock became one of the most recognizable names in industrial sealing, supplying gaskets, compression packing, and mechanical seals to power plants, refineries, chemical facilities, shipyards, and manufacturing plants across North America and around the world.

The company's rise to prominence was closely tied to asbestos. Throughout much of the twentieth century, asbestos was considered the ideal raw material for high-temperature, high-pressure sealing applications. Chrysotile and amosite asbestos fibers were woven into rope packing and compressed into sheet gaskets because they were heat-resistant, chemically inert, and highly compressible. Garlock's product engineers used these properties to produce sealing solutions that could withstand the extreme conditions inside steam turbines, industrial boilers, chemical reactors, and marine propulsion systems.

Garlock manufactured asbestos-containing products for most of the twentieth century, from at least the 1930s through the early 1980s when regulatory pressure and liability concerns led the industry to phase out asbestos formulations. During those five decades, Garlock products were installed in virtually every industrial setting imaginable. The company held a dominant market position, and its sheet gasket material was a familiar sight in maintenance shops and pipe fitting crews nationwide.

The Palmyra, New York facility remained Garlock's principal manufacturing site throughout its asbestos era. The plant produced high volumes of compressed asbestos fiber (CAF) sheet gaskets, braided compression packing, and spiral wound gaskets. Asbestos fiber was received, processed, and blended at the facility, creating occupational exposure hazards not only for workers at the plant but, critically, for the downstream tradespeople who cut and installed the finished products throughout their careers.

In the 1990s and 2000s Garlock became part of EnPro Industries, a diversified industrial manufacturer. By that time the company was already facing a mounting wave of asbestos personal injury lawsuits. In June 2010 Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the Western District of North Carolina, citing the unmanageable cost of asbestos litigation as the primary driver of the filing. The bankruptcy would ultimately produce one of the most debated judicial opinions in the history of asbestos litigation.

Who Was Exposed to Garlock Asbestos Products?

The occupational groups most heavily exposed to Garlock asbestos products were those who worked directly with the packing and gasket materials on a daily basis. Exposure occurred in three primary ways: cutting sheet gaskets to fit flange dimensions, removing worn or damaged packing from pump stuffing boxes and valve stems, and working in proximity to coworkers performing these tasks.

Pipefitters and Steamfitters

Pipefitters and steamfitters represent the single largest category of Garlock asbestos claimants. These tradespeople routinely cut Garlock compressed asbestos fiber sheet gaskets using knives, die presses, or power tools — operations that generated visible clouds of asbestos dust. The gaskets were installed between flanged pipe connections, heat exchangers, and pressure vessels throughout refineries, power plants, and chemical plants. Over a career spanning 20 to 40 years, a pipefitter might cut and install hundreds or thousands of gaskets, each cutting operation releasing asbestos fibers into the breathing zone.

Industrial Mechanics and Millwrights

Industrial mechanics and millwrights who maintained rotating equipment — pumps, compressors, agitators, and similar machinery — routinely replaced the compression packing that sealed the rotating shafts. Garlock braided packing was widely used in pump stuffing boxes. Removing spent packing required picking, scraping, and boring out deteriorated material, releasing previously embedded asbestos fibers. New packing rings were cut from spool stock, again generating dust. These workers often performed packing changes as routine preventive maintenance, repeating the exposure-generating task hundreds of times over their working lives.

Boilermakers and Power Plant Workers

Boilermakers working on high-pressure steam systems used Garlock sheet gaskets on boiler manholes, handhole covers, and steam line flanges. The combination of high temperature, high pressure, and the critical importance of seal integrity meant that gasket changes were frequent during planned maintenance outages. Power plant operators and maintenance crews in coal, nuclear, and oil-fired generating stations worked alongside boilermakers during these operations, receiving secondary exposure.

Shipyard Workers

The U.S. Navy and commercial shipyards were major consumers of Garlock sealing products. Shipboard piping systems carrying steam, fuel oil, and seawater required gaskets and packing throughout. Shipyard pipefitters, machinists, and Navy personnel aboard vessels during maintenance periods were exposed to Garlock products in the confined spaces of engine rooms and bilge compartments, where ventilation was poor and asbestos dust concentrations could be high.

Chemical Plant and Refinery Workers

The petrochemical and chemical processing industries relied heavily on Garlock sealing products because of their resistance to aggressive chemicals and high temperatures. Workers at refineries, chemical plants, and fertilizer facilities encountered Garlock gaskets on virtually every flanged connection in the process piping. Turnaround maintenance crews that systematically replaced gaskets throughout a unit were particularly heavily exposed.

The Landmark 2013 Bankruptcy Fraud Ruling

The Garlock bankruptcy produced one of the most significant and controversial judicial opinions in the history of American asbestos litigation. In January 2014, United States Bankruptcy Judge George R. Hodges of the Western District of North Carolina issued a claim estimation ruling that sent shockwaves through the asbestos litigation community.

In estimating the total present and future liability of the Garlock bankruptcy estate, Judge Hodges found that the aggregate value of legitimate claims was far lower than what plaintiff attorneys had argued. More significantly, the court found that plaintiff law firms had engaged in a widespread practice of manipulating the evidentiary record in Garlock's pre-bankruptcy tort cases. Specifically, the court found that claimants or their counsel had deliberately withheld or suppressed evidence of exposures to other asbestos-containing products — exposures that would have implicated other defendants and reduced Garlock's proportionate share of liability.

According to the court's findings, plaintiffs would strategically avoid disclosing evidence of exposure to products made by companies that had already established bankruptcy trusts, thereby concentrating liability on solvent defendants like Garlock. Once Garlock filed for bankruptcy and those same claimants filed trust claims, they would then disclose the previously suppressed exposures to collect from multiple trusts. Judge Hodges found this conduct had inflated Garlock's pre-bankruptcy verdicts and settlements by hundreds of millions of dollars.

The ruling was unprecedented in its explicit finding that systematic evidentiary misconduct had corrupted the tort system outcomes. Garlock estimated its true liability at approximately $125 million; plaintiff attorneys had argued for figures in the billions. The court's estimation of roughly $125 million became the foundation for the eventual plan of reorganization and the trust that followed.

The decision prompted significant legislative and judicial attention to the question of "trust transparency" — whether asbestos bankruptcy trusts should be required to share claimant data with courts and defendants in ongoing litigation. Several states subsequently enacted trust transparency legislation modeled in part on the concerns raised by the Garlock proceedings. The case remains a touchstone in debates about asbestos litigation reform, cited by both sides in disputes over the appropriate regulatory framework for trust claims.

For victims of genuine Garlock asbestos exposure, the practical effect of the proceedings was the creation of the GST Settlement Facility with defined trust distribution procedures and payment percentages for eligible disease categories.

The GST Settlement Facility: Filing Claims and Receiving Compensation

The Garlock Sealing Technologies Settlement Facility — commonly referred to as the GST Settlement Facility or the Garlock Trust — was established as part of Garlock's Chapter 11 plan of reorganization. The trust is funded to pay valid asbestos personal injury claims arising from exposure to Garlock products, and it administers claims according to Trust Distribution Procedures (TDP) that establish eligibility criteria, medical requirements, and payment levels for each compensable disease category.

Compensable Disease Categories

The GST Settlement Facility recognizes several asbestos-related disease categories for compensation purposes. Mesothelioma — the aggressive cancer of the pleura, peritoneum, or pericardium caused almost exclusively by asbestos exposure — typically receives the highest payment values. Lung cancer claims require proof of a qualifying occupational exposure history combined with a confirmed diagnosis. Asbestosis and other non-malignant asbestos diseases are also compensable, though typically at lower payment levels than malignant diseases.

Exposure Proof Requirements

To establish eligibility, claimants must demonstrate a meaningful occupational exposure to a Garlock asbestos-containing product. The trust distribution procedures specify the types of evidence that can establish exposure: affidavits from the claimant describing work with Garlock products, co-worker affidavits, union work records, employment records, Social Security earnings records, and industrial hygiene data from workplaces where Garlock products were used. The specific documentation requirements can vary depending on the disease category being claimed and the level of payment sought.

Payment Percentages

Like most asbestos bankruptcy trusts, the GST Settlement Facility pays claims at a percentage of the scheduled value rather than 100 cents on the dollar. Payment percentages reflect the trust's available assets relative to the projected total value of all current and future claims. The payment percentage applicable at any given time is set by the trust and can be revised as the trust's financial position changes over time. Experienced asbestos attorneys monitor trust payment percentages and can advise on timing considerations for claim submission.

Expedited Review vs. Individual Review

The trust offers two claim review pathways. Expedited review provides a fixed payment for claims that meet standardized criteria without the need for individual negotiation. Individual review is available for claims that do not meet expedited criteria or where the claimant believes the circumstances justify a higher payment, and involves a more detailed examination of the claim's specific facts. Both pathways require submission of the required medical and exposure documentation.

Working with an Attorney

Navigating trust fund claims involves understanding complex legal documents, gathering decades-old work records, and meeting strict procedural deadlines. Most asbestos attorneys handle trust claims on a contingency fee basis — meaning no upfront costs to the claimant. An experienced attorney can identify all potential trusts where a claimant may be eligible, coordinate simultaneous filings, and ensure that documentation is complete and compelling.

Major Garlock Asbestos-Containing Product Lines

The following table identifies the principal categories of Garlock asbestos-containing products, the asbestos fiber types commonly used, and the primary industries and applications in which they were deployed. This information is drawn from historical product records, litigation testimony, and industrial hygiene research.

Frequently Asked Questions