Jenkins Bros. Valves Asbestos Exposure and Mesothelioma Claims

By David Meldofsky, California-licensed attorney · Founder, Lawsuit Informer

Last updated: August 17, 2026

Jenkins Bros. built bronze and iron valves for more than a century, and for most of that time the valves were sealed with asbestos packing and asbestos sheet gaskets. The company never reorganized in bankruptcy over asbestos and never created a trust. A Jenkins claim is an ordinary lawsuit against a solvent defendant, and New York juries have returned verdicts in several of them.

Jenkins valves were sold through supply houses for generations, which means they ended up almost anywhere steam or process fluid ran: powerhouses, refineries, ships, hospitals, and the mechanical rooms of large commercial buildings. The people who serviced them, rather than the people who installed them once, carry most of the exposure history. Repacking a valve stem and replacing a bonnet or flange gasket meant cutting, scraping, and wire-brushing asbestos material out of a fitting by hand, often in a confined mechanical space.

Company Background

Jenkins Bros. dates to the 1860s and built its reputation on the Jenkins disc, a renewable composition disc that let a worn globe valve be repaired in place rather than thrown away. That single design decision shaped the exposure history of the company more than anything else it made. A valve built to be serviced is a valve that gets opened, and every time it was opened the packing and gaskets inside it had to come out.

The company manufactured bronze, iron, and cast steel gate, globe, angle, and check valves, along with valve packing, gaskets, and other mechanical rubber goods. Its principal manufacturing plant stood in Bridgeport, Connecticut, and its catalogs ran to hundreds of pages of valve figures sold under the Jenkins name through industrial supply distributors. The Bridgeport works operated through the mid-twentieth century and became a local landmark before the manufacturing base of the city contracted.

In the 2024 trial covered below, plaintiff's counsel told the jury that Jenkins had made valves and asbestos-containing components for more than a hundred years and had purchased tens of thousands of pounds of raw asbestos annually, and argued that the company had reason to know of the hazard by the 1930s. Those are characterizations made in litigation rather than findings of a court, and the company has contested liability throughout.

How Asbestos Exposure Happened Around Jenkins Valves

Four pathways account for most of the allegations, and they are worth separating because the proof differs for each.

Stem packing. The stuffing box around a valve stem was packed with braided asbestos rings compressed by a gland nut. Repacking meant digging the compressed rings out with a packing hook, then cutting fresh rings to length from coil stock and seating them. Both ends of that job generated dust in a worker's breathing zone.

Bonnet and body gaskets. A sheet gasket sealed the bonnet to the valve body. Removing one that had been under heat and pressure for years usually meant scraping and wire brushing the flange face, and the replacement was cut from asbestos sheet stock with a knife or a gasket punch.

Flange gaskets at the pipe connection. The gasket between a valve flange and the mating pipe flange is a separate item from the valve itself, and it is the pathway that carried the largest reported verdict against the company. Fitters who broke flanges apart to pull a valve out of a line handled those gaskets constantly.

External insulation. Valve bodies on steam service were commonly covered with asbestos block, cloth pads, or removable covers fabricated by others. A fitter working on the valve had to strip that covering first, which is why insulation manufacturers such as Johns-Manville routinely appear as co-defendants or as apportioned parties in the same case.

That last pathway raises a recurring legal question in equipment cases: how far a manufacturer's duty extends to asbestos parts supplied by someone else. In the maritime context the Supreme Court addressed it in 2019 in a case arising from Navy pump equipment, holding that a manufacturer may have a duty to warn where its product requires incorporation of a dangerous part and it knows the integrated product is dangerous. The reasoning is discussed in more detail on our page covering Buffalo Pumps asbestos claims, which is where the case originated.

The Bridgeport Plant and Plant-Worker Claims

Most Jenkins claims come from people who worked around the valves somewhere else. A separate group worked at Jenkins, inside the Bridgeport plant, where the valves were cast, machined, and assembled and where packing and rubber goods were produced. Their exposure history looks different from a field maintenance history: raw material handling, foundry and grinding operations, and the cutting and fitting of gasket and packing stock during assembly rather than during teardown.

The distinction matters to the proof. A field maintenance worker generally needs to establish which manufacturers' equipment was present at a job site over a long career across many sites. A plant worker's exposure is anchored to one address and one employer, which usually simplifies the exposure narrative but raises different questions about workers' compensation bars and which theories of liability remain available. Both routes are viable, and they are not interchangeable.

Jobs and Sites Often Involved

The trades that turn up most often in Jenkins cases are the ones that opened valves for a living:

• Steamfitters and pipefitters, including union members who spent full careers on commercial and institutional systems
• Plumbers and building engineers responsible for mechanical rooms in large buildings
• Boilermakers and boiler tenders in utility and industrial plants
• Powerhouse operators, maintainers, and inspectors at electric generating stations
• Machinist's mates, boiler tenders, and shipyard workers on naval and commercial vessels
• Refinery, chemical plant, and paper mill maintenance crews
• Jenkins production workers at the Bridgeport plant

The site list follows the trades. Utility powerhouses appear repeatedly, and so do the mechanical systems of large New York City buildings. In the largest reported verdict against the company, the plaintiff described a career installing and removing Jenkins valves in landmark commercial buildings, power plants, and skyscrapers across the city between 1960 and 1996. Related reading covers asbestos exposure among pipefitters and steamfitters, asbestos exposure in power plants and refineries, and asbestos exposure in shipyards and naval service.

Jenkins Bros. in Asbestos Litigation

Jenkins is a repeat defendant in the New York City Asbestos Litigation docket and in asbestos cases upstate. Three reported outcomes show how these cases actually run.

A $4.6 million verdict for a welder. A New York jury returned a verdict reported at $4.6 million for a welder who developed pleural mesothelioma after working around Jenkins valves and their gaskets, packing, and insulation while building and rehabilitating boiler rooms on ships in and around New York City in the 1970s and 1980s. Trial counsel reported that the jury found the company's conduct reckless.

A $23 million verdict for a steamfitter, affirmed on appeal. A career steamfitter who installed and removed flange gaskets, valve flange gaskets, and valves from 1960 to 1996 was awarded $13 million for past pain and suffering and $10 million for future pain and suffering. The jury apportioned 90 percent of the fault to Jenkins and 10 percent to Johns-Manville, the bankrupt insulation manufacturer that had supplied insulation used on Jenkins valves and raw fiber to the company. Jenkins moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, a new trial, and remittitur, and the Appellate Division, First Department affirmed. The appellate court applied the sufficiency-of-exposure standard from the Court of Appeals decision in Nemeth v. Brenntag North America and pointed to the plaintiff's testimony about the specific tasks he performed on Jenkins products, supported by three experts: an industrial hygienist, an epidemiologist, and a thoracic surgeon.

A $7 million verdict involving a former employee. A separate New York verdict reported at $7 million arose from exposure alleged during employment at Jenkins itself, with the company held 50 percent liable. Verdict reports of this kind are secondary sources and the docket should be checked before any figure is relied on.

Product identification and summary judgment. A more recent decision matters more to most readers than any dollar figure. In a case brought on behalf of a utility inspector who worked at Con Edison powerhouses between the 1970s and the 1990s and died of lung cancer, Jenkins moved for summary judgment on the ground that the decedent had not identified Jenkins as the manufacturer of the valves he described. The court denied the motion. Jenkins had not met its initial burden, because it offered no evidence that its valves were absent from the powerhouses where the decedent worked, and the plaintiff came forward with prior deposition testimony placing Jenkins valves at those locations. New York appellate authority is explicit that reliance on a decedent's inability to name a product is misplaced where other evidence puts the product at the site.

The practical translation: you are not disqualified because you cannot recall a brand name stamped on a valve body forty years ago.

Why There Is No Jenkins Bros. Asbestos Trust

Most of the household names in asbestos litigation, Johns-Manville, Owens Corning, Pittsburgh Corning, Garlock, reorganized in bankruptcy and funded trusts that pay claims administratively against a published schedule. Jenkins did not. It has been defended in tort, case by case, by outside counsel, and the recoveries described above came from settlements and verdicts rather than from a trust distribution.

Three consequences follow for anyone weighing a claim. First, the deadline that governs is the statute of limitations in the state where the claim is brought, together with the case management order in the asbestos docket where it is filed, rather than a trust filing rule. Second, the case involves discovery, depositions, and expert proof, so it takes longer and demands more of the claimant and the family than a trust submission. Third, the two are not alternatives. Because insulation and gasket manufacturers that are now bankrupt were usually present at the same job sites, a typical work history supports trust claims alongside the tort case, which is exactly what the 90-10 apportionment to Johns-Manville reflects. Our guide to asbestos trust funds and claims covers that side of the process.

Illnesses Discussed in These Cases

The diagnoses that appear in Jenkins litigation are the same ones that appear across asbestos equipment cases:

• Pleural mesothelioma, the cancer of the lining of the lung most closely associated with asbestos exposure
• Peritoneal mesothelioma, which arises in the lining of the abdomen
• Asbestos-related lung cancer, which is frequently litigated and frequently contested on causation, particularly where there is a smoking history
• Asbestosis and pleural disease, which are scarring conditions rather than cancers

Latency is the reason these cases arrive so long after the work ended. Decades commonly pass between exposure and diagnosis, which is why a claim filed in the 2020s can rest on work performed in the 1960s and 1970s.

Records That Help Support a Jenkins Bros. Claim

Nobody needs a complete file to start. These are the records that tend to carry the most weight once a case is underway:

• Union records, including local membership and dispatch or referral history for steamfitter, plumber, and boilermaker locals
• Social Security earnings statements, which establish employer names and date ranges when memory and paperwork have gone
• Employment and personnel records from contractors, utilities, and the Bridgeport plant
• Building and powerhouse specifications, equipment schedules, and purchase orders naming valve manufacturers
• Maintenance and repair logs from plants, powerhouses, and building engineering departments
• Military service records and ship assignment histories for naval exposure
• Names and contact information for co-workers who can describe the same equipment and the same tasks
• Medical records establishing the diagnosis, including pathology

Our guide to asbestos records that help support a claim goes through each category in more detail, including how to request records that no longer sit in anyone's basement.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is there a Jenkins Bros. asbestos trust fund?

No. Jenkins Bros. has not reorganized in bankruptcy over its asbestos liabilities and has not established a section 524(g) asbestos trust. There is no claim form and no trust payment percentage. A Jenkins claim is an ordinary lawsuit, and a resolved claim is paid through a settlement or a verdict funded by the corporate defendant and its historic liability insurance.

Why is Jenkins Bros. named in mesothelioma lawsuits?

Jenkins built bronze, iron, and steel valves that were sealed with asbestos packing around the stem and asbestos sheet gaskets at the bonnet and the flanges. Workers who repacked, regasketed, and repaired those valves allege that cutting and scraping out the old material released asbestos fibers they later connect to mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases.

Do I have to remember the Jenkins name myself for the case to work?

No. New York courts have repeatedly held that a defendant moving for summary judgment cannot simply point to a plaintiff's inability to recall its brand. Product identification is normally reconstructed from purchase and maintenance records, building and powerhouse specifications, prior sworn testimony about what equipment was installed at a site, and co-worker accounts.

What is the difference between a Jenkins valve claim and a trust claim?

A trust claim is an administrative filing against a bankrupt company's trust, decided on a schedule of values. A Jenkins claim is litigation against a solvent defendant, which means discovery, depositions, expert proof, and a trial date. Most claimants end up doing both, because the same work history usually implicates bankrupt insulation and gasket makers as well.

Which workers appear most often in Jenkins Bros. cases?

Steamfitters, plumbers, pipefitters, boilermakers, powerhouse operators and inspectors, marine and shipyard workers, refinery and chemical plant maintenance crews, and building engineers. A separate group worked inside the Bridgeport, Connecticut plant where the valves and rubber goods were made.

Can I still bring a claim if the exposure happened decades ago?

Often yes. In most states the filing clock for an asbestos claim runs from diagnosis rather than from the date of exposure, because mesothelioma and other asbestos diseases take decades to appear. The exact deadline depends on the state, the disease, and whether the claim is brought by the injured person or by surviving family.

What if I worked around Jenkins valves and other equipment too?

That is the normal pattern rather than a problem. Asbestos cases routinely name many manufacturers, because a maintenance worker was rarely exposed to one company's product alone. Juries apportion fault among the parties they find responsible, and identifying every source usually increases rather than complicates the available recovery.

Can family members bring a claim after a loved one has died?

Often yes. Wrongful death claims can be brought by the estate or surviving family members, and filing deadlines for those claims generally run from the date of death rather than the date of diagnosis. The rules vary by state, which is one reason timing matters in these cases.

Related Asbestos Guides

About the Author

David Meldofsky is a California-licensed attorney and the founder of Lawsuit Informer, an educational platform focused on helping people understand lawsuits, consumer safety issues, and legal rights related to defective products and toxic exposures.

Learn more about our Editorial Policy, About page, or Contact us.

Last Updated: August 17, 2026

Educational information only. Not legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed.