Bird Corporation Asbestos Exposure: Roofing Products, Workers & Claims

Bird Corporation, historically Bird & Son and Bird Incorporated, manufactured and sold roofing materials. Its own litigation discovery identifies historical asbestos-containing products, including certain roofing materials and cements, while emphasizing that more than 90% of its products were non-asbestos. Product identity, manufacturing facility, formulation and year therefore matter more than the Bird name alone.

A Delaware Superior Court decision in Stowers documents Bird’s admissions concerning some asbestos-containing roof cements, but granted Bird summary judgment because the plaintiff did not establish that the particular cement he encountered contained asbestos and caused his injury. This page distinguishes confirmed company documents from allegations, describes exposure scenarios and explains why no Bird-specific trust payment percentage or claim payout is asserted.

🏢 Bird Corporation History & Ownership

Bird’s responses to master interrogatories identify the company’s roots in 1795, incorporation of George L. Bird & Son in 1918, use of the Bird & Son, Inc. name until 1983, and subsequent Bird Incorporated name. The historical filing also lists facilities believed to have manufactured asbestos products; this is not proof that all output from those facilities contained asbestos.

Bird Facts at a Glance

Topic	Primary-source finding
Historical names	George L. Bird & Son; Bird & Son, Inc.; Bird Incorporated.
Historical roofing business	Roofing manufacture and distribution described in Bird discovery responses.
Corporate registration	SEC identifies Bird Corp as a Massachusetts issuer in asphalt paving and roofing materials (SIC 2950).
Product composition	Bird discovery response states more than 90% of its products were non-asbestos.
1998 acquisition	Historical company accounts describe CertainTeed acquisition; confirm successor and applicable liability separately.

Manufacturing Facilities Identified in Bird Discovery

Facility	Bird-reported period / status
Norwood, Massachusetts	Opened or acquired 1904 or earlier; continuing at time of historical response.
Chicago, 76th Street	1928 or earlier–1971; sold.
Shreveport, Louisiana	1937–1984; sold, reportedly repurchased in 1998.
Charleston, South Carolina	1954–1984; sold, reportedly repurchased in 1998.
Perth Amboy, New Jersey	1962–1981; plant closed.
Portland, Oregon	1968–1984; sold, reportedly repurchased in 1998.
Martinez, California	1968–1984; sold, reportedly repurchased in 1998.
Wilmington, California	1968–1984; sold to IKO.
Chicago, South Central Avenue	1976–1981; sold to IKO.
Franklin, Ohio	1976–1981; sold to IKO.

The facility dates above are drawn from Bird’s historical discovery responses and should not be treated as asbestos production dates for every individual product.

🧱 Documented Bird Roofing Products & Asbestos

Bird’s product-history discovery materials identify historical asbestos-containing product categories but explicitly caution that many similarly named products were manufactured without asbestos and that some products sold under Bird labels were made by third parties. The Stowers court quoted Bird’s response that it purchased many asbestos-containing cements and coatings from others for relabeling and manufactured some itself.

Product Evidence by Category

Product category	Evidence and qualification
Roof cement	Court quotes Bird’s discovery response acknowledging that it manufactured some asbestos-containing roof cement.
Roof coatings	Bird response describes purchased/relabelled and internally made asbestos-containing cements and coatings; formulations varied.
Roofing base sheets / felt	Bird product-history and historical test materials identify particular asphalt base-sheet products for investigation; confirm product and year.
Asphalt roofing generally	A Bird brand alone does not prove asbestos content.
Siding and other materials	Require original formulation or testing; do not infer asbestos from brand or material category.

Product Identification Pitfalls

Question	Reason
Was the item Bird-branded?	Brand may not identify the original manufacturer.
What trade name and package?	Formulations varied by product and purpose.
What year and facility?	Production histories differ.
Was the material asbestos-containing?	Bird stated over 90% of its historical products were non-asbestos.
Was it installed or replaced later?	Replacement material may have a different supplier.

👷 Roofing Workers & Manufacturing Sites

Possible exposure depends on documented handling of a specific asbestos-containing Bird product, not merely employment in roofing or presence at a Bird facility. Bird’s discovery response identifies potential manufacturing locations; court testimony documents roofing cement application and tool cleaning in one individual’s work history.

Occupations to Investigate

Occupation	Relevant activity
Roofers	Applying cement, handling base sheets, cutting and removing roofing.
Roofing helpers	Mixing, handling, cleanup and nearby work.
Factory employees	Production, blending, packing or cleanup where asbestos use is documented.
Maintenance workers	Repair of older roof assemblies or manufacturing equipment.
Demolition workers	Disturbing installed roofing materials.
Carpenters	Roofing and building renovation work involving identified products.

Worksite Documentation

Setting	Useful record
Bird manufacturing facility	Payroll, plant production records, formulations and industrial hygiene records.
Residential roof	Building permit, contractor invoice and product packaging.
Commercial roof	Architectural specification, maintenance logs and purchase orders.
Industrial facility	Work orders, contractor records and roof replacement plans.
Older building renovation	Asbestos survey, abatement records and accredited lab report.

Need help now? Call 800.291.0963
Live chat is available 24/7, 365 days a year.
Submit Your Case

⚠️ How Bird Roofing Exposure Could Occur

An asbestos-containing roofing material can be disturbed during cutting, scraping, grinding, removal or demolition. However, the presence of asbestos in a product does not automatically prove a particular worker inhaled respirable fibers. In Stowers, the worker described applying Bird roofing cement and grinding residue from a trowel, but the court found insufficient evidence tying his work to asbestos-containing Bird cement and causation.

Task-Based Exposure Investigation

Activity	Question to document
Applying roof cement	Which formulation, product and date?
Cleaning tools	Was the residue from a confirmed asbestos-containing product?
Cutting roofing sheet	Was the specific sheet asbestos-containing?
Removing roof layers	Which manufacturer supplied each layer?
Manufacturing / blending	Were asbestos fibers used in the relevant production line?
Waste cleanup	What materials and dust were handled?

Exposure Factors

Factor	Why it matters
Product composition	Asbestos-free Bird products were common.
Physical condition	Intact versus disturbed material.
Tool used	Grinding and scraping can differ from application.
Duration / frequency	Actual work history matters.
Ventilation / controls	Affects potential airborne exposure.
Other products	Other asbestos sources must be considered separately.

⚖️ Bird Corporation Lawsuits & Trust Status

Bird has been named in asbestos litigation, but a court filing naming a defendant is not a finding of liability. The verified Delaware decisions here resulted in summary judgment or dismissal for Bird. No dedicated operational Bird Corporation asbestos personal-injury trust, payment percentage, scheduled disease values or current Bird-only claim count was confirmed from official trust or court records reviewed for this page. Do not confuse Bird Corporation with unrelated companies using the name Bird or with trusts for other roofing manufacturers.

Claims Status: Verified vs. Unverified

Item	Status
Bird named in asbestos litigation	Confirmed by Delaware and New York court records.
Stowers outcome	Summary judgment granted to Bird on product identification and causation.
Brandreth outcome	New York order dismissed Bird with prejudice on an unopposed motion.
Bird-specific §524(g) trust	Not confirmed in official sources reviewed.
Trust payment percentage	Not stated; no verified dedicated trust.
Scheduled disease values	Not stated.
Current Bird-only pending claim count	Not verified from acceptable primary records.

Possible Claim Paths

Path	Important distinction
Civil lawsuit	Requires evidence, applicable law and filing deadlines.
Workers’ compensation	Depends on employment and jurisdiction.
Other manufacturers’ trusts	Only if independent product and exposure criteria are met.
Wrongful-death action	Depends on eligible claimant and applicable law.

📊 Documented Bird Asbestos Court Evidence

The April 4, 2017 Delaware Superior Court order in Stowers v. Bird Inc. records a roofer’s testimony concerning Bird roof cement, Bird’s discovery admissions about certain asbestos-containing cements and coatings, and the court’s conclusion that evidence was insufficient to connect the plaintiff to asbestos-containing Bird cement that caused injury. The order granted summary judgment to Bird. A separate New York order in Brandreth dismissed Bird Incorporated with prejudice on an unopposed motion; it did not make affirmative findings about all Bird products.

Primary Court Records

Record	What it establishes
Stowers v. Bird Inc., Delaware Superior Court, Apr. 4, 2017	Bird acknowledged some asbestos-containing roof cement; claimant failed to establish product identification and causation; Bird won summary judgment.
Brandreth, New York Supreme Court, 2013	Bird Incorporated dismissed with prejudice on an unopposed summary-judgment motion.
Bird master interrogatory responses	Historical company names, facilities, product-history qualifications and non-asbestos majority.

What the Evidence Does Not Establish

Unsupported inference	Correct interpretation
Every Bird roofing product contained asbestos	Bird stated more than 90% of products were non-asbestos.
Every Bird-branded cement was Bird-made	Some were purchased and relabeled.
The Stowers plaintiff proved Bird caused his disease	The court ruled against that claim.
Brandreth proves all Bird products asbestos-free	Dismissal is case-specific.
A Bird trust pays a known percentage	No dedicated trust or percentage confirmed.

📋 Claim Evidence & Product Identification

The most useful investigation starts with the actual product. Obtain a package or catalog description, year, location, product specifications, purchase records, witness accounts and qualified testing when appropriate. Legal analysis should distinguish manufacturer, relabeler, distributor and installer.

Evidence Checklist

Evidence	Purpose
Medical diagnosis and records	Document disease and medical history.
Employment and jobsite dates	Place the worker at a relevant site.
Bird packaging / invoices	Identify brand and trade name.
Product formulation / discovery	Determine asbestos content for the specific item.
Plant and production records	Link product to facility and date.
Coworker testimony	Describe tasks and frequency.
Qualified laboratory report	Establish sample composition when properly obtained.
Corporate and court records	Identify responsible entity and case-specific rulings.

Editorial Accuracy Checks

Claim	Required proof
Named Bird asbestos product	Contemporaneous formulation, admission, testing or judicial record.
Factory asbestos exposure	Relevant product, production line and duties.
Specific building exposure	Purchase/installation records or credible identification.
Trust eligibility	Official trust documents and criteria.
Dollar compensation	Individual evidence and applicable process; no guarantees.

❓ Frequently Asked Questions

Did Bird Corporation make asbestos-containing roofing products?

Yes. Bird’s historical discovery responses, quoted in a Delaware court order, acknowledge some asbestos-containing roof cement and related cements/coatings. Specific products and years must still be verified.

Did all Bird roofing products contain asbestos?

No. Bird’s historical product-history response says more than 90% of its products were non-asbestos.

Was every Bird-branded roof cement manufactured by Bird?

No. Bird said it bought many cements and coatings from other companies and relabeled them, while manufacturing some itself.

Which workers should investigate Bird roofing exposure?

Roofers, factory workers, construction and maintenance workers may investigate documented tasks involving confirmed asbestos-containing products.

What happened in the Stowers case?

The Delaware Superior Court granted Bird summary judgment because the plaintiff did not sufficiently establish exposure to asbestos-containing Bird cement and causation under applicable law.

Does Bird have an asbestos bankruptcy trust?

A dedicated operational Bird Corporation §524(g) personal-injury trust was not confirmed from the primary records reviewed; no payment percentage is asserted.

Can a Bird logo alone establish an asbestos claim?

No. Product formulation, manufacturer, dates, exposure, diagnosis and applicable legal requirements matter.

Should I scrape old roofing to test for asbestos?

No. Do not disturb suspect material yourself. Consult an accredited asbestos professional and follow applicable regulations.

🧾 Bird Corporation Asbestos Summary

Key Findings

Topic	Evidence-based conclusion
Historical business	Roofing products; Bird & Son / Bird Incorporated names.
Asbestos products	Some roofing cements and coatings acknowledged in discovery.
Non-asbestos products	Bird reported more than 90% of products were non-asbestos.
2017 Stowers ruling	Summary judgment for Bird; product identification and causation insufficient.
Dedicated Bird trust	Not confirmed.
Guaranteed compensation	None.

📚 Confirmed Primary & Court Sources

Submit Your Case

Call 800.291.0963
Live chat is available 24/7, 365 days a year.
Submit Your Case

Bird’s historical manufacture or sale of some asbestos-containing products does not prove a particular person encountered such a product or qualifies for compensation. Product identity, dates, exposure, medical evidence, responsible entities and legal deadlines require individual review. Compensation is not guaranteed.

⚕️ Legal & Medical Information Disclaimer
This page is general educational information, not legal or medical advice. Consult qualified healthcare, legal and asbestos professionals for individual guidance.