DAP Inc. Asbestos Exposure: Caulk, Sealants, Workers & Claims

DAP traces its roots to 1865 and became a major manufacturer of caulks, sealants, putties, adhesives and repair products. Published court records provide company-specific evidence that certain historical DAP products contained asbestos. The Indiana Court of Appeals stated that DAP manufactured Black-Tite Roof Sealant and 33 Glazing from 1960 through 1977 and that both products contained asbestos through 1977. Pennsylvania appellate records also identify several DAP caulking, setting, sealing and roof-cement products as asbestos-containing before 1977.

Product and date identification are critical. The court records do not establish that every DAP product contained asbestos, and cases have been dismissed where plaintiffs could not show that the particular DAP product used actually contained asbestos or that the claimant inhaled asbestos fibers from it. DAP remains an operating building-products brand and has been part of RPM International since 1999. No dedicated DAP §524(g) asbestos personal-injury trust was confirmed in the primary and court sources reviewed for this page.

🏢 DAP Company History & Asbestos Timeline

DAP’s official history traces the business to Robert H. Dicks and Elmer Wiggim producing sealing wax in 1865. Dicks-Pontius expanded into putty and caulk; a 1957 merger with the Armstrong Company produced Dicks-Armstrong-Pontius, later shortened to DAP. RPM International acquired DAP Products in 1999.

DAP Facts at a Glance

Topic	Verified information
Origins	1865, according to DAP’s official history.
Dicks-Pontius Company	Established in 1913.
DAP name lineage	Dicks-Armstrong-Pontius after 1957 merger; later shortened to DAP.
Historical product focus	Putty, caulk, sealants and repair products.
RPM acquisition	1999.
Court-documented asbestos products	Includes Black-Tite Roof Sealant and 33 Glazing through 1977.
Dedicated DAP §524(g) trust	No dedicated trust confirmed from sources reviewed.

Company / Product Timeline

Period	Development
1865	DAP origins in sealing-wax manufacturing.
1913	Dicks-Pontius Company established.
1957	Merger with Chicago-based Armstrong Company; Dicks-Armstrong-Pontius name.
1960–1977	Indiana appellate record states DAP manufactured Black-Tite Roof Sealant and 33 Glazing; both contained asbestos through 1977.
1964	DAP introduced latex caulking compounds.
1970	DAP introduced acrylic latex caulk.
1999	RPM International acquired DAP Products.
2020s	DAP continues as an operating building-products business; asbestos litigation dockets continue to identify DAP Products as a defendant in some cases.

See Construction Materials Companies & Asbestos Exposure.

🧱 DAP Asbestos Caulks, Sealants & Compounds

The strongest product-specific evidence comes from published appellate decisions. DAP, Inc. v. Akaiwa states that Black-Tite Roof Sealant and 33 Glazing contained asbestos fibers through 1977. Vanaman v. DAP discusses exhibits identifying several DAP products as asbestos-containing before 1977. These records do not support treating every DAP product or every production year as asbestos-containing.

Court-Documented Historical DAP Products

Product	Documented evidence
Black-Tite Roof Sealant	Indiana appellate court: manufactured 1960–1977 and contained asbestos through 1977.
33 Glazing	Indiana appellate court: manufactured 1960–1977 and contained asbestos through 1977.
DAP White Caulking Compound	Pennsylvania appellate record discusses exhibit identifying asbestos content before 1977.
DAP Bowl Setting Compound	Same Pennsylvania record identifies it on a pre-1977 asbestos-product list.
DAP Butyl Gutter and Lap Sealer	Same Pennsylvania record identifies it on a pre-1977 asbestos-product list.
DAP Rely-On Roof Cement	Court record states exhibits showed the identified products contained asbestos prior to 1977.

Product Accuracy Rules

Statement	Accurate treatment
Certain historical DAP products contained asbestos	Confirmed by published court records.
Every DAP caulk contained asbestos	Not established.
Every DAP product before 1977 contained asbestos	Not established.
DAP mined or sold raw asbestos	Akaiwa states DAP did not mine or sell raw asbestos.
A modern DAP product can be assumed asbestos-containing	No.
Brand identification alone proves exposure	No; formulation, date and work activity matter.

👷 Workers, Jobsites & Home Repair Exposure

Historical DAP products were used in construction, maintenance and home repair. Potential exposure depends on the exact product and whether work generated respirable dust. Published cases include occupational and household-exposure allegations, but courts have required product-specific and exposure-specific proof.

Workers and Activities to Investigate

Worker / person	Potential historical activity
Roofers	Applying or removing historical roof sealant/cement.
Glaziers	Working with glazing compounds around windows.
Carpenters / remodelers	Using caulks, setting compounds and sealants.
Plumbers / bathroom installers	Using bowl-setting or sealing compounds.
Maintenance workers	Repairing roofs, windows, gutters and building joints.
Electricians / construction workers	Working near or using sealants during building work.
DIY homeowners	Home repairs involving historical caulks, sealants or roof cement.
Household members	Secondary-exposure allegations require evidence that asbestos-containing dust reached the person.

Exposure Settings

Setting	Evidence to investigate
Residential repair	Receipts, containers, photographs and witness testimony.
Commercial construction	Specifications, contractor records and invoices.
Industrial facilities	Maintenance records and product purchasing files.
Roofing work	Product labels, job records and removal practices.
Window/glazing work	Glazing-compound identity and application/removal methods.
Home renovation	Dates, exact DAP product and whether dust-producing work occurred.

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

🌫️ How Historical DAP Exposure Occurred

Exposure cannot be inferred merely from using a DAP-branded product. Courts have distinguished between products that historically contained asbestos and later or different formulations. Dust generation also matters. In Akaiwa, the worker’s later use of DAP sealants did not establish asbestos exposure from those products.

Potential Exposure Activities

Activity	Why it may matter
Removing aged sealant	Could disturb hardened historical material if asbestos-containing.
Scraping glazing compound	May create debris or dust depending on condition and method.
Roof repair/removal	Could disturb historical roof cement or sealant.
Sanding / abrading compound	Abrasive work can generate dust from the material being worked.
Cleanup	May re-suspend dust generated during repair/removal.
Ordinary intact application	Must not be equated automatically with airborne asbestos exposure.

Exposure Questions

Question	Importance
Which DAP product?	Different formulations and uses.
When was it manufactured or used?	Helps distinguish documented asbestos-era products.
Did that formulation contain asbestos?	Central product-identification issue.
Was dust generated?	Relevant to inhalation evidence.
Was claimant nearby?	Necessary for exposure analysis.
Are other asbestos sources present?	Construction workers often encountered multiple manufacturers.

⚖️ DAP Asbestos Claims & Trust Status

DAP has been a defendant in asbestos personal-injury litigation, including published appellate cases and more recent state-court asbestos dockets. The primary sources reviewed did not establish a dedicated DAP §524(g) asbestos personal-injury trust. Accordingly, this page does not invent a DAP trust payment percentage, scheduled disease value or trust asset figure.

Claim / Trust Status

Issue	Status
Historical asbestos lawsuits involving DAP	Confirmed.
Published mesothelioma litigation	Confirmed in Akaiwa and Vanaman.
Recent asbestos dockets naming DAP Products	Confirmed in Delaware court records.
Dedicated DAP §524(g) trust	No dedicated trust confirmed.
DAP trust payment percentage	Not applicable based on sources reviewed.
Scheduled DAP trust disease values	Not applicable.
Potential legal route	Civil litigation/settlement subject to product, exposure, causation, defenses and deadlines.

What Not to Infer

Fact	Do not infer
DAP was named as a defendant	That liability was established.
A historical product contained asbestos	That every unit/year contained asbestos.
A claimant used DAP	That asbestos fibers were inhaled.
RPM acquired DAP in 1999	That RPM created a dedicated DAP asbestos trust.
Aggregate corporate asbestos reserves in old RPM filings	That those figures equal DAP-only claim payments or current claimant funds.

📊 Documented DAP Asbestos Cases

Published decisions illustrate why DAP claims require precise product and exposure proof. Some records establish historical asbestos content; others show dismissal where the plaintiff could not connect the claimant to asbestos fibers from a DAP product.

Selected Court Records

Case	Significance
DAP, Inc. v. Akaiwa, Indiana Ct. App. (2007)	States Black-Tite Roof Sealant and 33 Glazing were manufactured 1960–1977 and contained asbestos through 1977; court reversed on statute-of-repose grounds.
Vanaman v. DAP, Pennsylvania Superior Ct. (2009)	Discusses pre-1977 asbestos-product exhibits for DAP White Caulking Compound, Bowl Setting Compound, Butyl Gutter and Lap Sealer, and Rely-On Roof Cement; summary judgment for DAP was affirmed due to insufficient exposure/causation proof.
Blystone federal litigation, E.D. Pa. (2020)	Summary judgment granted where plaintiffs did not provide non-speculative proof that DAP caulk used by claimant contained asbestos.
Janis federal litigation, D. Del. (2018)	Court record states claimant did not identify an asbestos-containing DAP product or exposure to a DAP product.
Delaware asbestos dockets, 2021–2023	Court dockets continue to show DAP Products named in asbestos cases; a docket entry alone does not establish liability.

Lessons From the Cases

Issue	Why it matters
Product name	Must identify the actual DAP product.
Product date	Historical asbestos content changed.
Dust / fiber pathway	Courts examine whether exposure actually occurred.
Proximity	Household/bystander claims require evidence connecting the person to dust.
Causation	Historical asbestos content alone does not prove individual causation.
Case outcome	A dismissal or defense verdict applies to the evidence in that case, not every DAP claim.

📋 DAP Claim Evidence & Product Identification

A DAP asbestos investigation should identify the exact product, approximate manufacture/use date and the work that allegedly released fibers. Product packaging, historical catalogs, invoices, testimony and court-established formulation dates can be important.

Evidence That May Help

Medical and pathology records.
Employment, union and Social Security records.
DAP product cans, tubes, boxes, labels or photographs.
Invoices, receipts and purchase records.
Construction and maintenance records.
Coworker or household witness testimony.
Evidence identifying the specific product formulation and date.
Evidence describing scraping, sanding, removal or other dust-producing work.

Claim Checklist

Step	Question
1	Was a specific DAP product identified?
2	When was it manufactured/purchased/used?
3	Is asbestos content documented for that product and period?
4	How was it handled or disturbed?
5	Was visible or respirable dust generated?
6	Was the claimant in the exposure area?
7	Can records or witnesses corroborate the work?
8	What other asbestos products were present?

Numbers We Do Not Invent

Item	Status
DAP-only pending claim count	No reliable current primary-source total confirmed.
DAP trust payment percentage	No dedicated trust confirmed.
Scheduled disease values	Not applicable without a dedicated trust.
Average DAP settlement	Not calculated from unrelated or aggregate figures.
Nationwide exposed-worker total	No reliable primary-source total confirmed.
Guaranteed compensation	None.

Compensation is not guaranteed.

❓ Frequently Asked Questions

Did DAP manufacture asbestos-containing products?

Yes. Published appellate records identify specific historical DAP products that contained asbestos, including Black-Tite Roof Sealant and 33 Glazing through 1977.

Which DAP products are documented as containing asbestos?

Court records identify Black-Tite Roof Sealant, 33 Glazing, DAP White Caulking Compound, DAP Bowl Setting Compound, DAP Butyl Gutter and Lap Sealer, and DAP Rely-On Roof Cement in historical asbestos-product evidence.

Did every DAP caulk or sealant contain asbestos?

No. The available court records do not support that conclusion. Product and manufacturing period must be established.

Did DAP mine raw asbestos?

The Indiana Court of Appeals stated that DAP did not mine or sell raw asbestos.

How could workers have encountered asbestos from DAP products?

Depending on the historical product, potential exposure allegations may involve scraping, sanding, removal, roof repair or other work that disturbed asbestos-containing material.

Does DAP have an asbestos bankruptcy trust?

No dedicated DAP §524(g) asbestos personal-injury trust was confirmed from the primary and court sources reviewed.

Is DAP still in business?

Yes. DAP remains an operating building-products brand. RPM International states that it acquired DAP Products in 1999.

What evidence is important for a DAP asbestos claim?

Useful evidence includes the exact product name, dates, packaging or purchase records, work history, witnesses, evidence of dust-producing disturbance and medical documentation.

🧾 DAP Inc. Asbestos Summary

Detail	Confirmed / carefully qualified information
Company roots	1865.
Historical product business	Caulks, sealants, putties and repair products.
Documented asbestos products	Specific pre-1977 caulks, sealants, glazing and roof products.
Black-Tite / 33 Glazing	Court record: asbestos-containing through 1977.
RPM acquisition	1999.
Asbestos litigation	Confirmed.
Dedicated §524(g) DAP trust	No dedicated trust confirmed.
Guaranteed compensation	No.

📚 Confirmed Primary & Court Sources

Submit Your Case

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

Using or working around a DAP product does not automatically establish asbestos exposure, disease causation, liability or compensation. The specific product, formulation, date, work activity, exposure pathway and medical evidence must be evaluated individually. Compensation is not guaranteed.

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