Griscom-Russell Co. / Viad Corp. Asbestos Exposure: Navy Evaporators & Claims
Griscom-Russell Company manufactured marine evaporators, distilling plants, fuel-oil heaters and other heat-exchange equipment used aboard U.S. Navy vessels. Published federal and state decisions repeatedly document sailors maintaining Griscom-Russell evaporators that were surrounded by asbestos-containing thermal insulation installed aboard ship. Other litigation alleges asbestos-containing gaskets or integrated materials in particular Griscom-Russell heat-exchanger products, making exact product and component identification important.
Viad Corp. has been sued as an alleged or purported successor-in-interest to Griscom-Russell in asbestos cases. That description must be handled carefully: several court decisions refer to Viad as the alleged or purported successor, and successor liability has itself been litigated. No Griscom-Russell- or Viad-specific §524(g) asbestos personal-injury trust was confirmed from the primary court and corporate sources reviewed, so this page does not invent a trust payment percentage, disease-value schedule or trust assets.
🏢 Griscom-Russell & Viad Corporate History
Griscom-Russell was an Ohio manufacturer of heat-exchange and marine-engineering equipment. Court records describe the company manufacturing and distributing a heat-exchanger product line between approximately 1912 and 1962. Later asbestos litigation frequently names Viad Corp. as the alleged or purported corporate successor to Griscom-Russell. Because corporate-successor status can affect liability and has been contested in litigation, this page does not treat every historical Griscom-Russell liability as automatically established against Viad.
Company Facts at a Glance
| Topic | Documented Information |
|---|---|
| Historical company | Griscom-Russell Company |
| Historical base | Ohio |
| Documented equipment | Marine evaporators/distilling plants, fuel-oil heaters and heat-exchange equipment |
| Heat-exchanger activity | Federal litigation describes manufacturing/distribution between approximately 1912 and 1962 |
| Major customer/use | U.S. Navy and marine applications |
| Later defendant | Viad Corp. is repeatedly sued as alleged/purported successor-in-interest |
| Successor-liability issue | Litigated and case-specific |
| Dedicated §524(g) trust | No Griscom-Russell/Viad-specific asbestos PI trust confirmed |
Historical / Litigation Timeline
| Period | Documented Development |
|---|---|
| Early 20th century | Griscom-Russell manufactured heat-transfer and marine-engineering equipment. |
| 1912–1962 | Federal Murphy litigation describes Griscom-Russell’s heat-exchanger product-line activity during this period. |
| 1940s | Published cases document Griscom-Russell evaporators installed aboard World War II-era Navy vessels. |
| 1950s–1960s | Washington appellate records describe Griscom-Russell marine evaporators and fuel-oil heaters in widespread Navy use. |
| 2000s–2020s | Viad has repeatedly appeared in asbestos litigation as alleged/purported successor to Griscom-Russell. |
| 2025 | Federal asbestos docket in Northern California continued to identify Viad and other entities in litigation tied to Griscom-Russell successor allegations. |
⚙️ Griscom-Russell Evaporators, Distillers & Heat Exchangers
The strongest product evidence concerns marine evaporators, also called distilling plants or desalinators. These systems converted seawater into freshwater aboard ships and operated at elevated temperatures. Published cases also identify Griscom-Russell fuel-oil heaters and broader heat-exchanger equipment.
Documented Equipment Categories
| Equipment | Documented Evidence |
|---|---|
| Marine evaporators | Extensively documented in Navy asbestos litigation. |
| Distilling plants / distillers | Alternative term used in federal cases for Griscom-Russell seawater-desalination equipment. |
| Desalinators | Federal Ferguson decision identifies evaporators as desalinators/distillers. |
| Fuel-oil heaters | Washington Payne decision identifies Griscom-Russell fuel-oil heaters used aboard Navy vessels. |
| Heat exchangers | Federal Murphy litigation describes a Griscom-Russell heat-exchanger product line. |
| Atomic-power-plant work | Murphy allegations identify Griscom-Russell as a contractor associated with the Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant in Michigan. |
Selected Navy Equipment Evidence
| Vessel / Setting | Evidence |
|---|---|
| USS Saufley | Simonetta documents a Griscom-Russell evaporator serviced by a Navy machinist’s mate. |
| USS Robert I. Paine | Ferguson records allegations that the destroyer escort was equipped with a Griscom-Russell evaporator. |
| USS Moore | Federal asbestos litigation alleged a Griscom-Russell evaporator/distilling plant aboard the vessel. |
| USS Plymouth Rock | Federal litigation documents testimony concerning insulation covering a Griscom-Russell distillation plant. |
| Broader Navy fleet | Payne states Griscom-Russell evaporators/fuel-oil heaters were used on approximately half of U.S. Navy vessels at one point during the claimant’s service period. |
Product Accuracy Rules
| Claim | Accurate Treatment |
|---|---|
| Griscom-Russell manufactured Navy evaporators | Confirmed by published court records. |
| Griscom-Russell manufactured fuel-oil heaters | Confirmed by Washington appellate record. |
| Griscom-Russell had a heat-exchanger product line | Confirmed in federal litigation records. |
| Every Griscom-Russell evaporator left the factory covered in asbestos insulation | Not supported; Simonetta states the evaporator there shipped without the external asbestos insulation. |
| Griscom-Russell manufactured all insulation later used on its equipment | Not supported. |
| Every Griscom-Russell product contained asbestos internally | Not established and not claimed. |
⚠️ Asbestos Insulation, Gaskets & Components
Asbestos exposure theories involving Griscom-Russell vary by case. In Simonetta v. Viad Corp., the evaporator was shipped without asbestos insulation; asbestos mud and cloth were later installed by the Navy or another entity. Other cases alleged asbestos-containing gaskets or integrated materials. A federal Delaware decision found insufficient evidence in one case that Griscom-Russell supplied the asbestos materials used with its evaporator. These distinctions are important for accurate product-liability analysis.
Asbestos Component Evidence
| Material / Component | Evidence & Limitation |
|---|---|
| External block insulation | Documented around Griscom-Russell evaporators in Navy cases; could be manufactured/installed by third parties. |
| Asbestos mud | Simonetta documents removal/reinstallation around a Griscom-Russell evaporator, but not supplied by Griscom-Russell in that case. |
| Asbestos cloth | Documented in Simonetta; third-party product in that record. |
| Gaskets | Some litigation alleges asbestos-containing gaskets incorporated into evaporators/distilling plants; supplier proof varies by case. |
| Heat-exchanger integrated materials | Murphy complaint alleged Griscom-Russell heat exchangers contained/integrated asbestos-containing materials; allegation should not be generalized to all units. |
Manufacturer vs. Third-Party Material
| Issue | Why It Matters |
|---|---|
| Original Griscom-Russell equipment | Establishes the equipment manufacturer. |
| External insulation | May have been added by Navy/shipyard after equipment delivery. |
| Replacement gasket | Could have been supplied by Griscom-Russell, Navy stock or another manufacturer; proof is case-specific. |
| Military specification | May establish what materials Navy required, but not necessarily who manufactured/supplied them. |
| Successor liability | Separate legal issue from proving product exposure. |
🔧 How Historical Griscom-Russell Exposure Occurred
Evaporators operated hot and were commonly insulated in Navy service. Maintenance could require workers to penetrate or remove insulation before opening the equipment. In Simonetta, the claimant described prying or hacking away asbestos insulation with a hammer and later reinstalling insulation. That case ultimately turned on whether the equipment manufacturer owed a duty concerning asbestos products made and installed by others.
Potential Exposure Activities
| Activity | Potential Historical Mechanism |
|---|---|
| Removing thermal insulation | Could release fibers from asbestos block, mud or cloth. |
| Hammering / prying insulation | Could create visible debris and airborne dust. |
| Opening evaporators | Could require disturbing insulation surrounding equipment. |
| Tube repair | Could place mechanics close to disturbed insulation. |
| Gasket removal | Could disturb asbestos-containing gasket material if present in the specific unit. |
| Reinsulation | Handling replacement thermal insulation could create additional exposure. |
| Cleanup | Dry sweeping or other cleanup could redistribute settled dust. |
Asbestos-Related Diseases Documented in Litigation
| Condition | Case Context |
|---|---|
| Lung cancer | Simonetta involved lung cancer and asbestos-related pleural disease. |
| Mesothelioma | Payne and other Griscom-Russell/Viad litigation involved mesothelioma. |
| Asbestos-related pleural disease | Documented in Simonetta. |
| Claim-specific causation | Diagnosis alone does not establish exposure to a Griscom-Russell-supplied asbestos product. |
⚖️ Viad Claims, Successor Liability & Trust Status
Asbestos complaints often name Viad Corp. as successor-in-interest to Griscom-Russell. Courts sometimes use the terms “alleged successor” or “purported successor,” and successor liability has been disputed. The legal result therefore depends on jurisdiction, corporate-history evidence and the facts of the particular claim.
Current Claim Structure
| Issue | Verified / Research Status |
|---|---|
| Viad named in Griscom-Russell asbestos litigation | Yes. |
| Successor status | Frequently alleged; has been contested and litigated. |
| Dedicated Griscom-Russell §524(g) trust | No dedicated trust confirmed. |
| Dedicated Viad §524(g) trust for these claims | No dedicated trust confirmed. |
| Trust Payment Percentage | Not applicable based on sources reviewed. |
| Scheduled disease values | Not applicable based on sources reviewed. |
| Potential claim route | Civil litigation/settlement subject to successor liability, product evidence, causation, defenses and deadlines. |
Claims We Do Not Invent
| Claim / Statistic | Status |
|---|---|
| Every Griscom-Russell evaporator contained factory-installed asbestos | Not supported. |
| Griscom-Russell supplied every asbestos insulation product used with its equipment | Contradicted by some published cases. |
| Viad automatically liable for every Griscom-Russell product | Not established; successor liability is case-specific. |
| Current nationwide pending claim count | No reliable current company-wide primary-source figure confirmed. |
| Trust payment percentage / disease schedule | No dedicated trust confirmed. |
| Guaranteed settlement value | None. |
📊 Documented Griscom-Russell / Viad Asbestos Cases
Published Griscom-Russell cases are especially useful because they distinguish asbestos applied by shipyards or the Navy from materials allegedly incorporated into equipment. They also show that liability outcomes vary by jurisdiction and the evidence presented.
Selected Published Cases
| Case | Documented Significance |
|---|---|
| Simonetta v. Viad Corp., Washington Supreme Court, 2008 | Navy machinist’s mate serviced a Griscom-Russell evaporator aboard USS Saufley. External asbestos mud/cloth were made and installed by others. Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and ruled for Viad on the duty theory presented. |
| Payne v. Saberhagen Holdings, Washington Court of Appeals, 2008 | Mesothelioma case involving alleged exposure around Griscom-Russell evaporators and fuel-oil heaters during Navy service; record states the equipment was in use on approximately half of Navy vessels at one point in claimant’s service period. |
| Ferguson v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., N.D. Ohio, 2007 | WWII Navy case involving alleged Griscom-Russell evaporator aboard USS Robert I. Paine; federal-officer removal dispute. |
| Murphy v. Viad Corp., E.D. Michigan, 2021 | Heat-exchanger case alleging Griscom-Russell asbestos-containing/integrated materials and Michigan business activity; court addressed personal jurisdiction. |
| Delaware federal asbestos litigation, 2017 | Court found insufficient evidence that Griscom-Russell supplied asbestos materials used with the evaporator in that claimant’s case. |
| Convey-Hinzo, N.D. California, 2016 | Claims against Viad as alleged Griscom-Russell successor were dismissed without prejudice by stipulation. |
| Read v. 3M Company et al., N.D. California, 2025 | Current-era asbestos docket includes Viad and entities sued in relation to Griscom-Russell successor allegations. |
What the Cases Show
| Issue | Evidence Lesson |
|---|---|
| Equipment identification | Ship records and testimony should establish a Griscom-Russell evaporator/heater was present. |
| Asbestos source | Determine whether asbestos came with equipment or was added by Navy/shipyard/another supplier. |
| Maintenance exposure | Document how insulation, gaskets or other materials were disturbed. |
| Successor liability | Establish the applicable corporate chain and governing state law. |
| Case outcome | A dismissal or defense judgment in one case does not prove all Griscom-Russell equipment was asbestos-free. |
Claim Evidence Checklist
| Evidence | Why It Helps |
|---|---|
| Navy service records | Establish vessel, dates and occupational rating. |
| Ship equipment records | Can identify Griscom-Russell evaporators/distillers/heaters. |
| Technical manuals / drawings | May identify insulation, gaskets and required maintenance. |
| Shipmate testimony | May document actual maintenance and dust exposure. |
| Maintenance records | May distinguish original from replacement components. |
| Manufacturer/supplier records | May establish who supplied the asbestos-containing material. |
| Medical records | Document diagnosis and asbestos-related disease. |
| Corporate-history evidence | Relevant to any successor-liability claim against Viad. |
❓ Frequently Asked Questions
What did Griscom-Russell manufacture?
Published court records document Griscom-Russell marine evaporators/distilling plants, fuel-oil heaters and heat-exchange equipment, including products supplied for U.S. Navy vessels.
Were Griscom-Russell evaporators used on Navy ships?
Yes. Numerous published asbestos cases identify Griscom-Russell evaporators aboard U.S. Navy vessels. One Washington appellate record states that Griscom-Russell evaporators and fuel-oil heaters were used on approximately half of Navy vessels at one point during the claimant’s service period.
Did Griscom-Russell install the asbestos insulation on every evaporator?
No. In Simonetta, the Griscom-Russell evaporator was shipped without external asbestos insulation. The Navy or another entity later installed asbestos mud and cloth around it.
Could Griscom-Russell equipment contain asbestos gaskets?
Some litigation alleges asbestos-containing gaskets or integrated materials in particular Griscom-Russell equipment. Whether Griscom-Russell supplied a specific gasket must be proven from product, Navy or maintenance records.
Why is Viad Corp. named in Griscom-Russell asbestos lawsuits?
Viad has repeatedly been sued as an alleged or purported successor-in-interest to Griscom-Russell. Successor liability has been contested and should be evaluated under the law and corporate evidence applicable to each case.
Does Griscom-Russell or Viad have an asbestos bankruptcy trust?
No dedicated Griscom-Russell- or Viad-specific §524(g) asbestos personal-injury trust was confirmed from the primary sources reviewed.
Which workers are most associated with Griscom-Russell asbestos claims?
Published cases prominently involve Navy machinist’s mates, boiler technicians, firemen and shipyard workers who maintained evaporators, distilling plants and related hot equipment.
What evidence may support a Griscom-Russell asbestos claim?
Useful evidence can include Navy service and ship records, equipment lists, manuals, drawings, maintenance records, asbestos-product supplier records, shipmate testimony, medical records and corporate-history evidence relevant to any successor claim.
🧾 Griscom-Russell / Viad Summary
| Detail | Confirmed / Carefully Qualified Information |
|---|---|
| Historical manufacturer | Griscom-Russell Company |
| Primary documented equipment | Marine evaporators/distillers, fuel-oil heaters and heat exchangers |
| Navy use | Extensively documented in published litigation |
| External asbestos insulation | Documented around equipment; some cases establish it was supplied/installed by others |
| Internal/integrated asbestos allegations | Case-specific; some litigation alleges gaskets or integrated asbestos-containing materials |
| Viad relationship | Repeatedly sued as alleged/purported Griscom-Russell successor |
| Successor liability | Case-specific and litigated |
| Dedicated §524(g) trust | No dedicated Griscom-Russell/Viad trust confirmed |
| Current trust percentage / disease values | Not applicable based on sources reviewed |
| Guaranteed compensation | No |
📚 Confirmed Court & Government Sources
- Washington Supreme Court — Simonetta v. Viad Corp. (2008), documenting Griscom-Russell evaporator maintenance aboard USS Saufley and third-party asbestos insulation.
- Washington Court of Appeals — Payne v. Saberhagen Holdings (2008), documenting Griscom-Russell evaporators/fuel-oil heaters and Navy exposure allegations.
- U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio — Ferguson v. Lorillard Tobacco Co. (2007), documenting alleged Griscom-Russell evaporator exposure aboard USS Robert I. Paine.
- U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan — Murphy v. Viad Corp. (2021), documenting Griscom-Russell heat-exchanger allegations, historical business activity and asserted successor relationship.
- U.S. District Court, District of Delaware — asbestos litigation addressing whether Griscom-Russell supplied asbestos materials used with its evaporators.
- U.S. District Court, Northern District of California — Convey-Hinzo order dismissing without prejudice claims against Viad as alleged Griscom-Russell successor.
- U.S. District Court, Northern District of California — 2025 Read asbestos docket identifying Viad and Griscom-Russell successor allegations.
Submit Your Case
Call 800.291.0963
Live chat is available 24/7, 365 days a year.
Submit Your Case
Working on a Griscom-Russell evaporator, distilling plant, fuel-oil heater or heat exchanger does not automatically establish exposure to asbestos supplied by Griscom-Russell, successor liability against Viad, disease causation or compensation. The equipment, asbestos material, supplier, maintenance activity, exposure history, medical evidence and applicable successor-liability law 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 a qualified healthcare professional about diagnosis and treatment and a qualified attorney about individual legal rights and filing deadlines.