Contributing Factors
Asbestos exposure in both residential and occupational settings has been widespread in Rhode Island. Many mesothelioma cases have been traced to asbestos exposure in schools, industrial buildings, and aging infrastructure.
Workers in chemical factories, power plants, and manufacturing facilities were frequently exposed to asbestos-containing materials such as insulation, pipes, ceilings, furnaces, boilers, fireproofing materials, and wall components.
In addition to asbestos exposure, smoking remains a major contributing factor to lung cancer risk, particularly among individuals with prior occupational exposure.
High-Risk Occupations for Asbestos Exposure in Rhode Island
Rhode Island's manufacturing and industrial past made it a hotspot for occupational asbestos exposure. Workers in shipbuilding, textile manufacturing, power plants, chemical facilities, and breweries were routinely exposed through building materials, machinery, and protective equipment.
Industrial Workers
Textile mills and factories relied heavily on asbestos for insulation and fireproofing. Facilities such as Acme Tile Co., Rhode Island Textile Company, and Biltmore Textile were known sites of exposure.
Breweries including Narragansett Brewery and the Cranston-based Management Brewery also used asbestos in construction materials and production equipment. Manufacturers such as A.O. Smith Corporation and Halkyard Manufacturing incorporated asbestos into machinery and electrical components.
Veterans
With more than 400 miles of coastline, Rhode Island hosted major naval bases and shipyards where asbestos was extensively used. Navy personnel were commonly exposed in engine rooms, boiler rooms, sleeping quarters, and maintenance areas.
Sites such as the Newport Naval Yard, Wickford Shipyard, and Walsh-Kaiser Shipyard exposed countless service members to asbestos, often without adequate warnings or protective measures.
Shipbuilding
Rhode Island shipyards, including Herreshoff Boatyard in Bristol and Wickford Shipyard in North Kingstown, used asbestos throughout ship construction and repair processes.
Asbestos was present in engines, pipes, walls, and insulation, placing shipbuilders, mechanics, and nearby residents at risk of prolonged exposure.
Construction and Maintenance Workers
Construction and maintenance workers faced significant asbestos exposure risks, particularly at older industrial sites. One notable example is the former Stamina Mills site in North Smithfield.
The five-acre textile mill operated from the early 1900s until 1975. Decades later, the EPA identified asbestos-containing materials in the remaining office building. A partial roof collapse released asbestos fibers into the air.
Construction, maintenance, and demolition crews working on the site, including those involved in demolition efforts in 2021, were potentially exposed. The EPA continues to monitor the site due to ongoing concerns.
Get Help Today - Let Us Make Your Case Our Cause
Free case review for asbestos exposure.
Start Now
Cities in Rhode Island with Asbestos
There are 90 cities in Rhode Island that are covered by Asbestos Trust Funds
Key Rhode Island Asbestos Lawsuits
Bonnie Bonito Estate vs. Union Carbide
In November 2024, Rhode Island saw its first asbestos case tried to verdict in nearly 40 years. The case resulted in a full defense verdict for Union Carbide.
The plaintiffs alleged that Bonnie Bonito developed mesothelioma after years of laundering her ex-husband's asbestos-contaminated work clothes. Her ex-husband owned a construction company and worked extensively with asbestos-containing materials.
After nine days of trial, the Providence Superior Court jury found that Union Carbide's products were not defectively designed and that the company did not fail to warn about asbestos-related dangers.
A Couple vs. Johnson & Johnson
In January 2025, a Rhode Island court issued a significant ruling in a mesothelioma case involving Johnson & Johnson talc products. The plaintiffs alleged that asbestos-contaminated talc caused the wife's illness.
The lawsuit named approximately 40 defendants, including two Johnson & Johnson subsidiaries. The court rejected an attempt to substitute different corporate entities following internal restructuring.
While no compensation has yet been awarded, the ruling is considered a landmark decision that reinforces plaintiffs' rights to hold original corporate defendants accountable.
