return to current cases home

Defective Building Products

GAF – Defective Fiberglass Roofing Shingles

In re: Building Material Corporation of America Asphalt Roofing Shingle Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 8:11–mn–02000–JMC (U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina).

We served as co-lead counsel in several class actions against GAF concerning its fiberglass shingles. The complaints allege that GAF designed, manufactured, advertised, warranted and sold defective fiberglass shingles that were not in compliance with applicable testing standards, and without taking any steps to cure the problem(s) or honor its warranties. Defective shingles not only must be replaced, but can cause damage to the structure of the house.

For additional information, please contact attorneys Charles LaDuca or Brendan Thompson at 202-789-3960, or by email at charles@cuneolaw.com or brendant@cuneolaw.com.

UPDATE: On April 22, 2015, the District of South Carolina granted final approval of a proposed settlement of over $200 million. The class of approximately six million individuals, one of the largest home building material classes ever, allows for claims to be made for up to seven years. For more information or to file a claim, please visit: http://www.roofsettlement.com

Lumber Liquidators Flooring

Dana Gold v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case. No. 3:14-cv-05373-TEH (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California).

Our firm, along with co-counsel, has brought a case against Lumber Liquidator, Inc. alleging that certain flooring products that it developed, marketed and sold are defective. Alleged defects include cracking, splitting, scratching and general deterioration.  Our firm is also investigating flooring that the company sold that contains allegedly hazardous levels of formaldehyde.

If you are having a problem with your flooring, or have other information pertaining to this investigation, please contact attorneys Charles LaDuca or Brendan Thompson at (202)789-3960, or by email at charles@cuneolaw.com or brendant@cuneolaw.com.

UPDATE: On November 10, 2015, the Court appointed Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca, LLP as co-lead counsel in the case. On November 30, 2015, the Court, ruling on the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, sustained the majority of the claims contained in the Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. In addition, the Court denied the Defendant’s Motion to Strike and its request for Judicial Notice. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a Nationwide Class with four subclasses plead in the alternative for the states of California, New York, Illinois, and West Virginia.

CertainTeed – Defective Cement Fiberboard Siding

In re: CertainTeed Fiber Cement Siding Litigation, MDL No. 11-2270 (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania).

We have joined other firms and brought several class action lawsuits alleging that “CertainTeed WeatherBoard” siding is prone to cracking, surface flaking, warping, shrinking and crumbling. In addition, our lawsuits allege that some of this product looks like “water saturated cardboard” when exposed to rain and water. Additionally, our lawsuits allege that CertainTeed has failed to honor the terms of its warranty, and refused to repair, replace or refinish their defective siding as promised.

Consumers purchase expensive cement siding to protect and beautify their homes. These apparent defects are problematic and result in trouble and expense for the homeowners involved.

For additional information, please contact attorneys Charles LaDuca or Brendan Thompson at 202-789-3960, or by email at charles@cuneolaw.com or brendant@cuneolaw.com.

UPDATE: On March 20, 2014, the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted final approval of a $103 million all cash settlement. For details, go to certainteedshinglesettlement.com

MW Windows Litigation

Gulbankian et al. v. MW Manufacturers, Inc., Case No. No. 1 : 10-CV-10392-RWZ (U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts).

Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, along with several other firms, filed lawsuits against MW Manufacturers, Inc. (“MW”) on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of homeowners who have purchased MW’s Freedom and V-Wood series windows. Plaintiffs alleged that the windows were subject to premature failure. After several years of intense litigation in the District of Massachusetts, including full briefing of Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, the parties reached agreement on a settlement through mediation. The court granted final approval of the settlement on December 29, 2014.

Details about the settlement and the claims process can be found at the settlement website:  http://www.mwmanufacturersvinylcladwindowsettlement.com/. If you are have any questions, please contact attorney Michael Flannery at (202) 789-3960, or by email at mflannery@cuneolaw.com.

Mastic Home Exteriors – Defective Oasis Decking Products

Pagliaroni et al. v. Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 12-cv-10164-DJC, (U.S. District Court for the District of  Massachusetts).

We have brought a class action against Mastic Home Exteriors (formerly known as Alcoa Home Exteriors) and its parent, Plygem Industries concerning allegedly defective Oasis decking products.

If you are having a problem with your Trimboard products, or have other information pertaining to this investigation, please contact attorney Brendan Thompson at (202)789-3960, or by email at brendant@cuneolaw.com.

Louisiana Pacific Trimboard

Bristol Village, Inc. v. Louisiana-Pacific Corporation et al., Case. No. 1:12-cv-00263, (U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York).

We filed actions in North Carolina, Ohio and New York on behalf of persons and entities that own or owned homes, apartments, office buildings, or other structures in which ABTCO composite-wood Trimboard (“Trimboard”) is or was installed. We allege that the Defendant sold into the stream of commerce defective Trimboard (which is composed of wood scraps, glue, and resin and marketed and sold for use as fascias, soffits, window casing and other exterior applications) for which it had promised a warranty of 10 years, but which will fail long before the warranted life.

If you are having a problem with your Trimboard products, or have other information pertaining to this investigation, please contact attorneys Charles LaDuca or Michael Flannery at (202)789-3960, or by email at charles@cuneolaw.com or mflannery@cuneolaw.com.

IKO – Defective Organic Roofing Shingles

In re: IKO Roofing Shingle Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2104 (U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois).

We are the chair of the executive committee in these nationwide class actions against Canadian shingle manufacture, IKO Manufacturing Inc. (“IKO”). The suits allege that IKO designs, manufactures, advertises and sells various defective roofing shingle products that fail to perform as marketed and that IKO knowingly and intentionally concealed these defects. The suits also allege that IKO had no intention of honoring its shingles various warranties.

UPDATE: On July 2, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit vacated a decision by the Central District of Illinois declining to certify the class and remanded the case back to the District Court for further proceedings. 

If you are having a problem with your IKO shingles, or have other information pertaining to this investigation, please contact attorneys Charles LaDuca or Brendan Thompson at (202)789-3960, or by email at charles@cuneolaw.com or brendant@cuneolaw.com.

CertainTeed – Defective Organic Roofing Shingles

In re: CertainTeed Corp. Roofing Shingle Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1817, (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania).

We were co lead counsel in this class action lawsuit, which settled for almost $700 million. The suit alleged that CertainTeed’s organic shingles failed to perform as marketed and that CertainTeed knowingly and intentionally concealed defects. The suit also alleged that CertainTeed had no intention of providing the services set forth in their warranties for their roofing shingles.

For additional information, please contact attorneys Charles LaDuca at (202) 789-3960, or by email at charles@cuneolaw.com.

UPDATE: In 2011, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted final approval of the settlement valued at approximately $700 million. The settlement class period is ongoing. For more information on this settlement go to certainteedshinglesettlement.com

Owens Corning – Defective Fiberglass Roofing Shingles

Jaime Gonzalez, et al. v. Owens Corning, et al., Case No. 09-1567, (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania).

We are co-lead counsel in a nationwide class action against Owens Corning. The case alleges that Owens Corning designed, manufactured, advertised, sold and warranted defective fiberglass shingles without taking any steps to cure the problem(s) or honor its warranties. Defective shingles not only must be replaced, but can cause damage to the structure of the house.

On May 18, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that the company’s past bankruptcy did not foreclose potential class members’ claims and remanded the case to the Western District of Pennsylvania for further proceedings. In February 2013, we filed additional cases against Owens Corning in the states of California and Texas.

If you are having a problem with your Owens Corning shingles, or have other information pertaining to this investigation, please contact attorney Brendan Thompson at 202-789-3960, or by email at brendant@cuneolaw.com.

Chinese Drywall Litigation

Our firm, along with co-counsel, brought a series of cases in Federal and State courts across the country challenging the use of defective Chinese drywall in residential construction. The defective drywall emits, among other things, sulfur compounds that cause significant physical damage to the affected homes by corroding the electrical, plumbing and HVAC systems. All of our cases were centralized before a single Federal Judge in Louisiana who is presiding over hundreds of cases.  Settlements have been reached with some Defendants, but litigation is ongoing as to others.

If you have any questions regarding this litigation, please contact attorneys Charles LaDuca or William Anderson at (202) 789-3960, or by email at charles@cuneolaw.com or wanderson@cuneolaw.com.

Uponor – Defective F1906 Plumbing Fittings

George v. Uponor, Inc. et al., Case. No. 0:12-cv-00249, (U.S. District Court for the district of Minnesota).

We have brought a class action against Uponor alleging that it designs and sells defective Yellow Brass Fittings and components made from high zinc content brass that were defectively designed and prematurely corrode when drinking water runs through them.  The lawsuit also claims that when the high zinc content brass is exposed to this water over time, it becomes blocked, cracks, weeps, seeps, and/or leaks and may affect water supply.  Information available to the Plaintiffs suggests that Uponor’s Yellow Brass Fittings may have been installed in hundreds of thousands of homes and buildings.

UPDATE: On September 9, 2015, the District Court for Minnesota granted final approval of a common fund settlement.  The fund will reimburse purchasers for eligible previous repairs and/or future repairs or replacement costs relating to leaks or flow issues along with related property damage.  Uponor will also provide an extended warranty for eligible property damage and water flow issues.  The maximum Uponor will pay for the Settlement is $21 million. For more information about our settlement, please check out the settlement website at: https://brassfittingsclass.com/nationwide/mainpage/Home.aspx

If you have any questions regarding this litigation, please contact attorneys Charles LaDuca or Brendan Thompason at (202) 789-3960, or by email at charles@cuneolaw.com or brendant@cuneolaw.com.

Zurn – Defective Plumbing Systems

In re: Zurn Pex Plumbing Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1958, (U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota).

We were chair of the executive committee in this nation-wide class action which comprised of homes and business-owners, who brought several class actions against Zurn Pex, Inc. and Zurn Industries LLP (“Zurn”) concerning alleged defects associated with its cross-linked Pex tubing and brass fittings plumbing systems. The plaintiffs charged that Zurn not only designed and manufactured a faulty product, but that it also marketed and sold it without disclosing the risks to consumers, and have failed to honor its product’s “worry-free” 25-year warranty.

For additional information, please contact attorneys Charles LaDuca or Brendan Thompson at 202-789-3960, or by email at charles@cuneolaw.com or brendant@cuneolaw.com.

UPDATE: On February 27, 2013, the District Court for Minnesota granted final approval of the settlement valued at approximately $30 million. For more information about our settlement, please check out the settlement website at: www.plumbingfittingsettlement.com.

Maibec – Defective Wood Siding

Ilene Stern, et al. v. Maibec Inc., Civil Action No. 11-3951, (U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey).

We have brought a class action lawsuit against a Canadian wood siding manufacturer, Maibec, Incorporated in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, in Newark, NJ. The suit alleges that the siding, which is used to clad the outside of homes and offices, prematurely fails and that the Defendant does not honor its warranties.

If you are having a problem with your Maibec siding, or have other information pertaining to this investigation, please contact attorney Charles LaDuca at (202)789-3960, or by email at charles@cuneolaw.com.

Gentek – Defective Steel Siding

Eliason et al. v. Gentek Building Products, et al., Case. No. 1:10-cv-2093 (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio).

We are co-lead counsel in a nationwide class action against Gentek Building Products, Inc., a leading manufacture of vinyl, aluminum and steel siding products.

Our lawsuits allege that Gentek steel and aluminum siding was produced with a defect that makes it prone to chipping, cracking, breaking, peeling and/or fading prematurely. Such defects can be expensive to repair and reduce the value of a home significantly. Additionally, our lawsuits allege that Gentek has failed to honor the terms of its warranty, and refused to repair, replace or refinish their defective siding as promised.

For additional information, please contact attorney Charles LaDuca at (202) 789-3960, or by email at charles@cuneolaw.com.

UPDATE: August 1, 2013, the District Court for Northern District of Ohio granted final approval of a settlement relating to all claims in this lawsuit.  For further information, go to: www.steelsidingsettlement.com.

James Hardie – Defective Cement Fiberboard Siding

In re: HardiPlank Fiber Cement Siding Litigation, MDL No. 2359, (U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota).

We are co-counsel in several class actions against James Hardie concerning siding products that are alleged to be defective. Signs of defect include: cracking, warping, peeling, shrinking, and pulling away from fasteners. Our lawsuits allege manufacturing and design defects for the following product lines:

  • Hardie Fiber-Cement
  • HARDIEPLANK HZ10
  • HARDIEPANEL HZ10
  • HARDIESHINGLE HZ10
  • HARDIESOFFIT HZ10

Additionally, our lawsuits allege that James Hardie has failed to honor the terms of its 50-year warranty.

Consumers purchase expensive cement siding to protect and beautify their homes. These apparent defects are very problematic, and result in trouble and expense for the homeowners involved.

If you are having a problem with your James Hardie siding product, or have other information pertaining to this investigation, please contact attorneys Charles LaDuca or Brendan Thompson at (202) 789-3960, or by email at charles@cuneolaw.com or brendant@cuneolaw.com.

CSST (CORRUGATED STAINLESS STEEL TUBING) LITIGATION

We have filed class actions against CSST (Corrugated Stainless Steel Tubing) manufacturers Omega Flex, Incorporated, Ward Manufacturing, LLC and Titeflex Corporation in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the states of Maryland, Florida and Texas.

The complaints allege that the Defendants improperly designed and manufactured CSST and failed to properly test its resistance to lightning strikes. CSST’s thin walls are susceptible to perforation caused by lightning strikes, which causes fires, damage to and detonation of residential structures, and creates a substantial and unreasonable risk of death or personal injury.

If you have CSST in your home or business, or have other information pertaining to this investigation, please contact attorney Charles LaDuca at (202) 789-3960 or by email at charles@cuneolaw.com.

x close window Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP
SUBMIT
disclaimer