About This Case
TMLG has filed suit on behalf of property owners who purchased defective siding from Defendants United States Seamless, Inc. (“Seamless”), K.B.P. Coil Coaters, Inc., (“K.B.P.”), and Kaycan Limited (“Kaycan”). The siding designed, manufactured, marketed, advertised, and sold by Defendants is fashioned such that it prematurely fails, causing peeling of the coating and other damage that diminishes the value of the structures owned by the Plaintiffs. Defects present in the siding are so severe that Plaintiffs must repair or replace their siding, causing damage to the Plaintiffs’ structures during the restoration process. Plaintiffs allege the following:
- As a direct result of negligence, Plaintiffs suffered actual damages from the purchase and installation of Defendants’ siding on their homes, residences, buildings, and other structures.
- Defendants failed to honor the express warranty, which guaranteed that the siding was purchased with the inclusion of a “Lifetime Non-Prorated Transferable Limited Warranty.” Defendants expressly warranted that the structural integrity of the siding purchased by the Plaintiffs would last a lifetime.
- Defendants breached their implied warranty, in that the siding was unfit for its particular purpose – to provide durable, long-lasting, suitable protection. Similarly, Defendants breached their contracts with Plaintiffs for not appropriately repairing of replacing defects with the siding.
- Defendants possessed the resources and information necessary to determine that the siding was defective. Consumers have previously issued complaints with Defendants, attesting that the siding was uniformly defective and subject to premature wear. As such, Defendants willfully, falsely, and knowingly misrepresented the quality of their siding.
- Defendants violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act, which precludes conduct such as omitting or concealing facts from Plaintiffs regarding the quality, characteristics, benefits, and/or uses of the siding. The omissions were likely to deceive consumers into purchasing the siding.
- Defendants continue to employ these deceptive practices.
Plaintiffs seek to recover the costs of repair, including the damage to their property and replacing their siding; the costs of litigation, including attorneys’ fees and expenses; and injunctive relief requiring Defendants to replace defective siding and amend their warranty claims process. Additionally, Plaintiffs ask that Defendants re-audit and reassess all prior warranty claims as well as establish an inspection program and protocol to determine if siding failures have manifested.
This case was filed in 2013 in federal court for the Eastern District of Washington. In December 2015, the Court granted summary judgment to defendants on all claims. Plaintiff appealed that order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and it is expected that oral argument will take place in early 2018.
Case Contact Information
Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC
Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca
Audet & Partners
Lockridge Grindal Nauen, PLLP
Robert K. Shelquist, Admitted Pro Hac Vice
Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP
Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman
Charles Schaffer, Admitted Pro Hac Vice