Fluidmaster Faces Class Action Over Bursting ‘NO-BURST’ Lines

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Last week, a class action lawsuit was filed against Fluidmaster Inc. alleging that their “NO-BURST” braided stainless steel supply lines routinely rupture and burst due to a defective design

Lead plaintiff Kevin Smith alleges in his class action lawsuit that Fluidmaster breached warranties, was negligent, violated consumer protection laws and unlawfully profited from the sale of the defective supply lines.

“These NO-BURST water supply lines burst because Fluidmaster uses an inferior grade of stainless steel that is susceptible to corrosion from everyday household cleaners that are expected to be used and stored in close proximity to the water supply lines,” Smith alleges in his class action lawsuit.

According to the NO-BURST class action lawsuit, Fluidmaster designed, manufactured, and marketed water supply for use with common household fixtures including faucets, toilets, and dishwashers. Smith alleges that water supply lines contain certain latent defects that make them unfit for their intended purpose.

“Fluidmaster used inadequate low-pressure flexible rubber tubing that easily bursts if the stainless steel braiding intended to protect the tubing corrodes from ordinary exposure to water, air, and household products,” the Fluidmaster class action lawsuit alleges.

According to the class action lawsuit, Fluidmaster changed the design of its NO-BURST waterlines in 2003 to address the design defect the plaintiff alleges.

“NO-BURST Lines using defective materials, however, are still being sold and installed in residential and commercial buildings across the country,”Smith contends in the Fluidmaster class action lawsuit. “The defects associated with Fluidmaster NO-BURST water supply lines are so severe that these water supply lines must be removed and discarded sooner than reasonably expected.”

Smith says that he and the proposed Class suffered damages because of the alleged defect in the NO-BURST waterlines. Additionally, “Plaintiff and the Class have suffered harm as a result of Fluidmaster’s actions because their water supply lines contained design defects that caused the water supply lines to rupture and burst, causing harm not only to the water supply lines, but also to other real and personal property,” the Fluidmaster class action lawsuit alleges.

Further, “because of the flooding that actually has or will occur due to the defects described herein, there is a serious risk of harm in the event the flooding takes place in areas where electrical outlets, appliances, and related household items could cause electrocution to anyone who may come into contact with or near those items as water is an electrical conductor,” the Fluidmaster class action lawsuit continues.

Smith seeks to represent a nationwide Class of consumers who purchased Fluidmaster’s NO-BURST waterlines, as well as a California subclass. He also seeks damages and attorney fees as well as an injunction or order for equitable relief from the court.

Smith is represented by Christopher Pitoun of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

The Fluidmaster Bursting NO-BURST Pipes Class Action Lawsuit is Kevin Smith v. Fluidmaster Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-2173, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division.