IKO Class Action Claims Shingles Warranty is Critically Flawed

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.

A leading manufacturer of organic-based shingles is facing a potential class action lawsuit over claims that the company’s “warranty” system is critically flawed.

IKO Manufacturing Inc. sells organic-based or matted shingles under various brand names across the U.S. including: Chateau, Renaissance XL, Aristocrat, Total, Armour Seal, Superplus, Armour Lock, Royal Victorian, New Englander, Imperial Seal, Cathedral XL, Ultralock 25, Armour Plus 20, Armour Tite, Ultra Shadow, Cathedral XL, Crowne 30, Vista, Supreme, and Skyline.

According to the class action lawsuit, IKO markets its shingles with either a 25-year warranty or a 50-year warranty but “they fail prematurely.”

“The Shingles have not stood the test of time and, due to early and severe deterioration requiring premature tear-off and replacement, have not delivered the promised usable life,” the lawsuit states.

However, the class action lawsuit alleges that IKO’s warranty process is designed to discourage people from exercising their warranty.

“IKO will not consider a warranty claim until the claimant submits all of the following information to the company: (a) proof of purchase of an IKO product indicating the type of shingle and quantity; (b) proof that the claimiant is the owner of the home; (c) the date the shingle was applied; (d) the number shingles applies; (f) the number of shingles involved in the claim; (g) the type of roof deck; (h) the number of layers of shingles on the roof deck; (i) the slope of the roof deck; (j) the number of vents on the roof; (k) photographs of the roof not taken with a digital camera; and (l) two full shingle samples (which require a roofing professional to carefully remove in-service shingles from the claimant’s roof),” the lawsuit states.

The IKO shingles lawsuit further alleges that even if a person manages to fulfill the terms of the warranty, they are required to sign a “Goodwill Release” in exchange for cash compensation. The complaint holds that the “Goodwill Release” is phrased as a legal compromise and that IKO treats every warrant claim as a settled dispute rather than a warranty claim proper.

The lawsuit states that IKO’s compensation does not cover the full cost of replacement shingles, labor, and other costs associated with replacing the allegedly-defective shingles.

The IKO class action holds that IKO is aware—or reasonably should be aware—of the alleged defects with their shingles. The suit further claims that IKO shingles can cause roof damage, though it may take years for the damage to reach the point where homeowners notice it.

According to the shingles lawsuit, instead of addressing the problem, IKO instead tries to bury warranty complaints in bureaucracy.

If approved, the IKO class action lawsuit would be open to all Class Members in New York who have IKO shingles installed on a structure they own.

The plaintiff and proposed Class are represented by Charles J. Laduca and Brendan S. Thompson of Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP; Robert K. Shelquist and Scott Moriarity of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP.

The IKO Defective Shingles Class Action Lawsuit is Kevin Brown v. IKO Manufacturing Inc., et al., Case No. 16-cv-436, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York.

UPDATE: On Oct. 4, 2018, customers seek approval for a $30 million settlement that would resolve multidistrict litigation claiming that IKO Manufacturing’s roof shingles deteriorate earlier than the company says they will.