CertainTeed Class Action Says Vinyl Siding is Defective

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.

CertainTeed Corp. and its parent company, Saint-Gobain Corp., were hit with a class action lawsuit alleging the vinyl siding produced by the companies is defective.

Lead plaintiffs allege in their class action lawsuit that vinyl siding sold under the brand name “CertainTeed” blisters and degrades under normal use. The class action includes pictures of warped and wavy siding on the plaintiffs’ houses.

The plaintiffs claim the CertainTeed vinyl siding on their homes began to degrade, blister, warp, melt and deform; however, when the plaintiffs contacted the company, they were allegedly told the company would not perform repairs because the damage was caused by “heat distortion” from glass reflection.

“CertainTeed vinyl siding fails to conform to the public’s reasonable expectation of the product’s durability and longevity, and the company’s promise of ‘Quality made certain, satisfaction guaranteed,’” the CertainTeed class action lawsuit states.

The plaintiffs, residents of various states, including New Work, Florida, Minnesota, Main, South Carolina, Texas, and Tennessee, allege that CertainTeed vinyl was marketed to them as able to withstand the extremes of weather and atmosphere. They also note that the siding comes with a lifetime warranty that is transferable to other owners.

“Defendants’ vinyl siding warranty provides that if CertainTeed determines, in its sole discretion, that its siding products have a manufacturing defect under the terms of the warranty, defendants will either (1) pay to repair, replace, refinish, or coat any siding product it determines has a manufacturing defect, or (2) refund the amount paid by the original property owner for the siding products plus the cost of the labor of the original installation,” states the lawsuit.

According to the CertainTeed class action, the manufacturer is responsible for the damage caused to their siding under the terms of their warranty.

“The CertainTeed Limited Lifetime Warranty provides warranty coverage against manufacturing defects, including but not limited to ‘blistering,” allege the plaintiffs. “The Warranty also covers damage caused to the vinyl siding by ‘normal exposure conditions,’ and in its Limitations section, makes no mention of any warranty exclusion relating to non-flame heat from any source. The Warranty specifically contemplates that the vinyl siding will be subject to ‘exposure to sunlight and extremes of weather and atmosphere.’”

Further, say the plaintiffs, the makers of CertainTeed vinyl siding never verified that the damage was caused by any additional source of heat or reflections off glass. Nor were the plaintiffs warned against installing the siding where glass would reflect, alleges the class action lawsuit. Additionally, argue the plaintiffs, it shouldn’t matter that the damage was caused by reflected sunlight – reflected sunlight is a normal condition the siding should be able to handle without deforming.

“CertainTeed Saint-Gobain’s denial that its vinyl siding is defective as a result of melting or distortion from sunlight reflecting off windows or other building materials fails the essential purpose of the warranty, i.e., that the siding is free from defects under normal exposure condition,” alleges the CertainTeed class action.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide Class of people who own homes or other structures with CertainTeed vinyl siding, along with subclasses of several states.

The lawsuit seeks damages along with an injunction stopping CertainTeed from falsely marketing the vinyl siding as durable in all weather.

The plaintiffs are represented by Donald W. Boyajian and James R. Peluso of Dreyer Boyajian LLP.

The CertainTeed Vinyl Siding Class Action Lawsuit is Chizniak, et al. v. CertainTeed Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:17-CV-1075, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.