Should You File a Fluidmaster Lawsuit?

Many consumers have found that a component of their home toilets has failed and, as a result, has caused property damage to their homes. Allegations like these are at the heart of a recent class action Fluidmaster lawsuit filed against the Fluidmaster company.

The Fluidmaster No-Burst toilet connector is a flexible hose that supplies the toilet with water by connecting the shut-off valve to the toilet tank. It uses a plastic coupling nut to attach itself to the toilet.

Homeowners report this plastic coupling nut has been failing, even though Fluidmaster claims that it is heavy duty and gives it a ten year warranty.

Fluidmaster claims to be a world leader in toilet repair and plumbing products. However, when their Fluidmaster No-Burst toilet connector fails, it allows unrestricted water flow into the home which can cause damage to the property.

Because the Fluidmaster plastic coupling nut is made of the polymer acetal, critics wonder if this component is actually able to function as it was designed. Allegedly, acetal is prone to fail under stress, and the plastic coupling nut may not be able to withstand normal force.

Because many consumers have suffered leaks and property damage as a result of the No-Burst toilet connector actually failing, some have filed a Fluidmaster lawsuit.

In fact, thousands of warranty claims from customers regarding property damage have been reported to Fluidmaster. Many of these homeowners may end up as Class Members in a class action Fluidmaster lawsuit.

Plaintiffs claim the company knew that their No-Burst toilet connectors were prone to failure after installation. Some report that as early as 2003, Fluidmaster knew that an alternative product was available for use as that could have protected consumers.

Purportedly, Fluidmaster also knew about the possible defects in the coupling nuts in their No-Burst toilet connectors in 2000, yet did nothing to warn customers or remove their product from the market.

Additionally, it is claimed that Fluidmaster could have switched to a different design of the plastic coupling nut or they could have fixed the design flaw. Many plaintiffs who file a Fluidmaster lawsuit believe that Fluidmaster should have replaced the defective components with this mroe durable design.

But instead, Fluidmaster hid its knowledge of the defect, plaintiffs claim. They allegedly continued to advertise and market their Fluidmaster No-Burst toilet connector as if there were no defects.

Later on, Fluidmaster did fix their initial design and changed the plastic material. However, plaintiffs claim that Fluidmaster never notified their customers of the change.

Plaintiffs claim that by failing to notify customers of the reported problems, Fluidmaster left consumers at risk for a substantial loss in property damage.

If you have suffered property damage as a result of a faulty Fluidmaster toilet connector, you may be eligible to file a Fluidmaster lawsuit.