Sherwin-Williams Class Action Says Deck Resurfacers Crack, Peel, Bubble

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.

An Illinois woman says Sherwin-Williams deck resurfacing products under the Duckback and SuperDeck brands fail to perform as advertised, leaving the homeowner on the hook for repair and refinishing costs.

Plaintiff Regan Sluder takes issue with the performance of three Sherwin-Williams products: SuperDeck Deck and Dock Coating, Duckback Deck & Dock Elastomeric Coating, and Duckback Deck and Dock Solid Coating.

Defendant Sherwin-Williams acquired the Duckback brand of products in September 2013, Sluder says. The SuperDeck line was introduced in 2015. Sluder says the Sherwin-Williams branded SuperDeck product is identical to the Duckback product.

Both products are used to create a weather-resistant coating on the surface of outdoor wood and concrete surfaces. Sluder says they are marketed to do-it-yourselfers who want to save money by repairing or restoring their outdoor deck and dock surfaces, instead of replacing them.

Promotional materials for the Duckback products claim they can “withstand[] extreme climates and temperature changes” and have the flexibility to adjust to expansion and contraction of the surfaces they’re applied to. Sherwin-Williams says the products can be used to fill cracks up to 1/4 inch wide and to lock down wood splinters for a smoother, more walkable surface.

But according to Sluder, the Duckback and SuperDeck products fail to perform as advertised. The failure creates additional repair or replacement expenses for the property owner, she claims.

“[C]ontrary to Defendants’ representations and illusory guarantees and warranties, the Products are plagued by design flaws that invariably result in peeling, cracking, and bubbling once exposed to the elements,” the Sherwin-Williams class action claims. These alleged defects expose both the products and the deck surface beneath them to the elements, making both of them degrade faster.

The Duckback and SuperDeck class action lawsuit quotes over a dozen negative online product reviews from consumers who say the products failed. Reviewers say they tried all manner of methods to get the products to work – sanding, pressure washing, application both with and without primers, and the like. Yet many report the products began to peel and flake away within a year, and sometimes as early as a few weeks.

Sluder further claims the instructions supplied with Duckback and SuperDeck products are inadequate. Sherwin-Williams allegedly fails to instruct purchasers that their decks must be thoroughly prepared for application of the products by scraping, sanding and cleaning away all old finishes and weathered wood.

Without giving proper prep work instructions, Sherwin-Williams “virtually guaranteed the Products would fail to adhere to the severely weathered wood decks to which they claimed the Products would bring new life,” Sluder claims.

Sluder also says the express warranty that Sherwin-Williams offers on Duckback and SuperDeck products fail to make customers whole. For both products, the company offers only a replacement product or a refund of the purchase price. Sluder points out this warranty fails to reimburse the consumer for the cost of removing the products and repairing the damaged surfaces beneath them.

Sluder is proposing a plaintiff Class that would include all U.S. residents who within the applicable statutory limitations period own a home where Duckback or SuperDeck was applied.

She seeks a damage award that would include treble and punitive damages, restitution of related revenues, and reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and costs of litigation.

Sluder’s attorneys are Edward A. Wallace and Richard L. Miller II of Wexler Wallace LLP, Daniel K. Bryson and Patrick M. Wallace of Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, Gregory F. Coleman of Greg Coleman Law PC, and Christopher Jennings of Johnson Firm.

The Sherwin-Williams Duckback and SuperDeck Defective Product Class Action Lawsuit is Sluder v. The Sherwin-Williams Co., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01121, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.