PHILADELPHIA – A local building products manufacturer is seeking to recoup multimillion-dollar damages from a polymer-producing company that allegedly provided it with a faulty compound and made the plaintiff’s siding inadequate.
CertainTeed Corporation of Malvern filed suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on Oct. 13 versus Ravago Americas, LLC of Orlando, Fla.
On or about May 20, 2004, CertainTeed and H. Muehlstein & Co., Inc. (a predecessor to the defendant) entered into a three-year contract where Ravago agreed to supply and CertainTeed agreed to purchase, the chemical compound that CertainTeed used to manufacture its siding, the suit says. The contract was eventually extended through Dec. 31, 2011, the suit says.
During that entire time period, May 2004 to December 2011, Ravago was the primary and exclusive supplier to CertainTeed for mineral-filled polypropylene compound in various colors. However, the suit asserts the compound was chemically flawed and rife with defects. These defects would lead the siding to unevenly or excessively fade when exposed to environmental conditions over a period of time, the suit says.
Over the 2004-2011 contract period, a number of warranty claims for the defective siding were submitted to CertainTeed which totaled in excess of $1 million, a figure the plaintiff says is only expected to increase as a result of the defendant’s defective chemical compound not failing until being exposed to the elements for a number of years.
For counts of breach of contract (warranty and indemnity), the plaintiff is seeking damages in an amount to be determined at trial that CertainTeed has paid to consumers for warranty claims relating to excessive and/or uneven fading of the siding made with the compound; for future amounts that CertainTeed will pay to consumers for warranty claims relating to excessive and/or uneven fading of the siding made with the compound; for lost sales and harm to business reputation, in an amount to be determined at trial; for CertainTeed’s time and materials costs in producing the siding containing the compound; for expenses incurred in processing warranty claims and investigating the defects in the compound, in an amount to be determined at trial; compensatory damages for pre and post-judgment interest, attorney’s fees and costs as determined by the Court and such other relief, as the Court deems just and proper.
The plaintiff is represented by Robert L. Hickok and Alexander L. Harris of Pepper Hamilton, in Philadelphia.
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 171001741
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at firstname.lastname@example.org