Owens Corning Oakridge Shingles Lawsuit Update
The Owens Corning Oakridge Shingles lawsuit was resolved in the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, California. Plaintiffs-appellate attorneys representing the National League of Building Construction and Associe were represented by the firm of Skaff, Becker, Roth & Hacker, PC. The court accepted into whole or in part, the judgment as to defendant-appellant Environmental Services Management (ESM) of maintaining a system of inadequate permitting which caused the construction of the challenged homes in question to be placed beyond the warranty of right. Judgment was also awarded to the National League of Building Construction and Associe against defendant-appellant Owens Corning for alleged violations of Fannie Mae’s subdivision policy governing building construction.
Owens Corning Oakridge Shingles Lawsuit
The parties had filed their case in June 2021, seeking a decision from the court regarding the merits of the complaint. A three-judge panel of the court held an eight-week bench hearing to determine the case’s validity. After deliberation, the court affirmed the order and ruled in favor of plaintiffs. The case is one of several involving defective design of replacement shingles on homes in Los Angeles, which were ultimately settled.
At the time of filing the lawsuit, plaintiffs-appellate attorneys were represented by Skaff, Becker, Roth & Hacker, PC. The National League of Building Construction and Associe was represented by attorney Rayburn Lehman.
The court granted the plaintiffs-appellants, on review, the right to pursue damages on account of the negligent nature of the design of the replacement roof shingles in question. Although the National League of Building Construction and Associe’s was found liable for negligently permitting its insured subcontractor to construct the replacement roof shingles without ensuring that the work complied with applicable codes, the court did not address other issues arising out of the construction of the replacement roof shingles. The court left the issue to the jury to determine.
While the lawsuit was pending, the National League of Building Construction and Associe’s was attempting to amend its warranty policy for its contractors, offering to provide a broader warranty protection.
However, the plaintiffs-appellant still lost their motion to renew their lawsuit after having been denied on an initial round of discovery. Subsequently, in August 2021, the plaintiffs-appellant filed a Notice of Default, which effectively gives the National League of Building Construction and Associe’s permission to proceed with the case. This was after the court had failed to set a date for a jury trial, setting aside the case until a possible resolution in January 2021.
At the time of filing the lawsuit, plaintiffs had only a contractual warranty for the workmanship of the roof.
This should have been noted on the original purchase contract for the replacement roof that provided the warranty rights. The problem, however, is that the purchasers did not rely solely on the warranty when they decided to hire Roofers. The warranty was simply a mere assurance that the work was performed under the proper and adequate supervision.
During the discovery process, many of the plaintiffs discovered that the National League of Building Construction and Associe’s had actually hired a company to build the warranty claim after discovering that the warranty would be voided if the roof was not done by a specified date.
The reason the warranty was not to hold up was because the shingles and my rock used in the design of the replacement roof are not a part of the original installation contract. The warranty only covered materials and labor to repair or correct problems. In this instance, the warranty was found to have been violated when the warranty was not enforceable.
The Owens Corning Oakridge Shingles lawsuit was resolved in the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, California. Plaintiffs-appellate attorneys representing the National League of Building Construction and Associe were represented by the firm of Skaff, Becker, Roth & Hacker, PC. The court accepted into whole or in part, the judgment as to defendant-appellant Environmental Services…