A proposed class action lawsuit alleges CertainTeed’s Horizon asphalt fiberglass roofing shingles are plagued by design and manufacturing defects that cause cracking, fishmouthing, curling, degranulating, and premature deterioration. The alleged defects, the 38-page complaint out of Pennsylvania claims, can lead to water intrusion and other property damage.
While defendant CertainTeed Corporation maintains on its website that it produces premium, high-quality roofing products that provide “long-lasting beauty and protection” for every size and style of home, the lawsuit alleges the company’s “Horizon” line of shingles, made with a fiberglass base mat coated with asphalt surface granules, consistently fails before the expected end of its lifespan. According to the complaint, CertainTeed’s Horizon shingles “routinely” crack, curl, fishmouth, leak and degranulate far before the expiration of their warranty periods, and continue to do so at a rapid rate due to what the plaintiff alleges are “resiliency and durability defects.” The apparent defects, the case claims, are not evident to typical consumers upon purchase of the product.
Apparent product defects aside, the lawsuit centers on CertainTeed’s alleged handling of warranty claims submitted by consumers whose homes are outfitted with Horizon shingles. With regard to the plaintiff, the case states the man purchased in 2008 a newly constructed home outfitted with CertainTeed Horizon shingles. According to the suit, the plaintiff’s home was one of at least 25 homes in a planned development that were also constructed with the defendant’s shingles.
The lawsuit claims the plaintiff first became aware of the apparent issues with CertainTeed’s Horizon shingles when he received a May 2017 letter from his neighborhood’s developer. According to the suit, the letter stated the developer, following the sale of a home in the same neighborhood, learned the Horizon shingles were losing granules and cracking, which necessitated the replacement of the roof. The letter further relayed that CertainTeed was notified of the granule loss and shingle cracking, and that the company’s roofing inspectors claimed the roofs on the houses they looked at experienced no such problems. The case says the plaintiff’s home was one identified by the developer as reportedly not experiencing granule loss or cracking.
After hearing nothing for three months, the plaintiff, the lawsuit continues, wrote to a CertainTeed technical sales representative with regard to the status of the warranty claim the man believed the developer had submitted on behalf of the homeowners with Horizon shingles in the neighborhood. When no response came, the plaintiff, according to the suit, wrote directly to CertainTeed’s President of Roofing, notifying him of the 25 homes in his development outfitted with possibly defective Horizon shingles. The plaintiff, the complaint says, asked for help with processing his warranty claim because, as he saw it, the information he received from CertainTeed to that point was “both incomplete and confusing.”
After testing done by CertainTeed in late summer 2017, the company allegedly informed the plaintiff that his warranty claim had been denied, reasoning that the issue the man reported was restricted to only the “overlay” portion of shingles and that any aging displayed by the product was normal and did not threaten the integrity or waterproofing of the roof. Although CertainTeed denied his claim, the plaintiff says the company offered three settlement options in the form of a five-year warranty extension, a $750 cash payment based on the time remaining on his warranty and value of the product or, in lieu of cash, replacement of the product with the defendant’s Landmark line of shingles.
The final two settlement options—the cash payment and the shingles replacement—required the plaintiff to execute a general release through which he would release all claims related to the purchase and installation of CertainTeed Horizon shingles on his home, the lawsuit alleges. As the plaintiff tells it, estimates to repair or replace his roof were in excess of $7,500.
The plaintiff alleges CertainTeed knowingly and intentionally concealed or failed to disclose that it had no intention of providing the services outlined in its warranties. Though the company had ample notice of the supposed deficiencies with its Horizon shingles, CertainTeed has effectively ignored consumers’ complaints and concerns while implementing no changes to the product to remedy the alleged defects. The plaintiff argues proposed class members have incurred costly damage not only to their roofs, but to underlying structures beneath and near where CertainTeed’s Horizon shingles were installed.