An Illinois consumer has filed a proposed class action that takes issue with certain Duckback and SuperDeck resurfacing products, claiming they fail to live up to their advertised claims of durability and begin to flake and bubble 'within months.'
An Illinois consumer has recently filed a proposed class action that takes issue with certain Duckback and SuperDeck resurfacing products, claiming they fail to live up to their advertised claims of durability. The suit names The Sherwin-Williams Company and The Sherwin-Williams Manufacturing Company, USA as defendants, alleging the manufacturers deceived consumers into paying a premium price for wood treatment products that begin to flake and bubble within months of application.
The case names the following allegedly defective products:
Duckback Deck & Dock Elastomeric Coating
Duckback Deck and Dock Solid Coating
SuperDeck Deck and Dock Coating
According to the complaint, the products are marketed toward consumers who are “hoping to save time and money by repairing and revitalizing – rather than replacing – their existing decks and docks.” The defendants’ advertising touts the products’ durability, promising they will be able to weather “extreme climates and temperature changes” while filling in cracked wood and waterproofing outside surfaces, the suit says.
Instead, the plaintiff alleges, the defendants’ products are “plagued by design flaws” and are prone to “peeling, cracking, and bubbling once exposed to the elements,” leaving customers’ decks in worse condition than before the products were applied.
Further, the case argues the defendants’ instructions for application are “insufficient” and fail to advise customers that thorough sanding and cleaning are necessary to ensure the product will adhere to the deck’s surface. Moreover, the suit continues, “film-forming” finishes like the coatings at issue should not be used on deck surfaces in the first place and are “virtually guaranteed” to fail.
Therefore, the lawsuit claims, the defendants were aware that the resurfacing products would not live up to their representations but charged a premium price and subjected customers to the added costs of repairing or replacing their decks.