Product Liability Cases
Certainteed – Product Defect
In re CertainTeed Corp. Roofing Shingle Products Liability Litigation, Civil Action No. 2:06-04243, MDL, No. 1817 (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
We have been appointed co-lead counsel in the defective roofing shingles litigation that is being prosecuted in a multi-district litigation forum centralized in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The lawsuits against CertainTeed were brought after a recent investigation relating to defects in the design, manufacture, advertising, and sale of several of its roofing shingle products. Along with about a dozen other similar suits, the lawsuits in which we represent the plaintiffs allege that the shingles fail to perform as marketed and that CertainTeed knowingly and intentionally concealed these defects. The suits also allege that CertainTeed had no intention of providing the services set forth in their warranties for these roofing shingles.
For additional information, please contact Charles J. LaDuca.
Entran II Litigation – Product Defect
Donato Galanti v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Civil Action No. 03-209 (SRC) (U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey)
We served as the sole lead counsel in this lawsuit involving the defective radiant heating hose known as Entran II. In 2003, the court certified a 44-state class and conditionally approved a $236 million settlement between The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company and former and present owners of property at which Entran II was installed. In 2004, the court expanded the settlement to include present and former Entran II property owners throughout the U.S. and Canada. In addition, the settlement fund was increased to over $322 million, making it one of the largest product defect recoveries in recent history. When the court gave final approval to the settlement, it noted that “the settlement is extraordinarily advantageous given the transaction costs which individual plaintiffs would have pursuing individual claims.” The court also remarked that the firm’s lawyers “impressed the Court with their professionalism and their talent.”
The deadline for present and former property owners to file claims in the
Settlement is October 19, 2009. Please visit: www.entraniisettlement.com for claim forms and general information about the Settlement.
For additional information, please contact Charles J. LaDuca.
Guidant – Product Defect
In re Guidant Corp Implantable Defibrillators Products Liability Litigation, Civil Action No. 0:05-01261 (D. MN), MDL No. 1708 (U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota; Panel on Multidistrict Litigation)
We filed a lawsuit against the Guidant Corporation on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of patients implanted with the Guidant Ventak Prizm defibrillator. The lawsuit alleges that Guidant misrepresented the safety of its defibrillators, which are subject to short circuiting and malfunctioning. The plaintiff and the class are seeking a declaratory judgment that Guidant is liable for all medical care and corrective surgery caused by Guidant’s alleged misconduct, as well as an award of damages.
For additional information, please contact Charles J. LaDuca.
Human Tissue – Product Defect
In re Human Tissue Liability Litigation, Civil Action No. 2:06-135 (D.N.J.), MDL No. 1763 (U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey; Panel on Multidistrict Litigation)
We have been appointed co-lead counsel in the tainted tissue litigation being prosecuted in a multi-district litigation forum centralized in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The case focuses on a surgical procedure known as an Allograf, which involves the surgical transplant of bone, skin, tendons, and other tissues from cadavers into patients. One million new Allografts are undertaken each year. We represent victims who received these Allografts or other transplants from corpses that did not have the required screening for certain infectious diseases. Hepatitis B and C, HIV, and syphilis are some of the diseases spread through this procedure.
Recently, a New Jersey tissue company, Biomedical Tissue Services, and its agents were indicted for illegally harvesting human tissue from corpses and selling the tissue throughout the U.S. without appropriate tissue monitoring to prevent the introduction, transmission, and spread of communicable diseases. As a result, patients/victims throughout the country have received recall notices from the FDA and their medical providers informing them that they may have received illegally harvested tissue and body parts during surgery. The FDA is concerned that the untested body parts and tissues may subject patients to the risk of HIV, hepatitis, and other infectious diseases.
For additional information, please contact Jonathan W. Cuneo or Charles J. LaDuca.
Kitec – Product Defect
Melvin Burn v. IPEX, INC., and IPEX USA, LLC, Civil Action No. 08-CA-0640 (W.D. TX), (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas)
We filed a lawsuit against IPEX, INC. and IPEX USA, LLC on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of property owners with defective Kitec plumbing systems. The Kitec plumbing system is subject to failure, causing severe damage to homes, offices and other buildings. Brass fittings used to connect lengths of pipe are particularly prone to dezincification, which restricts water flow and causes the pipes to become pressurized. The pressurized pipes eventually leak resulting in water damage that requires removal and/or replacement of the entire Kitec plumbing system. The lawsuit alleges that IPEX falsely claims the Kitec plumbing system is safe, reliable, corrosion-resistant and virtually maintenance free. The lawsuit also alleges that IPEX refuses to honor their purported 30-year warranty. The plaintiff and the class are seeking a declaratory judgment that IPEX is liable for all cost of removing and replacing the Kitec plumbing system, as well as other related consequential damage that resulted from defective brass fitting that have failed.
For additional information, please contact Charles J. LaDuca.
Zurn – Product Defect
In re Zurn Pex Plumbing Products Liability Litigation, Civil Action No. 08-cv-1681 (D. MN), MDL No. 1958 (U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota; Panel on Multidistrict Litigation)
We filed a lawsuit against Zurn Pex, Inc. and Zurn Industries LLP on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of property owners with a defective Zurn Plumbing system with cross-linked Pex tubing and brass fittings. The Zurn Plumbing System is subject to failure, causing severe damage to homes, offices and other buildings. The Zurn Plumbing System was designed to carry tap water as well as in-floor hot water heating systems. Brass fittings used to connect lengths of pipe are particularly prone to leaking, resulting in water damage that eventually requires removal and/or replacement of the entire Zurn Plumbing System. The lawsuit alleges that Zurn misrepresented the Zurn Plumbing System as “worry free” and Zurn refuses to honor their purported 25-year warranty. The plaintiff and the class are seeking a declaratory judgment that Zurn is liable for all cost of removing and replacing the Zurn Plumbing System, as well as other related consequential damage that resulted from defective brass fitting that have failed.
For additional information, please contact Charles J. LaDuca.
Idaho Field Burning – Environmental Damage
Moon v. NIFA, CV 02-3890 (Idaho District Court, Kootenai County)
Mr. Walton, while at another firm, was class counsel in a suit brought on behalf of residents of North Idaho who suffer from various pulmonary diseases against the State of Idaho and blue grass farmers who annually burn their fields to remove the unwanted stubble. The suit alleges that the practice endangers the health of those with respiratory conditions and constitutes a taking of private property without compensation. After a preliminary injunction was obtained and later vacated by the Idaho Supreme Court, and after the State enacted legislation specifically immunizing the farmers from all liability for field burning, a monetary settlement was approved in 2006.
For additional information, please contact R. Brent Walton.