Rust-Oleum Coating Suits Mount, Merge


Five U.S. homeowner lawsuits over the performance of a deck coating have been merged into multidistrict litigation in federal court in Chicago.

The homeowners, from five different states, are seeking class-action status for their case against Rust-Oleum Corp., a division of RPM International Inc.

A sixth lawsuit was underway in Illinois but was merged in November with another complaint, court papers say.

RustOleumRestore RustOleumRestore
Sullivan et al v Rust-Oleum Corp. et al.
David and Kathleen Sullivan submitted these photos of their deck and porch as part of their lawsuit against Rust-Oleum. The couple’s action is one of several alleging premature failure of Rust-Oleum Restore.

Rust-Oleum has said it “takes its customers’ satisfaction and the quality of its products very seriously,” but has declined to comment on the litigation.

Similar Complaints

For now, the fight over Rust-Oleum’s Deck & Concrete Restore product has been centralized in the Vernon Hills, IL-based company’s back yard: the Northern District of Illinois. The case Transfer Orderwas sought by Rust-Oleum, without objection from the homeowners.

All of the suits are similar, alleging that the deck and concrete resurfacing products sold under the Restore brand “are defective because they allegedly bubble, flake, chip, peel, or otherwise degrade prematurely, contrary to the representations in defendant’s marketing, labeling, and product warranty,” the order said.

Deck coating
Rust-Oleum Corp.
Rust-Oleum Corp.’s Deck & Concrete Restore was introduced in May 2013.

All of the homeowners say Rust-Oleum “knew or should have known of the purported defects.” All of the suits raise questions of fact that include:

  • The design, manufacture and testing of Restore products;
  • Representations made in the products’ marketing and labeling;
  • Rust-Oleum’s warranty policies and practices; and
  • The measure of damages.

“Additionally,” the order noted, “all actions are on behalf of overlapping putative nationwide and statewide classes of Restore consumers.”

The plaintiffs are seeking more than $5 million in compensatory and punitive damages. A Facebook group, Rust-Oleum Restore Users, has added fuel to the fire.

Court documents do not indicate how many Restore purchasers could potentially be affected by the case.

The Cadys

The October 2014 class-action complaint by Steve and Gina Cady, Scott Reinhart and John Riello of Pennsylvania is typical.

FacebookRestoreCommunity
Facebook
Disgruntled customers of Rust-Oleum Restore vented last year on Facebook, drawing 61 Likes.

Deck & Concrete Restore, a pre-mixed, water-based acrylic coating, was introduced in May 2013.  Rust-Oleum describe the products as “liquid-armor resurfacers” that “offer a high-performance, low-maintenance, long-lasting alternative to the endless cycle of repairing and repainting.”

Rust-Oleum says the paints are 10 times thicker than other paints; the products carried a lifetime warranty.

Persuaded by in-store product reps and advertising, the plaintiffs say, they purchased Restore in July and August 2013 for their home decks in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The product failed within a year, they say.

First-Day Failure

“Unfortunately,” the suit says, “the common failures with Restore paint require replacement far sooner than consumers reasonably expect.”

In fact, it alleges, Rust-Oleum’s “design and materials choices” for Restore “have created a product that begins to fail on its first day of use, even if perfectly used in its intended environment.”

The complaint says Restore products “contain serious design and manufacturing defects, making them susceptible to separating, cracking, bubbling, flaking, chipping and general degradation after application.”

Restore
Rust-Oleum Corp.
Plaintiffs said they found Rust-Oleum’s ads, in-store reps, product claims and lifetime warranty persuasive.

The plaintiffs allege a host of wrongs, including deceptive trade practics, negligence, breach of warranty, unjust enrichment and more.

Warranty Claims

Restore’s lifetime warranty promised “complete satisfaction with the performance of this product for as long as you own or reside in your home when the product has been applied according to the directions provided,” the Pennsylvania suit says, quoting the manufacturer.

However, Rust-Oleum has “failed to fully honor” its warranties and “failed to compensate” the plaintiffs, they say.

Rust-Oleum refunded two of the homeowners’ purchase price for the product but did not compensate them for the “damage and deterioration” to their deck, the plaintiffs say.

Removing the product is “a labor-intensive, expensive process,” the plaintiffs say. The paint contains crystalline silica, which requires precautions when sanding or abrading.

The homeowners thus want Rust-Oleum to pay for removing and replacing its product from “the homes, offices, buildings and other structures” of members of the proposed class.

Comments are closed.