Allura, Plycem, Elementia Facing Class Action Over Allegedly Defective Fiber Cement Siding [UPDATE]
Last Updated on January 21, 2021
Luongo v. Allura USA LLC et al.
Filed: January 22, 2019 ◆§ 1:19-cv-10143
Fiber cement siding manufacturers face a proposed class action that alleges their product is inherently defective and not fit for use on the exterior of buildings.
Allura USA LLC Plycem USA LLC Allura Elementia USA, Inc. Elementia, S.A. DE C.V. Plycem USA, Inc.
Massachusetts
Case Updates
January 21, 2021 – Allura Siding Settlement Website Is Live; Register Today
Certain owners of single-family homes equipped with Allura fiber cement siding may be entitled to a piece of a recent settlement that resolves the class action lawsuit detailed on this page.
While claims cannot be filed just yet, eligible consumers can register with the settlement website at the link below for additional information and updates:
https://www.plycemsidingsettlement.com/register.php
Those who register will receive an email when the time comes to officially file a claim. If you have questions, the settlement administrator can be reached here.
The settlement, which was preliminarily approved by U.S. District Judge David C. Norton on December 18, 2020, will put an end to seven class action cases consolidated into multidistrict litigation in 2019.
Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.
Allura, Plycem USA, and Elementia USA are among the defendants in a proposed class action lawsuit in which a Massachusetts consumer claims fiber cement siding manufactured and sold by the companies is inherently defective. According to the 20-page complaint, the defendants’ siding is prone to “cracking, splitting, and breakage,” which can create paths that allow for water and moisture to seep in and damage a building upon which the siding is installed. The lawsuit, which looks to cover a class of Massachusetts consumers, outright alleges the defendants’ siding, advertised by the companies as offering protection for up to 50 years, is not suitable for use as an exterior building product.
The case traces the alleged defects in the defendants’ siding to the companies’ use of excessive fly ash—rather than common grain and silica used by other siding makers—as an ingredient in its manufacture. According to the lawsuit, the fly ash, a byproduct of coal-burning power plants that’s cheaper than cement, became unevenly distributed throughout the siding during the manufacturing process. The defendants’ decision to use an excessive amount fly ash, the lawsuit alleges, resulted in the siding becoming brittle and overly porous, issues that would not have arisen had the companies’ used grain and silica sand formulations.
As the plaintiff tells it, the defendants “knew or reasonably should have known” their siding was defectively designed and manufactured such that the product fails prematurely.
Before commenting, please review our comment policy.