122 Separate Defense Verdicts After 13 Week Trial on Product Liability Claims Against Window Manufacturer

October 1, 2002

In a product liability suit involving a 160 single-family housing project and multiple subcontractors, after a 13-week jury trial with over 70 witnesses, more than 1,000 exhibits and a plaintiff request that the jury award $10 million for window defects, Hugh J. Grant and Victor A. Lee successfully defensed 122 plaintiffs' claims of product liability against Weather Shield Mfg., Inc, a window manufacturer.

Tried in an Orange County courtroom, the jury returned 122 general verdicts in favor of Weather Shield by a vote of 12-0, which gave Weather Shield a complete defense verdict. It also awarded about $1 million to the plaintiffs from Darrow the Framing Corporation ("Darrow"), a co-defendant, for structural defects. There were 123 separate verdicts in all, which took almost 3 hours for the court clerk to read. Following the verdicts, the jurors explained that they felt Weather Shield's warranty adequately covered the window issues and that the plaintiffs exceeded their statute of limitations in bringing suit.

In 1989, J.M. Peters, Inc. ("JMP") developed a housing project in Huntington Beach consisting of 160 single-family homes. During construction, Darrow was hired to install windows in each home, approximately 5,000 windows total. Weather Shield manufactured the wood windows that were installed. Plaintiffs and developer alleged that the wood windows had two problems: they leaked and they "fogged", meaning the insulated glass became condensed.

Destructive testing took place at 15 homes in November 2002. Depositions of all homeowners were taken, with most of them testifying to minor-to-moderate fogging on some of the insulated glass panes in their windows. Some testified that the fogging was insignificant to them and that they would simply close the blinds on the windows when they fogged. Some plaintiffs testified to some minor interior water intrusion with staining on the interior walls and/or carpet. Most, if not all, of the plaintiffs complained to JMP, which has made several attempts to fix the windows by applying caulk around the windows. JMP also made pre-litigation repairs to the roofs.

Four plaintiff suits were consolidated for trial and JMP cross-complained against Weather Shield and Darrow for Indemnity, Contribution, and Express Indemnity based upon subcontracts for the three phases of the project. Before trial, plaintiffs settled with JMP for $2.45 million in a Mary Carter sliding-scale settlement agreement. JMP paid $1 million and guaranteed another $1.45 million depending upon the outcome of trial. JMP in turn settled with all sub-contractors/cross-defendants (except for Weather Shield and Darrow) for $1.45 million and gave this amount to the plaintiffs. The joint Motion for Good Faith Settlement made by plaintiff, developer and all of the other settling subcontractors was granted by the court in November 2001. At trial, plaintiffs sought $12.5 million in damages from both defendants and JMP sought reimbursement of the $1 million it had paid to plaintiffs as part of its settlement, plus attorney's fees and costs.