Window Manufacturers Successful in Construction Defect Trial

October 1, 2003

Tom E. Dias successfully defended Rolleze, Inc. and Robert H. Panman successfully defended California Windows Corporation, in a complex construction defect action involving 102 homeowners. Plaintiffs' experts alleged that the windows installed in the 102 single-family homes were defective and needed to be replaced. Rolleze products were installed in 39 of the homes, while California Windows Corp. products were installed in 15 of the 102 homes. The plaintiffs argued that the windows did not have a sufficiently high rating for the homes.

On behalf of their respective clients, Mr. Dias and Mr. Panman argued that the windows were in fact, properly rated and that there was no evidence that the window products were defective when they were delivered to the job site.

The plaintiffs' case went to the jury against the developer, roofers, framers, stucco subcontractors, window manufacturers and garage door manufacturers. Plaintiffs asked the jury to return a verdict of 7.5 million dollars, while the defense argued the case had a value of approximately 1 million dollars. The demand to Rolleze was more than $400,000, while the demand to California Windows was in excess of $200,000. During the course of the trial, Plaintiffs abandoned their claims for personal injury from exposure to mold.

Prior to trial, the judge dismissed two Rolleze homeowners and three California Windows homeowners. Cases against the remaining 37 Rolleze homeowners and 12 California Windows Corp. homeowners went to jury.

After three and a half months of trial and another four weeks of deliberation, the jury returned a defense verdict in favor of Rolleze on 16 homes and awarded plaintiffs damages in the sum of $8,640.00 (inclusive of Stearman costs) against Rolleze for the remaining 21 homes.

California Windows received a full defense verdict on eight of the homes. On the remaining four, plaintiffs were awarded $1,550.00. Plaintiffs' total recovery on all issues, against all defendants, was $771,955.00 (inclusive of Stearman costs).

After speaking with jurors, the defense learned that the jury found no defect with the window product and only awarded damages against Rolleze and California Windows for water intrusion at sliding glass doors (which Rolleze and California Windows both manufactured and installed) and for fogging of some dual glazed windows. The jury determined that the framing and stucco subcontractors were 100% responsible for water intrusion at all other windows due to defective installation.

"This was a terrific verdict. There is a strong belief amongst the industry that settlements in these cases no longer reflect the true value of the claim and instead are driven by the cost of defending a case of this magnitude through trial. This verdict sends a message that insurance carriers can and will successfully try these cases, which will result in evidence based settlement negotiations as opposed to settlement discussions based on defense costs," said Mr. Dias.