in the united states district court for the district of...
Post on 28-Jul-2020
2 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
IN RE: MI WINDOWS AND DOORS, INC. ) MDL NO: 2333
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION ) C.A. No. 2:12-mn-00001-DCN
) ALL CASES
MASTER ADMINISTRATIVE CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs Nadine Johnson, Jennifer C. Zambriczki, David R. Van Such, Craig
Hildebrand, Joseph DeBlaker, Mike and Janeen Meifert, Manzoor and Sosi Wani, Timothy and
Johanna Nash, David Deem, John W. McCubbrey and Elizabeth D. McCubbrey, Daniel
Kennedy, Charles Bradley, Jennifer and Scott McGaffin, Stevenson T. Womack and any other
Homeowner Plaintiffs whose cases are subsequently transferred into MDL No. 2333
(collectively “Plaintiffs”), individually and on behalf themselves and all others similarly situated,
by their undersigned attorneys, upon personal knowledge as to themselves, upon information and
belief, and based upon the investigation of their Counsel as to the remaining allegations, allege
as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. This is a class action asserting claims against MI Windows & Doors, Inc. (“MIWD”
or “Defendant”) for its liability in failing to adequately design, manufacture and distribute its
windows to homeowners across the Country.
2. At all times relevant hereto, MIWD was a designer, manufacturer, and supplier of
vinyl windows. In particular, MIWD designed, manufactured, and supplied vinyl windows which
relied upon adhesive-coated foam tape to prevent water intrusion through the glazing and other
sealant materials to prevent water intrusion through the sill joints.
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 1 of 65
2
3. MIWD marketed these vinyl windows under its 3500, 4300, and 8500 family lines,
including the 3350/9555 double hung vinyl window which is sold in conjunction with the
3500/8500 windows and which utilizes the 3500/8500 sash, and variations of model 3350/9555
(hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Windows”). Thus, the term “Windows” encompasses
the 3500 family lines, which includes models 3240, 3250, 3350, 3480/1480, 3500, 3540, 1280,
3580, 3280, but excludes the 3500 HP; the 4300 family lines, which includes models 4300, 4250,
and 4340; the 8500 family lines, which includes model numbers 8500, 8540, 1250, 8580, and
8880; and the 3500/8500 accessory product lines, which includes double hung window model
number 3350/9555 and related 9500 to 9900 models, including 9540 (direct set), 9555 (double
hung), 9600/9700 (stacked and/or mulled), 9660 (awning), 9770 (casement), and 9880/3480
(double slider), 9900 (basement), and 1451 (double hung).
4. The term “Windows” includes: new construction and replacement versions of all
Windows; single hung, double hung, fixed, slider, awning, casement, basement, specialty, and all
other styles of Windows; all frame versions, including fin, finless, flange, j-channel, brick mold,
non-brick mold, and all other frame variations of Windows; any renumbered model of the
foregoing models included in the definition of Windows, including state model numbers (e.g.
TX3250, the Texas version of the 3250); and stacked, mulled, continuous head, sill, continuous
jam, and all other variations of Windows. Specialty windows are hereby defined to include
picture, transom, eyebrow, geometric, custom, and any other shape.
5. For new construction, these windows are typically sold in a “glass package” for a
given house, which often include several of the foregoing models in a single residence. The
windows installed in Plaintiffs’ homes are all models included in the foregoing definition of
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 2 of 65
3
Windows.
6. MIWD sold the Windows to the builders, contractors and suppliers who installed the
Windows in homes subsequently purchased by Plaintiffs and the Class members. In conjunction
with each sale, MIWD expressly extended a limited lifetime warranty to the original purchaser of
the home (and, for a limited period, to subsequent purchasers of the home) that the Windows
would be free from defects in materials or workmanship that substantially impair their operation
or performance.
7. MIWD also warranted, through labels affixed to each Window (“MIWD Label
Warranty”) that remained on the Window at the time of purchase of the home by Plaintiffs and
Class members, that the Windows were designed and constructed in conformance with industry
standards. However, as discussed herein, the Windows do not conform to MIWD’s express
representations and warranties.
8. At the time of sale, the Windows were not merchantable and not reasonably suited to
the use intended based on their defective design and manufacture by MIWD.
9. At the time of sale, the Windows contained defects that result in a loss of
seal allowing water to enter into the homes owned by Plaintiffs and the Class members, resulting
in the formation of mineral deposits and microbial growth at the location of the leaks, and
consequential damages to other property, including, without limitation, the adjoining finishes,
walls and floors of the homes. Furthermore, the Windows have accumulated mold and mildew
and have contaminated the airspace within the home. The defect substantially impairs the
effectiveness and performance of the Windows and renders the Windows unsuitable for the
purposes for which they were sold and warranted. The Windows also do not conform to the
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 3 of 65
4
applicable building codes and standards.
10. As a result of the defects in the Windows, Plaintiffs and the Class
members have suffered damages by purchasing structures containing the Windows that they
would not otherwise have purchased had they known of the defects. Further, the value of their
homes has been diminished by the defective Windows, the defective Windows have caused
damage to other property in their homes; and, in some instances, Class members have been
forced to pay for installation of replacement windows by MIWD, which replacements are also
defective.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
11. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) (diversity jurisdiction) and the Class Action Fairness Act, in that (i)
there is complete diversity (Plaintiffs are citizens of South Carolina, North Carolina, Wisconsin,
Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, New York, New Jersey and Kansas and MIWD is domiciled and
incorporated in California and otherwise maintains its principal place of business in
Pennsylvania), (ii) the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000.00 (Five Million Dollars)
exclusive of interests and costs, and (iii) there are 100 or more members of the proposed Classes.
12. Venue lies in this District, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, because some of the
Plaintiffs reside in this Judicial District, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving
rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this Judicial District. In addition, MIWD does business
and/or transacts business in this Judicial District, and therefore, is subject to personal jurisdiction
in this Judicial District and resides here for venue purposes.
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 4 of 65
5
THE PARTIES
A. Named Plaintiffs
13. The term “Plaintiffs” includes the Named Plaintiffs in this litigation. The Named
Plaintiffs are purchasers and/or owners of the defective Windows. MIWD has failed or refused
to replace, properly repair, or provide Named Plaintiffs’ Windows with Windows that are not
defective or in accordance with MIWD’s express representations or warranties. Named Plaintiffs
have each suffered damages as a result of MIWD’s concealment, deceptive practices, breach of
warranties, and/or negligence. Among other things, Named Plaintiffs’ Windows are defective
because they allow water to intrude into Named Plaintiffs’ homes, permitting mold and mineral
growth. In addition, the water damages other property within Plaintiffs’ home such as personal
property, drywall, and interior finishes.
Named Plaintiff Nadine Johnson
14. In late 2005, Nadine Johnson (“Johnson”) purchased a new residence with a property
address of 329 Senneca River Drive, Summerville, South Carolina. Johnson’s home and the
homes throughout her subdivision contain Windows manufactured by MIWD. These Windows
have an inadequate weep system, have suffered a loss of seal, and have a lack of or loss of
sealant at joints, all of which have resulted in a manifestation of mineral deposits and mold, and
permitted moisture or water intrusion into Johnson’s home and have continuously and repeatedly
caused damage in and around the Windows. Specifically, in addition to the mold contaminating
her living space due to the defective Windows, Johnson has water damaged walls and damaged
window ledges, and damage to other property. Accordingly, Johnson must replace her Windows
as well as repair the other property damage at a significant cost to her. Upon discovery of
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 5 of 65
6
problems with the Windows, Plaintiff Johnson attempted to notify the supplier by calling the
number provided by the builder, Lakes of Summerville, at the time the home was purchased.
The phone number was disconnected. All South Carolina Plaintiffs have put MIWD on notice of
their individual claims and the class claim by the service of this suit; additionally, MIWD was
already on notice of this class and type of claims by the other notices described further in this
Master Complaint.
Named Plaintiff Jennifer C. Zambriczki
15. In mid-2006, Jennifer C. Zambriczki (“Zambriczki”) purchased a new residence with
a property address of 4832 Cane Pole Lane, Summerville, South Carolina. Zambriczki’s home
contains Windows manufactured by MIWD. These Windows have an inadequate weep system,
have suffered a loss of seal, and have a lack of or loss of sealant at joints, all of which have
resulted in a manifestation of mineral deposits and mold, permitted moisture or water intrusion
into Johnson’s home, contaminated the living space, and is believed to have caused latent
damage to other property. Accordingly, Zambriczki must replace her Windows as well as repair
the other property damage at a significant cost to her. MIWD was put on notice of the
Zambriczki claim prior to her being joined as a Plaintiff.
Named Plaintiff David R. Van Such
16. In mid-2005, David R. Van Such (“Van Such”) purchased a new residence with a
property address of 214 Savannah River Drive, Summerville, South Carolina. Van Such’s home
and the homes throughout his subdivision contain Windows manufactured by MIWD. These
Windows have an inadequate weep system, have suffered a loss of seal, and have a lack of or
loss of sealant at joints, all of which have resulted in a manifestation of mineral deposits and
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 6 of 65
7
mold, permitted moisture or water intrusion into Van Such’s home, contaminated the living
space, and is believed to have caused latent damage to other property. Accordingly, Van Such
must replace his Windows as well as repair the other property damage at a significant cost to
him. MIWD was put on notice of the Van Such claim prior to him being joined as a Plaintiff.
Named Plaintiff Joseph DeBlaker
17. Plaintiff Joseph DeBlaker (“DeBlaker”) is and, at all relevant times hereto, has been a
citizen and resident of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. Specifically, DeBlaker resides at
13641 Coram Place, Charlotte, NC 28213. DeBlaker’s home contains Windows manufactured by
MIWD. These Windows suffered a loss of seal, began to exhibit mineral deposits and mold, and
began to leak into DeBlaker’s home causing damage to other personal property below the
Window as well as the interior finishes. Accordingly, DeBlaker must replace his Windows at
significant cost to him. DeBlaker is the third owner of his home. The terms of MIWD’s express
warranty provide coverage only to first and second homeowners. Accordingly, DeBlaker brings
his claims under negligence and North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act and
seeks declaratory relief.
Named Plaintiff Craig Hildebrand
18. Craig Hildebrand (“Hildebrand”) is and was, at all relevant times hereto, a resident
and citizen of the State of New York. Specifically, Hildebrand owns a home at 126 Churchill
Avenue, Staten Island, New York 10309. Hildebrand purchased the home in August 2009 and is
the second owner. After taking possession of the home, Hildebrand replaced the carpet with
wood flooring in three of the bedrooms, re-tiled the kitchen floor and backsplash and remodeled
other areas in the home. Hildebrand’s home contains Windows manufactured by MIWD. These
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 7 of 65
8
Windows suffered a loss of seal, began to exhibit mineral deposits and mold, causing a
breakdown in the structural integrity of the Windows and seal which allowed water to leak into
Hildebrand’s home, causing damage to other property within the home, including but not limited
to damage to the tile in the kitchen and wood flooring in the bedrooms which was not originally
a part of the home which he purchased. Furthermore, the Windows have accumulated mold and
mildew and have contaminated the airspace within the home. Accordingly, Hildebrand must
replace his defective Windows at significant cost to him. Hildebrand contacted MIWD about the
damage from their defective Windows but was told he was not covered by the warranty because
he was not the original owner of the home. Adequate notice was given to MIWD regarding
Hildebrand’s claim.
Named Plaintiffs Mike and Janeen Meifert
19. Plaintiffs Mike Meifert and Janeen Meifert (“the Meiferts”) are and, at all relevant
times hereto, have been citizens and residents of Washington County, Wisconsin. Specifically,
the Meiferts reside at 2605 Upper Forest Lane, West Bend, Wisconsin 53090. The Meiferts’
home contains Windows manufactured by MIWD. These Windows have an inadequate weep
system, have suffered a loss of seal, and have a lack of or loss of sealant at joints, all of which
have resulted in a manifestation of mineral deposits and mold, and permitted moisture or water
intrusion into the Meiferts’ home and have continuously and repeatedly caused damage to other
property below and around the Windows. Further, the Windows also fog up. Accordingly, the
Meiferts must replace their Windows at a significant cost.
20. After reviewing MIWD’s warranty on its website stating that the windows were
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 8 of 65
9
warranted for a period of ten years, the Meiferts filed warranty claims with MIWD about the
damage from the Windows, but were told that they were not covered by the warranty because
they were a subsequent owner of the home. However, the Meiferts purchased their home directly
from the builder of the home, and were the first owners to live in the home. Despite providing
this information to MIWD, MIWD refused to honor its warranty. Further, the Meiferts would not
have purchased their home if they were not provided with a warranty, and the warranty, at all
times was the basis of the bargain between the parties.
Named Plaintiff Daniel Kennedy
21. Plaintiff Daniel Kennedy (“Kennedy”) is and, at all relevant times hereto, has been a
citizen and resident of Will County, Illinois. Specifically, Kennedy resides at 2117 Stafford
Court, Plainfield, Illinois 60586. Kennedy’s home was built in 2003. Kennedy’s home contains
Windows manufactured by MIWD. These Windows have an inadequate weep system, have
suffered a loss of seal, and have a lack of or loss of sealant at joints, all of which have resulted in
a manifestation of mineral deposits and mold, and permitted moisture or water intrusion into the
habitable living space of his home and have continuously and repeatedly caused damage in and
around the Windows. Accordingly, Kennedy must replace his Windows as well as repair the
other property damage at a significant cost to him. Kennedy contacted MIWD about the damage
from his Windows, but was told he was not covered by the warranty because he was a
subsequent owner of his home.
Named Plaintiff Charles Bradley
22. Plaintiff Charles Bradley (“Bradley”) is and, at all relevant times hereto, a resident of
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 9 of 65
10
Pope County, Illinois. Specifically, Plaintiff Bradley resides at 275 Henry Hicks Road in Herod,
Illinois 62947. Bradley’s home was manufactured in 2009. Plaintiff’s home contains Windows
manufactured by MIWD. These Windows have an inadequate weep system, have suffered a loss
of seal, and have a lack of or loss of sealant at joints, all of which have resulted in a
manifestation of mineral deposits and mold, and permitted moisture or water intrusion into the
habitable living space of his home and have continuously and repeatedly caused damage in and
around the Windows. Bradley timely submitted two warranty claims to MIWD. With respect to
the first warranty claim, MIWD replaced five windows “free of charge” to Bradley. With
respect to the second warranty claim, MIWD replaced three windows; but, Bradley was charged
for shipping the windows to him and Bradley also was required to pay for the cost of installing
these three windows. Thus, MIWD has not complied with its warranty.
Named Plaintiff Jennifer and Scott McGaffin
23. Plaintiffs Jennifer and Scott McGaffin (“the McGaffins”) were, at all relevant times
hereto, residents and citizens of the State of Kansas. Specifically, the McGaffins own a home at
25710 S. Haven Road, Mount Hope, Kansas 67108. The McGaffins’ home was built in 2008 and
contains Windows manufactured by MIWD. These Windows suffered premature failure, began
to exhibit mineral deposits and mold, and allowed water to leak into the McGaffins’ home,
causing damage to other property within the home. Accordingly, the McGaffins must replace
their defective Windows and repair related damage at significant cost to them. The McGaffins
contacted MIWD about the damage from their defective Windows pursuant to their warranty, but
were told that the Windows were not installed correctly. Accordingly, MIWD has not complied
with its warranty.
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 10 of 65
11
Named Plaintiffs Manzoor and Sozi Wani
24. Plaintiffs Manzoor Ahmad Wani and Sozi Wani (“the Wanis”) are and, at all relevant
times hereto, have been citizens and residents of Franklin County, Ohio. Specifically, the Wanis
reside at 6301 Parkmeadow Lane, Hilliard, Ohio 43026. The Wanis’ home contains Windows
manufactured by MIWD. These Windows suffered a loss of seal, began to exhibit mineral
deposits and mold, and began to leak into the Wanis home causing damage to other property
below the Windows. Accordingly, the Wanis must replace their Windows at significant cost to
them. The Wanis contacted MIWD about the damage from their Windows but were told they
were not covered by the warranty because they were the second owners of their home.
Named Plaintiffs Timothy and Johanna Nash
25. Plaintiffs Timothy and Johanna Nash (“the Nashs”) are and were, at all relevant times
hereto, citizens and residents of Hamilton County, Ohio. Specifically, the Nashs reside at 353
Rawling Drive, Harrison, Ohio 45030. The Nashs home contains Windows manufactured by
MIWD. These Windows suffered a loss of seal, began to exhibit mineral deposits and mold,
causing a breakdown in the structural integrity of the Windows and seal which allowed water to
leak into the Nashs’ home, causing damage to other property within the home. The Nashs are
the original owners of their home that incorporated MIWD’s Windows. Adequate notice has
been given to MIWD regarding the defects in its Windows.
Named Plaintiff Stevenson T. Womack
26. Plaintiff Stevenson T. Womack (“Womack”) is and, at all relevant times hereto, has
been a citizen and resident of New Jersey. Specifically, Womack resides in the Saybrooke Place
Subdivision at 94 Hillside Lane, Mt. Laurel, New Jersey 08054. Womack’s home and the homes
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 11 of 65
12
throughout his subdivision contain Windows manufactured by MIWD. These Windows have an
inadequate weep system, have suffered a loss of seal, and have a lack of or loss of sealant at
joints, all of which have resulted in a manifestation of mineral deposits and mold, and permitted
moisture or water intrusion into Womack’s home and have continuously and repeatedly caused
damage in and around the Windows. Specifically, in addition to the mold permeating his home
due to the defective Windows, Womack has water stained damaged walls and damaged window
ledges as well as water stains on his floors and other property. Accordingly, Womack must
replace his Windows as well as repair the other property damage at a significant cost to him.
Womack contacted MIWD and attempted to make a warranty claim due to the damage from his
Windows, but was told he was not covered by the warranty because he was a subsequent owner
of his home.
Named Plaintiff David Deem
27. Plaintiff David Deem (“Deem”) is and was, at all relevant times hereto, a resident and
citizen of the State of Michigan. Specifically, Deem owns a home at 1588 Dunston Road,
Canton, Michigan 48188. Deem’s home contains Windows manufactured by MIWD.. These
Windows suffered a loss of seal, began to exhibit mineral deposits and mold, causing a
breakdown in the structural integrity of the Windows and seal which allowed water to leak into
Deem’s home, causing damage to other personal property within the home. Accordingly, Deem
must replace his defective Windows at significant cost to him. Deem contacted MIWD about the
damage from their defective Windows but was told he was not covered by the warranty because
he was not the original owner of the home. Adequate notice was given to MIWD. Deem is not
the original purchaser of the house on Dunston Road.
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 12 of 65
13
Named Plaintiffs John and Elizabeth McCubbrey
28. Plaintiffs John W. McCubbrey and Elizabeth D. McCubbrey (“the McCubbreys”) are
and were, at all relevant times hereto, a resident and citizen of the State of Michigan.
Specifically, The McCubbrey’s own a home at 6027 Swan Lake Drive Romulus, Michigan
48174. The McCubbrey’s home contains Windows manufactured by MIWD. These Windows
suffered a loss of seal, began to exhibit mineral deposits and mold, causing a breakdown in the
structural integrity of the Windows and seal which allowed water to leak into the McCubbrey’s
home, causing damage to other personal property within the home. Accordingly, the
McCubbrey’s must replace their defective Windows at significant cost to them. Adequate notice
was given to MIWD. Plaintiffs McCubbrey are the original purchasers of the house on Swan
Lake Drive.
B. Defendant MIWD
29. MIWD is a California corporation with its principal place of business located in
Pennsylvania. MIWD is one of the largest manufacturers of vinyl, aluminum and cellular
windows and doors in the country. MIWD designed, tested, manufactured, marketed, advertised,
warranted and sold the Windows throughout the United States.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
a. Background and Defects
30. At all times relevant herein, MIWD was engaged in the marketing, sale, and delivery
of windows and window products throughout the United States.
31. At all times relevant herein, MIWD was a window designer, manufacturer, and
supplier of vinyl windows. In particular, MIWD designed, manufactured, and supplied Windows
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 13 of 65
14
which relied upon adhesive-coated foam tape to prevent water intrusion through the glazing, and
other sealant materials to prevent water intrusion through the sill joints.
32. At the time of sale, MIWD warranted that each Window was fit for the ordinary
purpose for which such goods were used and was free from defects in materials and
workmanship.
33. In addition, MIWD represented and warranted that each Window conformed to the
applicable Building Codes for each state and industry standards.
34. These representations, described herein, became part of the basis of the bargain when
Named Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ Builders, Class Members and/or Class Members’ builders purchased
the Windows.
35. In addition, these representations became part of the basis of the bargain when
Named Plaintiffs and/or Class Members purchased the homes with MIWD’s express
representations concerning the quality of the Windows.
36. However, the Windows do not conform to these express representations and
warranties, and, as alleged herein, MIWD breached its express warranties and representations
concerning these Windows.
37. The Windows are defective and fail to perform both at Named Plaintiffs’ residences
and at Class members’ residences by permitting leakage resulting in the formation of mineral
deposits, algae, and microbial growth at the location of the leaks, and consequential damages to
property other than the Windows, including, without limitation, the adjoining finishes and walls
of the residences as well as other personal property within the homes. Further, the mold and
mildew contaminate the habitable living space of the home.
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 14 of 65
15
38. The Windows are defective as designed and fail to perform both at the Named
Plaintiff’s residences and at Class members’ residences in that the Windows rely upon other
sealant materials in or over sill joints to prevent the intrusion of water. However, the resulting
joints are incapable of preventing water intrusion over the long term.
39. The Windows are defective and fail to perform both at the Plaintiffs’ residences and
at class members’ residences in that the weep system is unable to effectively discharge the water
which gets into the windows, resulting in water penetration to the interior of the residences
damaging adjoining finishes and walls.
40. The Windows are defective and fail to perform both at the Plaintiffs’ residences and
at class members’ residences in that the Windows rely upon foam tape between the glass and the
vinyl to prevent the intrusion of water. However, MIWD fails to install the foam tape in
sufficient compression as required or recommended by the sealant tape manufacturer, which
results in premature foam tape performance failure; and welded joints and other factors impede
the foam tape’s performance.
41. The Windows suffer from an additional product deficiency when put to their normal
use and application because the depth of the product is insufficient to fill the typical depth of the
wall openings into which the windows are placed. Therefore, many of the Windows are sold by
Defendant MI with “jamb extensions” attached to the windows and/or the installer is permitted to
attach his own jamb extensions to the windows. A jamb extension is the wood or composite
wood trim which covers up the remaining exposed rough opening into which the window is
placed. MIWD fastens the jamb extensions to the vinyl windows with screws which pierce the
sill frame, and other frame members. The screw holes provide an avenue for water penetration
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 15 of 65
16
into the structure, either immediately or upon prolonged screw exposure to moisture, resulting in
corrosion. Further, the screws impede the operation of the sash, accelerating the failure of the
foam tape and joints.
42. MIWD does not test the long-term performance of the Windows and does not
adequately test or check the performance of the Window components. Or, if it does test the long-
term performance of the Windows, MIWD conceals this information from all purchasers and
homeowners especially Named Plaintiffs’ builders and Class Members’ builders.
43. MIWD has failed to warn purchasers, builders, installers, homeowners and/or users of
the aforedescribed risks of failure.
44. Because the Windows permit water intrusion, they violate building code and industry
standards.
45. Operation of the Windows during normal use accelerates the failure of the Windows.
46. The defects and deficiencies set forth herein exist at the time the Windows leave the
factory. Failure may occur immediately upon installation or may occur after repeated pressure is
applied to the product during storms, thermal cycles or usage.
47. The defects and deficiencies are due to fundamental design, engineering, and
manufacturing errors well within MIWD’s area of expertise.
48. The Windows have been shown to be defective as above described in a number of
residences throughout the United States in addition to the Plaintiffs’ residences.
49. MIWD has been put on notice of the widespread defects in its products throughout
the United States by a number of homeowners.
50. Despite knowing of the defects described herein, MIWD has not notified all
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 16 of 65
17
purchasers, builders and/or homeowners with the Windows of the defect or provided uniform
relief.
51. Homeowners with the Windows across the United States have suffered consequential
damages similar to the Named Plaintiffs’.
52. Other members of the putative class have previously put MIWD on notice of the non-
performing condition of the Windows.
53. Homeowners across the country have also put MIWD on notice of the defective
nature of the Windows by virtue of thousands of warranty claims and consumer complaints.
54. Homeowners in other states across the country have put MIWD on notice of
the defective nature of the Windows by virtue of a number of class actions.
55. MIWD knew or should have known that the defects were present at the time
the products left its control, not only because of its expertise and testing, but also because of the
notices of defects that it was receiving from the field.
b. MIWD’s Warranty
56. The purchase of MIWD’s windows includes a written express warranty which
forms part of the basis of the bargain between MIWD and the purchaser at the time of the sale.
Further, MIWD expressly and implicitly represents to the public that the warranty is an integral
part of the product being sold. The written warranties expressly apply to the (original) owners of
the homes containing the Windows, yet MIWD attempts to disclaim its warranty by asserting
that it only has to comply with its warranty if it was a part of the “basis of the bargain” between
the parties.
57. MIWD ships a “Limited Manufacturers’ Warranty”, “Limited Lifetime Customer
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 17 of 65
18
Assurance Warranty”, and/or “Limited Lifetime Warranty” (collectively the “Warranties”) with
its Windows. Attached as exhibits A, B, C, D and E.
58. MIWD represents on its website, www.miwd.com, that “MI Windows and
Doors, Inc. stands behind its products with a Limited Lifetime Customer Assurance Warranty. If
you have a problem with your windows or doors you can review your warranty below.” A copy
of Defendant MI’s written warranty, effective January 1, 2010, is found at the bottom of the page
and is attached hereto as Exhibit F.
59. In addition, as discussed herein, MIWD has made additional representations,
expressly and impliedly, through its website, brochures, marketing materials, and representatives
that the Windows are suitable and free from defects. These representations were intended to and
likely did affect the market by inducing builders, contractors, suppliers, and others to purchase
the windows which became, at all times, the basis of the bargain between the parties.
60. Upon information and belief, the warranty dated January 1, 2005 warranty is
applicable to Johnson, Zambriczki, and Van Such and has been acknowledged via letters from
MIWD’s counsel to Plaintiffs’ counsel on October 28, 2011 and January 7, 2013.
61. Plaintiffs’ purchase agreements for the sale of each of their homes contain provisions
transferring all manufacturers’ warranties to Plaintiffs as the purchaser of their respective homes.
The typical purchase agreement for the sale of class members’ homes likely contains the same or
similar provision transferring manufacturers’ warranties to them at the time of purchase. The
transfer of the manufacturers’ warranties, which would include the window warranty, forms part
of the basis of the bargain at the time Plaintiffs purchase the homes.
62. Even where a manufacturer warranty transfer provision is not present, the average
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 18 of 65
19
homeowner expects at the time of purchase, his or her home comes with manufacturers’
warranties, including a window warranty against defects and would not purchase the home if
they did not receive all manufacturer’s warranties.
63. However, despite being assigned all manufacturers’ warranties with the purchase of
the home from the builder, the homeowners generally do not receive printed copies of the
Warranties and are not on notice of their limitations. Further, MIWD’s purported warranties
excludes homeowners who were not the initial purchasers of the homes.
64. Further, even when Class members submit warranty claims, MIWD fails to
adequately respond to the warranty requests or MIWD asserts that it does not have to comply
with the warranty because the Windows were installed incorrectly.
65. MIWD also does not provide or offer free skilled labor as stated in some of its
warranties and charges people for shipping the windows.
66. In addition, despite making specific representations regarding the applicable building
codes and standards to which the Windows comply once installed in a home, MIWD asserts that
its express representations do not extend to subsequent purchasers. However, MIWD’s position
is unconscionable because MIWD knows that most homeowners, despite not being the initial
purchaser of the home in which the Windows are installed, expect the Windows to conform to all
applicable building codes and industry standards. Further, the stickers, which are attached to the
Windows, provide express representations and warranties regarding the alleged quality of the
Windows as discussed herein.
67. In addition, MIWD’s warranties fail of their essential purpose because they only
agree to provide additional defective windows.
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 19 of 65
20
68. MIWD’s shipping of the Windows with prior knowledge of the defects or with
negligent or reckless disregard of the presence of defects constituted a breach of its express
warranty, makes the limitations of the express warranty (described below) unconscionable in all
respects, and therefore void ab initio. Further, warranties do not adequately disclaim the implied
warranties of fitness for a particular purpose or merchantability.
69. In addition, Plaintiffs and Class Members, through Plaintiffs’ builders and through
Class Members’ builders, relied on MIWD’s published specifications and advertisements
regarding the quality of the Windows.
70. While MIWD only publishes one warranty on its website, MIWD asserts the various
different warranties applies depending upon the time that the Windows were purchased.
Therefore, Plaintiffs and Class Members often do not know which warranty applies.
71. The following are limitations which are contained on MIWD’s various written
warranties:
a) MIWD purports to limit its responsibility to providing a replacement
window and shipped at the homeowner’s expense;
b) the warranty excludes the labor and other costs associated with removing
the defective window from the structure and shipping it to MIWD;
c) the warranty requires the homeowner to remove and ship the window to
MIWD prior to MIWD’s making a determination as to whether it is a
warrantable defect;
d) the warranty excludes the labor and installation associated with installing
the replacement window;
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 20 of 65
21
e) the warranty typically only applies to the initial purchaser;
f) the warranty excludes non-resident owners;
g) the warranty may only be enforced by the “original consumer purchaser”
unless the home is transferred within the first five years;
h) the warranty purports to exclude consequential damages and loss of use;
and
i) while not adequately conspicuous, the warranty purports to disclaim
implied warranties.
72. The above-described limitations on the express warranties are unconscionable under
all circumstances and are therefore unenforceable.
73. The warranty is not a negotiated contract and is so one-sided that no reasonable
person would ever knowingly agree to its terms if properly disclosed.
74. As discussed herein, MIWD has engaged in a pattern and practice of failing to honor
or discouraging warranty claims.
75. One such method of thwarting warranty claims is a pattern and practice of
MIWD’s refusing to address the class member’s defects unless the class member first agrees to
pay a monetary fee if their claim is denied.
76. On the occasions that MIWD acts on the class members’ reports of non-performance,
the MIWD engages in a pattern and practice of applying a temporary fix to the product, denying
the defect, and billing the class member (or his or her builder or supplier) for the denied claim.
77. Moreover, during contact with the class members, MIWD conceals its knowledge of
repeated product defects in the Windows in the class members’ residences.
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 21 of 65
22
78. The above-described pattern and practice by Defendant MI has the effect of
discouraging defect claims by class members.
79. As MIWD has known of its window defects and has failed to timely honor its
warranty, the warranty has failed of its essential purpose and the limitations therein are null and
void.
80. Plaintiffs and class members have been proximately damaged by MIWD’s above-
described defects and conduct.
81. Plaintiffs and class members have otherwise not received the value for which their
builders or contractors bargained at the time the windows were purchased or transferred to the
homeowners.
82. Plaintiffs and Class Members have not received the value for which they or their
builder bargained when the Windows were purchased. There is a difference in value between the
Windows as warranted and the Windows containing the defect coupled with an ineffective
warranty.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
83. Plaintiffs bring this action individually and as representative of all those similarly
situated pursuant to Rule 23, F.R.C.P. on behalf of the classes (“the Classes”). The Classes are
defined as follows:
South Carolina-only Class: All persons and entities that own structures located within the State of South Carolina in which MIWD’s Windows are installed. Wisconsin-only Class: All persons and entities that own a structure located within the State of Wisconsin in which MIWD’s Windows are installed.
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 22 of 65
23
North Carolina-only Class: All persons and entities that own a structure located within the State of North Carolina in which MIWD’s Windows are installed.
Ohio-only Class: All persons and entities that own a structure located within the State of Ohio in which MIWD’s in which MIWD’s Windows are installed.
New York-only Class: All individuals and entities that own a structure in the State of New York in which MIWD’s Windows are installed.
Illinois-only Class: All persons and entities that own a structure located within the State of Illinois in which MIWD’s Windows are installed.
Kansas-only Class: All persons and entities that own a structure located within the State of Kansas in which MIWD’s Windows are installed.
New Jersey-only Class: All individuals and entities that own a structure in the State of New Jersey in which MIWD’s Windows are installed.
Michigan-only Class: All persons and entities that own a structure located within the State of Michigan in which MIWD’s Windows are installed.
84. This class excludes:
a) employees of the MIWD; and b) those persons who have released the MIWD or are
currently in litigation with MIWD.
85. Plaintiffs propose that the class be divided into subclasses if and as
necessary to align class interests.
86. Plaintiffs are each members of the class they seek to represent. The interests of
Plaintiffs are coincident with and non-antagonistic to those other members of the class they seek
to represent.
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 23 of 65
24
87. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the other class members and Plaintiffs
will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the members of the class.
88. Plaintiffs have retained counsel experienced and competent in construction litigation,
product liability litigation, complex litigation, and consumer class actions.
89. The class members are so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical. The
exact number of Class Members in each Class is not presently known, but it is believed to
comprise of potentially thousands or tens of thousands of members in each class, making joinder
impractical. The proposed Classes are easily ascertainable, through MIWD’s records, and/or
through identification of MIWD’s stickers on their Windows. The number of Class Members in
each Class can also be determined through discovery.
90. The claims of the Plaintiffs and the member of each class involve common questions
of law and fact, including but not limited to:
a) whether the Windows are defective; b) whether the MIWD was negligent in its design and manufacture of the Windows; c) whether MIWD knew or should have known about the defective condition of the Windows; d) whether MIWD concealed and/or failed to disclose the defective condition of the Windows to consumers; e) whether MIWD breached its express and implied warranties; f) whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to prejudgment interest, attorneys fees, and costs from the MIWD; and
g) whether MIWD’s conduct was grossly negligent, reckless, willful, wanton, intentional, fraudulent, or the like, entitling Plaintiffs to statutory or punitive damages from MIWD;
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 24 of 65
25
h) Whether the defective windows caused the damages to Plaintiffs and other members of the Classes;
i) Whether Plaintiffs and the Classes are entitled to replacement of their
defective Windows with non-defective Windows;
j) Whether Plaintiffs and the Classes are entitled to restitution and/or
disgorgement;
k) Whether Plaintiffs and the Classes are entitled to compensatory damages,
including, among other things: (1) compensation for all out-of-pocket
monies expended by members of the Classes for replacement of Windows
and/or installation costs as well as repair/replacement of other property
damage; (2) the failure of consideration in connection with and/or
difference in value arising out of the variance between the Windows as
warranted and the Windows containing the defects;
l) Whether MIWD knew or became aware that its Windows were defective,
yet continued to manufacture, distribute and sell the Windows without: (1)
informing consumers, purchasers, builders and/or homeowners of the
material defects; (2) recalling the defective Windows; or (3) otherwise
repairing the defective Windows that had already been purchased; and,
instead engaged in an unfair practice of concealment, suppression or
omission of the material defects; and
m) Whether MIWD should be declared financially responsible for notifying
all class members of the defective nature of the Windows and to pay the
full costs and expenses of repair and replacement windows.
91. Typicality: Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Classes,
as all such claims arise out of MIWD’s conduct in designing, manufacturing, marketing,
advertising, warranting and selling the defective Windows, MIWD’s conduct in concealing the
defects in the Windows, and Plaintiffs and Class Members purchasing homes with the defective
Windows.
92. Adequate Representation: Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of
the members of the Classes and have no interests antagonistic to those of the Classes. Plaintiffs
have retained counsel experienced in the prosecution of complex class actions, including
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 25 of 65
26
consumer class actions involving product liability and product design defects.
93. Predominance and Superiority: This class action is appropriate for certification
because questions of law and fact common to the members of the Classes predominate over
questions affecting only individual members, and a Class action is superior to other available
methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy, since individual joinder of all
members of the Classes is impracticable. Should individual Class Members be required to bring
separate actions, this Court and Courts throughout the various states would be confronted with a
multiplicity of lawsuits burdening the court system while also creating the risk of inconsistent
rulings and contradictory judgments. In contrast to proceeding on a case-by-case basis, in which
inconsistent results will magnify the delay and expense to all parties and the court system, this
class action presents far fewer management difficulties while providing unitary adjudication,
economies of scale and comprehensive supervision by a single Court.
94. MIWD has acted on grounds generally applicable to the Classes. Class certification
is appropriate under all applicable law because MIWD engaged in a uniform and common
practice. All class members have the same legal right to and interest in redress for damages
associated with the defective Windows.
95. Plaintiffs and the class envision no unusual difficulty in the management of this
action as a class action.
96. The amount of money at stake for each member is not sufficient for each member to
hire their own counsel and experts and to bring their own action.
97. The foregoing water intrusion constitutes “occurrences” resulting in “property
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 26 of 65
27
damage” to property other than Defendant MI’s “product” as those are terms commonly defined
and used in the typical commercial general liability insurance policy.
98. All conditions precedent for filing this Complaint have been satisfied. This
Complaint has been filed prior to the expiration of any applicable statues of limitations or
statutes of repose.
ESTOPPEL FROM PLEADING AND TOLLING OF
APPLICABLE STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS
99. MIWD is estopped from relying on any statutes of limitation or repose by virtue
of its acts of fraudulent concealment. Upon information and belief, MIWD has known of the
defects in the Windows for years and has concealed from owners of the Windows and/or failed
to alert the owners of the defective nature of the Windows.
100. MIWD had a duty to inform Plaintiffs and Class of the defects described herein,
which it knew or should have known. Notwithstanding its duty, MIWD never disclosed the
defects to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ builder, Class Members and/or Class Member’s builders.
101. Despite exercising reasonable diligence, Plaintiffs and Class Members could not
have discovered the defects within the Windows.
102. Given MIWD’s failure to disclose this non-public information about the defective
nature of the Windows – information over which it had exclusive control – and because Plaintiffs
and Class Members therefore could not reasonably have known that the Windows were
defective, MIWD is estopped from relying on any statutes of limitations or repose that might
otherwise be applicable to the claims asserted herein.
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 27 of 65
28
CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT ONE
BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY
(On Behalf of Class Members Represented by Plaintiffs Johnson, Zambriczki, Van Such,
Hildebrand, Deem, Wani, Nash, Meifert, McGaffin, Womack, McCubbreys, Bradley and
Kennedy)
103. Plaintiffs individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, adopt and
incorporate by reference all allegations contained in all of the preceding paragraphs of this
Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
104. After putting their Windows into the stream of commerce, MIWD expressly
represented and warranted that the Windows were appropriate for their intended use and were
free from defects.
105. MIWD entered into contracts with retailers, Plaintiffs’ Builders, Class Members’
Builders, suppliers and/or contractors to sell its Windows that were to be installed at Plaintiffs’
and the Class members’ properties.
106. Plaintiffs and Class Members were intended third party beneficiaries of the
contracts between MIWD and their respective Builders.
107. MIWD’s express and written warranties, and representations are applicable to the
Windows installed in Plaintiffs’ homes.
108. MIWD expressly represented and warranted that the Windows were appropriate
for their intended use and were free from defects.
109. MIWD expressly represented that its warranties extended to the initial
homeowner whose home contains the Windows.
110. MIWD also expressly represented that the Windows conform to all
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 28 of 65
29
applicable building codes and industry standards through its representations and stickers affixed
to each Window.
111. MIWD has made other representations, as described above, through its
website, brochures, marketing materials, and representatives that the Windows are free from
defects.
112. The representations and warranties formed part of the basis of the bargain
between MIWD and the purchasers of the Windows, at the time of the sale.
113. These representations, described herein, became part of the basis of the bargain
when Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ builders, Class Members and/or Class Members’ builders purchased
the Windows and/or purchased the homes containing the Windows.
114. In addition, these representations became part of the basis of the bargain when
Plaintiffs and/or Class Members purchased the homes with MIWD’s express representations
concerning the standards to which the Windows conformed because the labels were on the
Windows at the time of purchase, and all manufacturers warranties were assigned to Plaintiffs.
115. The purchase agreements for the sale of Plaintiffs’ homes contained provisions
transferring the manufacturers’ warranties, including window warranties. Such provisions are
valid transfers, and the transferred warranties formed part of the basis of the bargain at the time
the homes were purchased by Plaintiffs.
116. Further, Plaintiffs would not have purchased their home if the express warranties
did not transfer to them upon purchase.
117. The January 1, 2005 warranty specifically contains the certification that “THE
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 29 of 65
30
MANUFACTURERS products are fully warranted against defects in workmanship and
materials.” Likewise, the January 1, 2010 contains the “assurance” that the windows are
warranted against defects “in the frame, sash or other non-glass components, as manufactured.”
118. MIWD expressly warranted that the Windows are “fully warranted against defects
in workmanship and materials under normal use and service.” MIWD agreed “to repair or
replace AT THE FACTORY, FREE OF CHARGE, any returned product that is found to be
defective.” (emphasis in original).
119. Upon information and belief, all of MIWD written warranties applicable to
class members contain the same or similar provisions as evidenced by Exhibits A, B, C, D and
E.
120. The limitations of damages and the limitations to the original purchaser contained
in the express warranty provisions are harsh, oppressive and one-sided. The limitations related to
the amount of damages, the type of remedies available to Plaintiffs and Class Members are
unconscionable when MIWD knows or should have known that there are defects in the design
and manufacturing of the Windows.
121. However, despite MIWD’s assurances, as described in detail supra, the Windows
contain the aforementioned defects and do not conform to all applicable building codes and
industry standards and are not free from defects.
122. These aforementioned defects are present when the Windows leave MIWD’s
control.
123. MIWD has been repeatedly put on notice of the defects in the Windows by
various methods described above.
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 30 of 65
31
124. As Plaintiffs and homeowners have defective windows in their homes, which
have not been and would not be sufficiently repaired or replaced by MIWD, they have not
received the value of what the window purchaser bargained for at the time the windows were
sold or at the time they were transferred through the sale of the home.
125. MIWD breached the express warranty by selling its Windows that were defective
and not reasonably fit for their ordinary and intended purpose. Further, the Windows did not
conform to the express representations contained within the Windows.
126. By its conduct and defective products, MIWD has breached its express warranty
with Plaintiffs and members of the class.
127. In addition, MIWD has breached its express written warranties by not providing
Plaintiffs with Windows which are free from defects and/or by discouraging warranty claims.
128. MIWD’s written warranty is also unconscionable and fails of its essential purpose
because, by merely providing a replacement Window, the replacement Window is also inherently
defective.
129. Plaintiffs, who did not directly purchase the Windows, did not negotiate or
bargain for the terms of the express warranty provisions and any purported limitations contained
therein. Upon information and belief, the distributors, contractors, and other customers of MIWD
did not and could not negotiate or bargain for the terms of the express warranty provisions and
any purported limitations contained therein. Instead, MIWD stood in a position of domination
and control over the terms.
130. Upon information and belief, MIWD knew that the Windows had a history of
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 31 of 65
32
failures, resulting in damage to other property and mold growth, yet MIWD failed and omitted to
inform its distributors, its customers, Plaintiff and Class Members on whose residence the
Windows were installed.
131. In light of the foregoing, MIWD’s limitations within its warranties are invalid and
fail of their essential purpose and/or is unconscionable.
132. Plaintiff Bradley filed warranty claims with MIWD. Although MIWD honored
the first warranty claim by replacing five Windows free of charge to Plaintiff, MIWD failed to
honor the second warranty claim, in that Plaintiff was required to bear the expenses of shipping
and installation of the three replacement Windows.
133. Plaintiff Kennedy has made a warranty claim with MIWD. Despite its express
representations regarding the standards the Windows conform to, MIWD has asserted that, since
he is not the first purchaser of her home, the express warranty does not extend to him.
Accordingly, MIWD’s warranty fails of its essential purpose and/or is unconscionable.
134. When Plaintiff Womack made a warranty claim and provided notice to MIWD of
the defects in his Windows, MIWD stated that Plaintiff was not covered by the warranty since it
states, in fine print, “Enforceability of this warranty is limited to the original consumer
purchaser.” This is unconscionable.
135. Plaintiff Deem contacted MIWD about the damage from their defective Windows
but was told he was not covered by the warranty because he was not the original owner of the
home.
136. The Meiferts reviewed MIWD’s warranty on its website stating that the windows
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 32 of 65
33
were warranted for a period of ten years, and filed warranty claims with MIWD about the
damage from the Windows. However, MIWD told the Meiferts that they were not covered by
the warranty because they were a subsequent owner of the home. However, contrary to MIWD’s
assertion, the Meiferts purchased their home directly from the builder of the home and were the
first owners to live in the home. Despite providing this information to MIWD, MIWD refused to
honor its warranty. Further, the Meiferts would not have purchased their home if they were not
provided with a warranty from their builder, and the warranty, at all times was the basis of the
bargain between the parties.
137. The McGaffins contacted MIWD about the damage from their defective Windows
pursuant to their Warranty. Without investigating the McGaffin’s claim, MIWD dismissed their
claim, without a basis, by asserting that the Windows were not installed correctly. Accordingly,
MIWD has not complied with its warranty.
138. When Plaintiff Hildebrand made a warranty claim and provided notice to MIWD
of the defects in his Windows, MIWD stated that Plaintiff was not covered by the warranty since
it states, in fine print, “Enforceability of this warranty is limited to the original consumer
purchaser.”
139. The Wanis contacted MIWD about the damage from their Windows but were told
they were not covered by the warranty because they were the second owners of their home.
140. The foregoing breaches of express warranty at issue were substantial factors in
causing damages to Plaintiffs and Class Members.
141. As a direct and proximate result of MIWD’s breach of the express warranty on
the Windows, the Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered actual and consequential damages.
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 33 of 65
34
COUNT TWO
BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY
(On Behalf of Class Members Represented by Plaintiffs Deem, McGaffin, McCubbreys)
142. Plaintiffs individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, adopt and
incorporate by reference all allegations contained in all of the preceding paragraphs of this
Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
143. MIWD entered into contracts with retailers, suppliers and/or contractors to sell its
Windows that were to be installed at Plaintiffs’ and the Class Members’ properties.
144. Plaintiffs and the Class members are intended third party beneficiaries of those
contracts because it was the clear and manifest intent of MIWD that the contracts were to
primarily and directly benefit Plaintiffs and the Class Members when the Windows passed to
homeowners through the sale of homes containing the Windows.
145. MIWD warranted that its Windows were merchantable and reasonably fit for their
ordinary purpose, and would not cause damage as set forth herein.
146. MIWD impliedly warranted that the Windows conformed to all applicable Kansas
and Michigan Building Codes, ASTM standards and/or AAMA standards.
147. MIWD breached the implied warranty of merchantability by selling its Windows
that were defective and not reasonably fit for their ordinary purpose and did not conform to the
standards represented above.
148. MIWD’s Windows are defective because they cause and continue to cause
damage as described more fully herein and permit leaks into Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’
homes.
149. As a result of MIWD’s breach of the implied warranty of merchantability,
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 34 of 65
35
Plaintiffs and the Class Members have suffered and continue to suffer damages.
COUNT THREE
BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
(On Behalf of Class Members Represented by Plaintiffs Deem, McGaffin, McCubbrey)
150. Plaintiffs individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, adopt and
incorporate by reference all allegations contained in all of the preceding paragraphs of this
Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
151. MIWD entered into contracts with retailers, suppliers and/or contractors to sell its
Windows that was to be installed at Plaintiffs’ and the Class members’ properties.
152. Plaintiffs and the Class members are intended third party beneficiaries of those
contracts because it was the clear and manifest intent of MIWD that the contracts were to
primarily and directly benefit Plaintiffs and the Class members when the Windows passed to
homeowners through the sale of homes containing the Windows.
153. At the time MIWD entered into contracts with retailers, suppliers and/or
contractors, MIWD knew and had reason to know that its Windows were being purchased for the
particular purpose of being installed at Plaintiffs’ and the Class members’ properties.
154. Plaintiffs and the Class members, directly or indirectly, relied on MIWD’s
representations and warranties that its Windows were suitable for the particular purpose of being
installed at Plaintiffs’ and the Class members’ properties.
155. MIWD warranted that its Windows were fit for the particular purpose of being
installed at Plaintiffs’, the Class members’ properties.
156. MIWD breached the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose by
selling its Windows that were defective and not reasonably fit for their ordinary purpose.
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 35 of 65
36
157. MIWD’s Windows are defective because they cause and continue to cause
damage as described more fully herein.
158. As a result of MIWD’s breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular
purpose, Plaintiffs and the Class members have suffered and continue to suffer damages.
COUNT FOUR
BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY
(On Behalf of Class Members Represented by Plaintiffs Johnson, Zambriczki, Van Such,
Wani, and the Nashs)
159. Plaintiffs individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, adopt and
incorporate by reference all allegations contained in all of the preceding paragraphs of this
Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
160. MIWD is a designer, manufacturer, and supplier of the Windows, and for a
number of years, marketed, warranted, distributed, and/or sold the Windows in throughout the
United States.
161. MIWD impliedly warranted that the Windows would be free from defects and fit
for their customary and normal use.
162. MIWD also impliedly warranted that the Windows would conform to all South
Carolina, Ohio Building Codes and applicable industry standards.
163. The Windows are not fit for the ordinary purposes for which the Windows were
sold, are not merchantable, and will not pass without objection in the trade and do not conform to
all applicable building codes and testing standards.
164. The Windows were defective at the time they left the factory.
165. MIWD failed to give Plaintiffs and members of the Class adequate warnings and
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 36 of 65
37
notices regarding the defect in the Windows despite the fact that MIWD knew or should have
known of this defect, with the intent that Plaintiffs and members of the Class would rely upon
MIWD’s failure to disclose the defect when purchasing the Windows. Plaintiffs, Class Members
and members of the public were deceived by and relied upon Defendant’s failures to disclose.
166. The Windows manufactured by Defendant were defective and unfit for their
intended use; these defects were unknown to Plaintiffs and members of the Class at the time they
purchased the Windows, or the houses containing the Windows; and Defendant knew or should
have known that the defective Windows were unfit for their intended purpose.
167. MIWD intended that Plaintiffs and members of the Class would rely on the
deception by purchasing its Windows, or houses containing the Windows, unaware of the
material facts described above. The conduct constitutes a breach of implied warranty.
168. The foregoing constituted a breach of MIWD’s implied warranties.
169. As MIWD’s express warranty (and warranty claims process thereunder) has
been breached and/or is unconscionable and/or fails of its essential purpose, as described above
and below, the limitations on implied warranties contained within the express warranty should be
deemed null and void and of no effect or limitation.
170. MIWD also failed to adequately disclaim any implied warranties.
171. As a direct and proximate result of the MIWD’s breach of the implied warranty
on the Windows, the Plaintiff class has suffered actual and consequential damages.
COUNT FIVE
NEGLIGENCE/NEGLIGENT DESIGN
(On Behalf of Class Members Represented by Johnson, Zambriczki, Van Such, DeBlaker,
Bradley, Kennedy, Wani, Nash, Hildebrand, Meifert, McGaffin, Deem, and McCubbrey)
172. Plaintiffs individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, adopt and
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 37 of 65
38
incorporate by reference all allegations contained in all of the preceding paragraphs of this
Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
173. At all times material hereto, MIWD designed and manufactured the Windows.
174. MIWD had a duty to Plaintiffs and to members of the class to design and
manufacture Windows that were free of latent defects that would cause the Windows to leak.
175. MIWD had a duty to Plaintiffs and to members of the class to test the
Windows to ensure adequate performance of the windows for a reasonable period of use.
176. MIWD had a duty to Plaintiffs and to class members to ensure that the window
components were suitable, either by testing or by verifying third-party test results.
177. MIWD had a duty to Plaintiffs and to members of the class to ensure that their
products complied with industry standards and all applicable building codes across the country.
178. MIWD had a duty to Plaintiffs and to members of the class to forewarn
purchasers, installers, and users regarding the known risk of product failures.
179. MIWD failed to exercise ordinary and reasonable care in the design and
manufacture of the Windows and in determining whether the Windows that it sold, and
continued to sell, contained a latent defect that would result in the failure of the Windows to
perform as reasonably expected.
180. MIWD failed to exercise ordinary and reasonable care in the design and
manufacture of the Windows and breached the foregoing duties.
181. MIWD breached its duty to the Plaintiffs and class members to test the Windows
to ensure adequate performance of the Windows for a reasonable period of use.
182. MIWD breached its duty to Plaintiffs and to class members to ensure that the
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 38 of 65
39
window components were suitable, either by testing or by verifying third-party test results.
183. MIWD breached its duty to Plaintiffs and to members of the class to
ensure that their products complied with industry standards and the applicable building codes.
184. MIWD breached its duty to Plaintiffs and to members of the class to forewarn
purchasers, installers, and users regarding the known risk of product failures.
185. The negligence of MIWD, its agents, servants, and/or employees, include the
foregoing, as well as the following acts and/or omissions:
a. designing, manufacturing, processing, distributing,
delivering, supplying, inspecting, marketing and/or selling
Windows without adequately and thoroughly testing them
to all applicable standards and building codes;
b. designing, manufacturing, processing, distributing,
delivering, supplying, inspecting, marketing and/or selling
Windows without adequately testing long term
performance;
c. negligently failing to ensure that the Windows conformed
to all applicable standards and building codes; and
d. concealing information concerning the defects inherent in
the Windows from Plaintiffs and the Class members, while
knowing that MIWD’s Windows were defective and non-
conforming with accepted industry standards and building
codes.
186. Plaintiffs have been damaged because the defective Windows have permitted
mold and mineral growth in Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ homes, have damaged adjoining
finishes and walls, have contaminated the living space, and damaged other personal property
within the homes.
187. The Plaintiffs and Class Members have also been damaged as a direct and
proximate result of the negligence, carelessness, recklessness, willfulness, and wantonness of
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 39 of 65
40
Defendant MI as aforesaid.
188. As MIWD conduct was grossly negligent, reckless, willful, wanton, intentional,
fraudulent, or the like, Plaintiff class is entitled to an award of punitive damages against MIWD.
COUNT SIX
STRICT LIABILITY
(On Behalf of Class Members Represented by Plaintiffs Johnson, Zambriczki, Van Such)
189. Plaintiffs individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, adopt and
incorporate by reference all allegations contained in all of the preceding paragraphs of this
Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
190. MIWD is in the business of designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing
and/or selling windows and doors.
191. The Windows are defectively designed and manufactured and are unreasonably
dangerous in that they allow water to intrude into the interior of the residence, resulting in mold
and algae growth at the location of the leak and consequential damage to the structure into which
the windows were installed.
192. The Windows reached the Plaintiffs and Class Members, and were intended to
reach the Plaintiff class, without substantial change in the condition in which they were sold.
193. MIWD is in violation of South Carolina Code §15-73-10, for having designed,
manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold the Windows, which were defective, to the
Plaintiff class.
194. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of the sale of the defective windows
to Plaintiffs and Class Members, the Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered significant
physical damage to their homes and other personal property which includes contamination to the
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 40 of 65
41
living space and deterioration within the home.
COUNT SEVEN
STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY – DESIGN DEFECT, MANUFACTURING DEFECT
AND FAILURE TO WARN (N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-1 et seq.)
(On Behalf of Class Members Represented by Plaintiff Womack)
195. Plaintiffs individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, adopt and
incorporate by reference all allegations contained in all of the preceding paragraphs of this
Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
196. At all relevant times, MIWD was engaged in the business of manufacturing
Windows, which is the subject of this action.
197. The Windows were expected to and did reach Plaintiff and the Class without
substantial change to the condition in which it was designed, manufactured and sold by MIWD.
198. The Windows installed on Plaintiff’s and the Class Members’ properties was and
is defective and unfit for its intended use. The use of Windows has caused and will continue to
cause other property damage to Plaintiff and the Class.
199. The Windows were so defective in design or formulation or manufacture that
when it left the hands of Defendants, the foreseeable risks exceeded the benefits associated with
the design, formulation or manufacture of MIWD’s Windows.
200. At all times herein mentioned, MIWD’s Windows were in a defective condition
and unsafe, and Defendants knew, or had reason to know, or should have known that their
Windows were defective and unsafe, especially when used in the form and manner as provided
by MIWD.
201. Plaintiff and the Class Members utilized the Windows for the purposes and
manner normally intended.
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 41 of 65
42
202. MIWD had a duty to create a product that was not unreasonably dangerous for its
normal, intended use and would not result in damage to Plaintiff’s and Class Member’s other
property.
203. Plaintiff and the Class, acting a reasonably prudent people, could not have
discovered that Defendants’ Windows was defective as herein mentioned or perceive its danger.
204. The Windows designed, manufactured, warranted, advertised and sold by MIWD
was defective due to inadequate warnings or instructions and/or inadequate testing.
205. By reason of the foregoing, MIWD is strictly liable to Plaintiff and the Class for
designing, manufacturing, and selling MIWD’s Windows.
206. Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, demands judgment
against MIWD for compensatory damages for themselves and each member of the Class, for the
establishment of the common fund, plus attorney’s fees, interest and costs.
COUNT EIGHT
STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY
DESIGN DEFECT, MANUFACTURING DEFECT AND FAILURE TO WARN
(On Behalf of Class Members Represented by Plaintiff Hildebrand)
207. Plaintiffs individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, adopt and
incorporate by reference all allegations contained in all of the preceding paragraphs of this
Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
208. At all relevant times, MIWD was engaged in the business of manufacturing
Windows, which is the subject of this action.
209. The Windows were expected to and did reach Plaintiff and the Class without
substantial change to the condition in which it was designed, manufactured and sold by MIWD.
210. The Windows attached to Plaintiff’s and the Class Members’ properties were and
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 42 of 65
43
are defective and unfit for their intended use. The use of Windows has caused and will continue
to cause other property damage to Plaintiff and the Class.
211. The Windows were so defective in design or formulation or manufacture that
when it left the hands of Defendant, the foreseeable risks exceeded the benefits associated with
the design, formulation or manufacture of MIWD’s Windows.
212. At all times herein mentioned, MIWD’s Windows were in a defective condition
and unsafe, and Defendant knew, or had reason to know, or should have known that its Windows
were defective and unsafe, especially when used in the form and manner as provided by MIWD.
213. Plaintiff and the Class Members utilized the Windows for the purposes and
manner normally intended.
214. MIWD had a duty to create a product that was not unreasonably dangerous for its
normal, intended use and would not result in damage to Plaintiff’s and Class Member’s other
property.
215. Plaintiff and the Class, acting a reasonably prudent people, could not have
discovered that Defendant’s Windows were defective as herein mentioned or perceive its danger.
216. The Windows designed, manufactured, warranted, advertised and sold by MIWD
were defective due to inadequate warnings or instructions and/or inadequate testing.
217. By reason of the foregoing, MIWD is strictly liable to Plaintiff and the Class for
designing, manufacturing, and selling MIWD’s Windows.
218. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, demands judgment
against MIWD for compensatory damages for themselves and each member of the Class, for the
establishment of the common fund, plus attorney’s fees, interest and costs.
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 43 of 65
44
COUNT NINE
UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT
(On Behalf of Class Members Represented by Plaintiffs Johnson, Zambriczki and Van
Such)
219. Plaintiffs individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, adopt and
incorporate by reference all allegations contained in all of the preceding paragraphs of this
Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
220. At all times relevant herein, MIWD engaged in the business of designing,
developing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and/or selling windows in the stream of
commerce.
221. MIWD was engaged in commerce as defined by the South Carolina Unfair Trade
Practices Act.
222. MIWD’s above-described activities, including knowingly or recklessly
placing a defective product into the stream of commerce, misrepresenting the suitability of the
product, failing to honor the warranty, concealing knowledge of the defects, attempting to limit
its responsibility through a sham warranty, and other acts to be shown through the course of
discovery and at trial, constitute unfair and deceptive practices in the conduct of MIWD’s trade.
223. MIWD’s above-described acts are capable of repetition and adversely affect the
public interest.
224. MIWD knew or should have known that its conduct was in violation of the
South Carolina Code Section 39-5-20.
225. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of MIWD’s unfair trade
practices in South Carolina, the Plaintiffs have suffered significant damage, and are entitled to an
award of treble damages and attorney fees.
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 44 of 65
45
COUNT TEN
UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT
(On Behalf of Class Members Represented by Plaintiff DeBlaker)
226. Plaintiffs individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, adopt and
incorporate by reference all allegations contained in all of the preceding paragraphs of this
Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
227. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 makes unlawful, “Unfair methods of competition in or
affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.”
228. MIWD engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 75-1.1 when, in selling and advertising the Windows, MIWD failed to give Plaintiff
DeBlaker and Class Members adequate warnings and notices regarding the defect in the
Windows despite the fact that MIWD knew or should have known of this defect, with the intent
that Plaintiff DeBlaker and Class Members and/or their builders would rely upon MIWD’s
failure to disclose the defect when purchasing the Windows. Plaintiff, Class Members and
members of the public were deceived by and relied upon MIWD’s failures to disclose.
229. MIWD also engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 when it failed to provide an express warranty to all owners of homes with its
defective Windows.
230. As a direct and proximate result of these unfair, deceptive and unconscionable
commercial practices, Plaintiff and Class Members have been damaged in an amount in excess
of $10,000, and are entitled pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-16 to recover treble damages as
well as attorneys’ fees and costs.
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 45 of 65
46
COUNT ELEVEN
VIOLATION OF MICH. COMP. LAWS §445.903
(On Behalf of Class Members Represented by McCubbrey)
231. Plaintiffs individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, adopt and
incorporate by reference all allegations contained in all of the preceding paragraphs of this
Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
232. This is action is brought to secure redress for the unlawful, deceptive and unfair
trade practices perpetrated by MIWD on behalf of Plaintiffs McCubbrey and the Class members
similarly situated.
233. Mich. Comp Laws §445.903 were enacted to protecting the consuming public
from those who engage in unconscionable, deceptive or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of
any trade or commerce.
234. The conduct of Defendant, as alleged above, constituted unfair, unconscionable,
or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Mich. Comp Laws §445.903.
235. Defendant’s violations of Mich. Comp. Laws §445.903 include, but are not
necessarily limited to the following:
a) Defendant represented through its express and implied warranties to
Plaintiffs and the Class that the Windows had characteristics, uses, and benefits that they did not
have, specifically, that the Windows were dependable, quality products, free of defects;
Defendant thus violated of Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.903(1)(c);
b) Defendant failed to reveal to Plaintiffs McCubbrey, or the Class, material
facts that neither Plaintiffs nor the Class could reasonable have known, causing Plaintiffs and
the Class to be misled and deceived, including that (i) Defendant’s Windows were defective;
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 46 of 65
47
and (ii) that Defendant’s Windows would fail, leading to damage to the very structures and
personal property that they were purchased to protect, in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws §
445.903(1)(s);
c) Defendant failed to provide the benefits of its Windows that Defendant
promised to Plaintiffs McCubbrey and the Class, including that the Windows were fit for the
use for which it was intended and were free of defects, in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws §
445.903(1)(y);
d) Defendant failed to provide the benefits set forth in its warranty for its
Windows by failing to respond to customer complaints and/or failing to honor its warranties in
violation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.903(1)(y).
236. Defendant’s represented, through their express and implied warranties, that the
Windows were dependable, quality products, free of defects. These representations were false,
and Defendant knew that these representations were false at the time they were made, and
intended Plaintiffs and the class would act upon these representations. Plaintiffs and the Class
relied on these representations to their detriment.
237. Plaintiffs McCubbrey and the Class were damaged as a proximate result of
Defendant’s numerous violations of Mich. Comp Laws §445.903, including but not limited
to the violations of subparagraphs a-e set forth above.
238. Plaintiffs McCubbrey and members of the Class are entitled to compensatory
damages, equitable and declaratory relief, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees.
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 47 of 65
48
COUNT ELEVEN
VIOLATION OF THE ILLINOIS CONSUMER FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS
PRACTICES ACT
(On Behalf of Class Members Represented by Kennedy and Bradley)
239. Plaintiffs individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, adopt and
incorporate by reference all allegations contained in all of the preceding paragraphs of this
Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
240. At all time relevant hereto, there was in full force and effect the IFCA.
241. Section 2 of the ICFA provides in relevant part: “Unfair methods of competition
and unfair or deceptive acts or practices, including but not limited to the use or employment of
any deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation or the concealment,
suppression or omission of any material fact, with the intent that others rely upon the
concealment, suppression or omission of such material fact, or the use or employment of any
practice described in Section 2 of the “Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, “ approved
August 5, 1965, in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared to be unlawful
whether any person has in fact been deceived or damaged thereby. In construing this section
consideration shall be given to the interpretations of the Federal Trade Commission and the
federal courts relating to Section 5(A) of the Federal Trade Commission Act.” 815 ILL. COMP.
STAT. 505/2 (footnotes omitted).
242. Plaintiffs and Class Members are “consumers” within the meaning of the IFCA,
given that MIWD’s business activities involve trade or commerce, are addressed to the market
generally, and otherwise implicate consumer protection concerns.
243. MIWD engaged in concealment, suppression, or omission when, in selling the
Windows, MIWD knew that there were defects in the Windows which would result in water
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 48 of 65
49
damage, ensuing other property damage, and mold growth.
244. The facts that MIWD concealed, suppressed, or omitted as alleged herein are
material. Whether windows contain defects which will result in water damage, ensuing other
property damage, and mold growth is the kind of information a purchaser would be expected to
rely on in deciding whether to purchase the Windows. Additionally, Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’
builders, Class Members, and/or Class Members’ builders would not have purchased the
Windows had they known or become informed of the material defects in the Windows, which
would result in water damage, ensuing other property damage, and mold growth.
245. MIWD engaged in concealment, suppression, or omission of the aforementioned
material facts with the intent that others, such as Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ builders, Class Members,
Class Members’ builders, and/or the general public would rely upon the concealment,
suppression, or omission of such material facts and purchase MIWD’s Windows containing said
design defect.
246. MIWD also failed to give Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ builders, Class Members, and/or
Class Members’ builders adequate warnings and notices regarding the defects in the Windows,
this despite the fact that MIWD knew or should have known of these defects, with the intent that
Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ builders, Class Members, and/or Class Members’ builders and members of
the Class would rely upon MIWD’s failure to disclose the defects when purchasing the
Windows. Plaintiffs, Class Members, Plaintiffs’ builders, Class Members’ builders, and
members of the public were deceived by and relied upon Defendant’s failures to disclose.
247. Once the defects became known, consumers (such as Plaintiffs) were entitled to
disclosure of that fact because: (a) a significant risk of water leakage would be a material fact in
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 49 of 65
50
a consumer’s decision-making process; and (b) without MIWD’s disclosure, consumers would
not know that there is any risk of water leakage.
248. Further, despite the plain language of MIWD’s express warranty which extends to
the initial homeowner, by denying warranty claims by asserting that the express warranty was
not the “basis of the bargain” between the parties, MIWD has committed an unfair act or
practice.
249. The above-described concealments, suppressions or omissions by MIWD have
had an effect on consumers generally, and implicate the general market.
250. The above described concealments, suppressions, or omissions by MIWD
constitute “unfair” acts or practices within the meaning of the ICFA, in that they are immoral,
unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and otherwise cause substantial injury to consumers. MIWD
knew of the material defects and continued to manufacture, distribute and sell the Windows to
the unsuspecting public (consumers) without disclosure. Furthermore, MIWD knew of the
defects and failed to recall or repair the defects.
251. MIWD concealed, suppressed and/or omitted the material defects from Plaintiffs,
Plaintiffs’ builders, Class Members, and/or Class Members’ builders willfully, with knowledge
and/or intent to deceive.
252. The material defects in the Windows are not the type that Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’
builder, Class Members, and/or Class Members’ builders would have been able to discover on
their own, and in fact, Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ builders, Class Members, and/or Class Members’
builders were unaware of, unable to, and did not discover the material defects that were
concealed, suppressed or omitted by MIWD.
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 50 of 65
51
253. Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ builders, Class Members, and/or Class Members’ builders
relied on the fact that MIWD did not disclose the material defects in the Windows as a
representation that the Windows were reasonably suited for their intended use and purpose.
254. MIWD’s material omissions of the material defects in the Windows had the
tendency to mislead consumers into believing that the Windows were free from defects and
reasonably suited for their intended use and purpose.
255. MIWD also engaged in “unfair” acts or practices in violation of the ICFA when it
failed to provide an express warranty to all owners of homes with its defective Windows.
256. Because MIWD’s warranties are limited in duration and only to the first
purchasers, consumers were further entitled to know that water leakage might not exhibit itself
until after their warranties expired, and if that occurred, MIWD was not committing to repair the
condition.
257. MIWD further engaged in “unfair” practices in violation of the ICFA when it
failed to replace three defective windows at Plaintiff Bradley’s home “free of charge”,
notwithstanding its representation to the contrary in its express warranty applicable to him.
258. As a direct and proximate result of these “unfair” acts or practices, Plaintiff and
the members of the Class have sustained and will continue to sustain actual, direct and/or
consequential damages in amount which is as yet undetermined, but is in an amount in excess of
$75,000, and are entitled to recover damages as well as attorneys’ fees and costs.
COUNT TWELVE
VIOLATION OF NEW JERSEY’S CONSUMER FRAUD ACT
(On Behalf of Class Members Represented by Plaintiff Womack)
259. Plaintiffs individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, adopt and
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 51 of 65
52
incorporate by reference all allegations contained in all of the preceding paragraphs of this
Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
260. Defendant is a manufacturer, marketer, seller, and/or distributors of the Windows.
261. The conduct described above and throughout this Complaint took place within the
State of New Jersey and constitutes unfair business practices in violation of New Jersey’s
Consumer Fraud Act N.J. Rev. Stat. § 56:8-1 et seq. (2012) (hereinafter, “CFA”).
262. The CFA applies to the claims of Plaintiff and all the Class members because the
conduct which constitutes violations of the CFA by the Defendant occurred within the State of
New Jersey.
263. In violation of the CFA, Defendant employed fraud, deception, false promise,
misrepresentation and the knowing concealment, suppression, or omission of material facts in
their sale and advertisement of the Windows in the State of New Jersey.
264. MIWD engaged in the concealment, suppression, or omission in violation of the
CFA when, in selling and advertising the Windows, MIWD knew that there were defects in the
Windows which would result in water damage, ensuing other property damage, and mold
growth.
265. MIWD engaged in the concealment, suppression, or omission of the
aforementioned material facts with the intent that others, such as Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s Builder;
Class Members, Class Member’s Builders, and/or the general public would rely upon the
concealment, suppression, or omission of such material facts and purchase MIWD’s Windows
containing said design defect.
266. Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s Builder, Class Members, and/or Class Member’s builders
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 52 of 65
53
would not have purchased the Windows had they known or become informed of the material
defects in the Windows.
267. MIWD’s concealment, suppression, or omission of material facts as alleged
herein constitute unfair, deceptive and fraudulent business practices within the meaning of the
CFA.
268. MIWD has acted unfairly and deceptively by misrepresenting the quality of the
Windows.
269. MIWD either knew, or should have known, that the Windows were defectively
designed and/or manufactured and would allow water intrusion, which would result in severe
damages to the structures, such that the structures were not as represented to be as alleged herein.
270. Upon information and belief, MIWD knew that, at the time Windows left
MIWD’s control, the Windows contain the defect described herein resulting in water intrusion
and mold growth. At the time of sale, the Windows contained design and construction defects.
The defects reduced the effectiveness and performance of the Windows and rendered it unable to
perform the ordinary purposes for which it was used as well as cause the resulting damage
described herein.
271. As a direct and proximate cause of the violation of the CFA, described above,
Plaintiff and members of the Class have been injured in that they have purchased homes or other
structures with the defective Windows based on nondisclosure of material facts alleged above.
Had Plaintiff and Class Members known the defective nature of the Windows used on their
structures, they would not have purchased their structures, or would have paid a lower price for
their structures.
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 53 of 65
54
272. MIWD used unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or
practices in conducting their businesses. This conduct constitutes fraud within meaning of the
CFA. This unlawful conduct is continuing, with no indication that MIWD will cease.
273. MIWD’s actions in connection with the manufacturing and distributing of
Windows as set forth herein evidences a lack of good faith, honesty in fact and observance of fair
dealing so as to constitute unconscionable commercial practices, in violation of the State of New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J. Rev. Stat § 56:8-1, et seq.
274. MIWD acted willfully, knowingly, intentionally, unconscionably and with
reckless indifference when it committed these acts of consumer fraud.
275. As a direct and proximate result of MIWD’s unfair and deceptive acts and
practices, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class will suffer damages, which include,
without limitation, costs to inspect, repair or replace their Windows and other property, in an
amount to be determined at trial.
276. As a result of the acts of consumer fraud described above, Plaintiff and the Class
have suffered ascertainable loss in the form of actual damages that include the purchase price of
the products for which MIWD is liable to the Plaintiff and the Class for treble their ascertainable
losses, plus attorneys’ fees and costs, along with equitable relief prayed for herein in this
Complaint.
COUNT THIRTEEN
UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES
IN VIOLATION OF NEW YORK GENERAL BUSINESS LAW § 349
(On Behalf of Class Members Represented by Plaintiff Hildebrand)
277. Plaintiffs individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, adopt and
incorporate by reference all allegations contained in all of the preceding paragraphs of this
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 54 of 65
55
Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
278. This is action is brought to secure redress for the unlawful, deceptive and unfair
trade practices perpetrated by MIWD on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class members.
279. Plaintiff and Class Members are consumers and as owners of properties with
Defendant’s products attached to them, they are the end users and intended beneficiaries of said
products.
280. As a seller of Windows to the consuming public and whose conduct affects
similarly situated consumers and has a broad impact on consumers at large, Defendant is
engaged in consumer-oriented conduct within the intended ambit of GBL § 349.
281. Defendant’s actions and/or omissions as described herein violated GBL §349,
which declares as unlawful “deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or
commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this state.”
282. Specifically, Defendant knowingly misrepresented and intentionally omitted and
concealed material information regarding its Windows by failing to disclose to Plaintiff and
Class Members the known defects in their product and the known risks associated with same.
283. Furthermore, Defendant engaged in materially misleading deceptive acts and
practices by continuing to sell its Windows to the consuming public with knowledge that the
Windows would not perform as intended, represented and warranted, and that the Windows
would prematurely fail causing homeowners to incur significant out of pocket costs and expenses
in repairing damaged property and replacing their windows.
284. Defendant also engaged in materially misleading deceptive acts and practices by
issuing a Warranty that only “covered” original owners and not subsequent purchasers when
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 55 of 65
56
MIWD knew that the Windows would fail prior to the expiration of the “10 year warranty” and
that many original owners would likely sell their home to a subsequent purchaser prior to the
expiration of the Windows’ warranted life.
285. Additionally, MIWD engaged in materially misleading deceptive acts and
practices by requiring original owners who are “covered” under the Warranty to incur additional
out of pocket expenses for replacement parts and/or labor associated with the repair and/or
replacement of their Windows when the Windows fail prior to the expiration of their warranted
life. MIWD also unfairly charges original owners who attempt to make a warranty claim
additional fees for MIWD to inspect their property to determine whether or not a warranted loss
has occurred.
286. Defendant’s misrepresentations and concealment of material facts constitute
unconscionable commercial practices, deception, fraud, false pretenses, misrepresentation,
and/or the knowing concealment, suppression, or omission of materials facts with the intent that
others rely on such concealment, suppression, or omission in connection with the sale and use of
Defendant’s Windows in violation of GBL §349.
287. Defendant violated GBL §349 by knowingly and falsely representing that
Defendant’s Windows were fit to be used for the purpose for which they were intended, when
Defendant knew they were defective, unreliable, and unsafe and by other acts alleged herein.
288. Defendant’s deceptive and misleading actions and omissions as set forth herein
have caused and continue to cause injury to Plaintiff and the Class Members.
289. New York has enacted statutes to protect consumers from deceptive, fraudulent,
and unconscionable trade and business practices such as those alleged in this Complaint.
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 56 of 65
57
290. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s violations of GBL §349, Plaintiff
and the Class members have suffered and continue to suffer damages. Plaintiff and the Class
Members are entitled to compensatory damages, equitable and declaratory relief, punitive
damages, costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.
COUNT FOURTEEN
NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
(On Behalf of Class Members Represented by Plaintiff Nash and Wani)
291. Plaintiffs individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, adopt and
incorporate by reference all allegations contained in all of the preceding paragraphs of this
Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
292. Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the Class
against Defendant.
293. MIWD represented that the Windows would be free from defects and fit for their
customary and normal use.
294. MIWD represented that the Windows would conform to all applicable building
codes and industry standards as discussed herein.
295. These representations were material facts that influenced Plaintiffs’ Builders,
Plaintiffs', Class Members’ and/or Class members builders’ purchase of the Windows.
296. MIWD made these representations with the intent to induce Plaintiffs and Class
members to act upon them purchasing the Windows.
297. At the time Defendant made these representations, MIWD knew or should have
known that these representations were false or made them without knowledge of their truth or
veracity.
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 57 of 65
58
298. Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ Builders, Class Members and/or Class members’ builders
justifiably and detrimentally relied on these representations and, as a proximate result thereof,
have and will continue to suffer damages in the form of lost money from the purchase price and
property damage and/or having to pay to repair and replace the defective windows.
299. Plaintiffs and Class members suffered a loss of money in an amount to be proven
at trial as a result of Defendant’s wrongful conduct because: (a) they would not have purchased
the Windows on the same terms if the true facts concerning the defective Windows had been
known; (b) they paid a price premium due to they would be free from defects; and (c) the
Windows did not perform as promised.
COUNT FIFTEEN
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT BY SILENCE
(On Behalf of Class Members Represented by Plaintiffs McGaffin)
300. Plaintiffs individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, adopt and
incorporate by reference all allegations contained in all of the preceding paragraphs of this
Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
301. MIWD knew or should have known that the Windows were defective in design,
were not fit for their ordinary and intended use, and performed in accordance with neither the
advertisements, marketing materials, warranties, installation instructions and/or specifications
disseminated by MIWD nor the reasonable expectations of Plaintiffs’ builders and Class
Members’ builders.
302. However, Plaintiffs’, Plaintiffs’ Builders, Class Members and/or Class Members
Builders did have this knowledge and could not have discovered that the Windows were
defective by the exercise of reasonable diligence.
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 58 of 65
59
303. MIWD fraudulently concealed from and/or intentionally failed to disclose to
Plaintiffs and the Class that the Windows are defective.
304. MIWD had exclusive knowledge of the defective nature of the Windows at the
time of sale. The defect is latent and not something that Plaintiffs, Class members, Plaintiffs’
Builders and/or Class Members Builders, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could have
discovered independently prior to purchase, because it is not feasible.
305. MIWD had the capacity to, and did, deceive Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ Builders, Class
members and/or Class Members’ Builders into believing that they were purchasing homes with
Windows free from defects.
306. MIWD undertook active and ongoing steps to conceal the defect from Plaintiffs,
Plaintiffs’ builders, Class Members, and/or Class Members’ Builders.. Plaintiffs are aware of
nothing in MIWD’s advertising, publicity or marketing materials that disclosed the truth about
the defect, despite MIWD’s awareness of the problem.
307. The facts concealed and/or not disclosed by MWID to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’
Builders, Class members and/or Class Members’ Builders are material facts in that a reasonable
person would have considered them important in deciding whether to purchase (or to pay the
same price for) the homes containing the Windows from their builders.
308. MIWD intentionally concealed and/or failed to disclose material factors for the
purpose of inducing Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ Builders and the Class Members’ builders to act
thereon.
309. Plaintiffs and the Class justifiably acted or indirectly relied upon the concealed
and/or nondisclosed facts to their detriment, as evidenced by Plaintiffs’ Builders and/or Class
Members’ purchase of the Windows by relying on MIWD’s advertisements or specifications
regarding the quality of the Windows.
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 59 of 65
60
310. Plaintiffs and Class members suffered a loss of money in an amount to be proven
at trial as a result of MIWD’s fraudulent concealment and nondisclosure because: (a) they would
not have purchased the Windows on the same terms if the true facts concerning the defective
Windows had been known; (b) they paid a price premium due to they would be free from
defects; and (c) the Windows did not perform as promised.
311. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs and Class members suffered, and continue
to suffer, financial damage and injury.
COUNT SIXTEEN
UNJUST ENRICHMENT
(On Behalf of Class Members Represented by Plaintiffs Hildebrand and Womack)
312. Plaintiffs individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, adopt and
incorporate by reference all allegations contained in all of the preceding paragraphs of this
Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
313. Substantial benefits have been conferred on MIWD by Plaintiff and the Class and
MIWD have appreciated these benefits.
314. MIWD’s acceptance and retention of these benefits under the circumstances make
it inequitable for MIWD to retain the benefits without payment of the value to the Plaintiff and
the Class.
315. MIWD by the deliberate and fraudulent conduct complained of herein, have been
unjustly enriched in a manner that warrants restitution.
316. As a proximate consequence of MIWD’s improper conduct, the Plaintiff and the
Class members were injured. MIWD have been unjustly enriched, and in equity, should not be
allowed to obtain this benefit.
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 60 of 65
61
COUNT SEVENTEEN
VIOLATION OF MAGNUSON-MOSS ACT
(On Behalf of Class Members Represented by Plaintiff Womack)
317. Plaintiffs individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, adopt and
incorporate by reference all allegations contained in all of the preceding paragraphs of this
Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
318. The Magnuson-Moss Consumer Products Liability Act, 15 U.S.C §2301, et seq.
(“MMCPWA” or the “Act”) provides a private right of action to purchasers of consumer
products against retailers who, inter alia, fail to comply with the terms of a written warranty,
express warranty and/or implied warranty. As demonstrated above, MIWD has failed to comply
with the terms of its warranties, written, express and implied, with regard to the Windows that it
advertised, distributed, marketed and/or sold.
319. Plaintiff and the members of the Class are “consumers” under the MMCPWA.
320. MIWD has been given a reasonable opportunity by Plaintiff and other Class
members to cure such failures to comply and has repeatedly failed to do so.
321. By virtue of the foregoing, MIWD and other members of the Class are entitled to
an award of damages and other appropriate relief, including attorneys’ fees.
COUNT EIGHTEEN
DECLARATORY RELIEF
(On Behalf of Class Members Represented by Plaintiffs Hildebrand, DeBlaker, Womack,
Bradley and Kennedy)
322. Plaintiffs individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, adopt and
incorporate by reference all allegations contained in all of the preceding paragraphs of this
Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
323. MIWD has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to Class
Members so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 61 of 65
62
respecting the Class as a whole within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
324. There is an actual controversy between MIWD and the Class Members
concerning the limitations on MIWD’s warranty and the defective design and/or manufacture or
MIWD’s Windows. MIWD has acted or refuses to act on grounds that apply generally to the
Declaratory Relief Class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is
appropriate respecting the Class as a whole within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2).
325. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, this Court may “declare the rights and legal
relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could
be sought.”
326. MIWD has wrongfully denied warranty claims due to the claims being filed by
subsequent purchasers and/or because MIWD has asserted that the water leaks and problems are
due to inadequate installation of the Windows despite the root cause of the leaks being the latent
design and/or manufacture of the Windows.
327. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek a declaration that:
a) the Windows have defects which include and result in inadequate weep
systems, a premature failure of the seal, and lack or loss of sealant at joint
permitting water intrusion into the interior of structures on which the
Windows are attached;
b) certain provisions of Defendant’s warranty are void as unconscionable
because it does not provide warranty or replacement services for all of its
Windows which are defective;
c) certain provisions of Defendant’s warranty are void as unconscionable
because the Windows do not conform to the representations or warranties
as represented in the Windows themselves;
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 62 of 65
63
d) Defendant must notify owners of the defects
e) the limitation of the warranty to only the first purchaser is removed;
f) Defendant will reassess all prior warranty claims and pay the full cost of
repairs and damages; and
g) Defendant will pay the cost of inspection to determine whether any Class
members’ Windows need replacement.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Named Plaintiffs pray that this case be certified and maintained as a class action
and for judgment to be entered upon MIWD as follows:
1. For actual and compensatory damages on behalf of Named Plaintiffs and all Class
Members;
2. For restitution and disgorgement;
3. For punitive damages or statutory damages, as otherwise applicable;
4. For injunctive and declaratory relief, as claimed herein;
5. For equitable relief;
6. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of all costs for the prosecution of
this action; and
For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and appropriate.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Named Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Respectfully submitted,
[signature on following page]
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 63 of 65
64
JUSTIN O'TOOLE LUCEY, P.A.
By: s/Justin Lucey_________________
Justin Lucey (Fed. ID No. 5613)
Harper L. Todd (Fed ID No. 10841)
415 Mill Street
Post Office Box 806
Mount Pleasant, SC 29465-0806
Telephone: (843) 849-8400
Fax: (843) 849-8406
jlucey@lucey-law.com
htodd@lucey-law.com
Daniel K. Bryson, Esquire
Scott C. Harris, Esquire
Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
dan@wbmllp.com
scott@wbmllp.com
Jordan L. Chaikin, Esquire
Parker Waichman, LLP
3301 Bonita Beach Road, Suite 101
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
jchaikin@yourlawyer.com
John Climaco, Esquire
John Peca, Esquire
Climaco, Wilcox, Peca, Tarantino &
Garofoli Co.,LPA
55 Public, Suite 1950
Cleveland, OH 44113
jrclim@climacolaw.com
japeca@climacolaw.com
James C. Shah, Esquire
Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esquire
Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLC
35 E. State Street
Media, PA 19063
jshah@sfmslaw.com
nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com
Richard Arsenault, Esquire
Sri Gupta, Esquire
Neblett, Beard & Arsenault
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 64 of 65
65
2220 Bonaventure Court
Alexandria, LA 71301
rarsenault@nbalawfirm.com
svgupta@nbalawfirm.com
Alyson Oliver
Oliver Law Group PC
950 W. University Ste. 200
Rochester, MI 48307
aoliver@oliverlg.com
Edward Eshoo, Jr.
Childress Duffy, Ltd.
500 North Dearborn St.
Chicago, Illinois 60654
eeshoo@childresslawyers.com
Jonathan Shub , Esquire
Scott George, Esquire
Seeger Weiss LLP
1515 Market St
Suite 1380
Philadelphia, PA 19102
jshub@seegerweiss.com
sgeorge@seegerweiss.com
Attorneys for the Homeowner Plaintiffs
Charleston, South Carolina
Dated: March 11, 2013
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76 Page 65 of 65
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been
electronically filed with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of South
Carolina this 11th
day of March, 2013, and served on all parties of record via the CM/ECF
system and email.
Respectfully submitted,
JUSTIN O’TOOLE LUCEY, P.A.
By: s/ Justin Lucey
Justin Lucey (Fed. ID No. 5613)
Harper L. Todd (Fed. ID No. 10841)
415 Mill Street
Post Office Box 806
Mount Pleasant, SC 29465-0806
(843) 849-8400 phone
(843) 849-8406 facsimile
Liaison Attorney for Plaintiffs
March 11, 2013
Charleston, South Carolina
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76-1 Page 1 of 1
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76-2 Page 1 of 1
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76-3 Page 1 of 1
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76-4 Page 1 of 2
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76-4 Page 2 of 2
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76-5 Page 1 of 2
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76-5 Page 2 of 2
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76-6 Page 1 of 3
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76-6 Page 2 of 3
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76-6 Page 3 of 3
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76-7 Page 1 of 2
2:12-mn-00001-DCN Date Filed 03/11/13 Entry Number 76-7 Page 2 of 2
top related