Cox Industries, Arch Chemicals Defective Wood in Docks South Carolina Class Action

The subject of this class action are waterfront docks, allegedly built with wood from Cox Industries, Inc. (now known as Koppers Utility and Industrial Products, Inc.) allegedly treated with chemicals and wood treatment products from Arch Chemicals, Inc. The complaint claims that the docks are now rotting or otherwise deteriorating because of the defective quality of the wood products used to build them.

The class for this action is all persons and entities who own a wooden dock in South Carolina that was built using the treated wood products of the defendants in this case, between January 1, 2010 and the present.

Defendant Cox, the complaint alleges, made the treated lumber that was used to build the wooden docks at issue in this case. Arch gave Cox the chemicals or other wood treatment products, the complaint alleges, “along with instructions, training, monitoring equipment and other complimentary services, all of which were used to treat lumber and create the Wood Products used to construct the docks at issue in this case.”

The plaintiffs in this case all either had waterfront docks constructed or bought property that included waterfront docks, sometime during the past twelve years. The complaint alleges a number of things “upon information and belief,” including that Cox exclusively used Arch chemicals to treat the wood for the docks and that Arch knew that its products were being used to treat wood that would be used in the construction of waterfront docks.

Even so, the wood that came from Cox and was treated with chemicals from Arch are now prematurely failing, the complaint alleges: “The Wood Products have splintered, lost strength and structural integrity, deteriorated, and/or rotted completely through, or is in the process of doing so, which damage was proximately caused by the products being improperly treated, designed, manufactured, supplied and/or distributed by” Cox and Arch.

According to the complaint, the docks have therefore become unsafe, unusable, or unfit for use as they were intended to be used. The rot and deterioration, the complaint claims, is due to a latent defect in the wood or its treatment, so that the plaintiffs could not have discovered it before it occurred. The complaint alleges that for each of the plaintiffs, the rot has occurred only in the past three years. They are all now having to rebuilt their docks.

The complaint alleges that Cox and Arch knew or should have known that the wood products were defective, and that not warning those who built docks with those products should toll the statutes of limitations or other timelines that would otherwise apply in this case.

Article Type: Lawsuit
Topic: Contract
Tags: Breach of Contract, Breach of warranty, Negligence, Strict Product Liability—Strict Liability