In January 2014, Massachusetts resident Anthony Pagliaroni sued Mastic Home Exteriors and Deceuninck North America, LLC alleging that the companies failed to properly design, develop, test, manufacture, distribute, market and sell composite decking products (Oasis Composite Decking), in violation of state consumer protection laws. Pagliaroni claimed multiple defects in the products made them prone to severe cracking, warping, and discoloration requiring premature replacement.
In August 2006, Pagliaroni’s contractor purchased Oasis decking to build a raised deck on his home. The products are made from yellow pine wood flour mixed with high density polyethylene and designed to look and work like natural wood but without ongoing maintenance requirements. The products were advertised as “engineered to outlast and out perform ordinary wood and composite decks for years of enjoyment.” Oasis Decking included a multiple year warranties from Mastic and Deceuninck covering rot, decay, splitting, splintering and termite damage.
Pagliaroni noticed the decking was discoloring beginning to crack after one year. Severe warping, expansion and separation of the decking developed and continued over the next 3-4 years. Pagiaroni and other purchasers alleged that the product warranties did not provide the coverage represented by the manufacturer and other involved companies.
Mastic and Deceuninck are alleged to have made representations regarding the decking with the intent and purpose of inducing suppliers, builders, and consumers to purchase and install the decking residential and commercial structures. The suit alleges that because of the defective design and manufacture, the decking is inherently defective and certain to fall within the express warranty provided and that Mastic and Deceuninck failed in their duty to disclose that their Oasis Decking was defective, unreliable and inherently flawed in its design or manufacture.
The suit seeks class action certification for purchasers of Oasis decking alleging Mastic and Deceuninck failed to design, develop, test, manufacture, distribute, market and sell the product resulting in serious safety issues for the consumers as well as economic damages.Article Type: Lawsuit