Skip to content Skip to navigation

IKO Defective Roof Shingles Class Action Lawsuit

image of a house with iko shingles

This class action lawsuit claims that IKO “Cambridge AR” roof shingles are defective and prone to premature blistering, tearing, cracking, delamination, granule loss, degradation, and loss of adhesion at the seal strip between adjacent shingles.

            IKO warranted and represented that the shingles, now known to be defective, conformed to and had been designed to meet or exceed industry standards.  The defects listed above result in air and water infiltration, which damages the building components of the structures on which they were installed and damages the property within those structures.     

            After learning of these defects, IKO continued to market and sell the shingles to the public and to make false representations and warranties in connection with those sales despite knowing the defects would cause consumers to incur significant property damage and economic loss.

            Two plaintiffs in this lawsuit, Frederick and Dana Leeds, own and reside in a single-family home in Newton Pennsylvania.  This home was newly constructed during 2012 by Orleans at Brookshire Estates, which purchased and installed IKO “Cambridge” roofing shingles.  The Leeds experienced leaks in an upstairs bedroom and the upstairs bathroom and hallway.  When they reported the leaks to Orleans, the company provided warranty service and sent a roofer to repair the shingles.  A contractor also had to come in to repair the interior of the home that had been damaged by the water.  In 2016, the Leeds began to notice that the shingels were failing to adhere to the structure, and are blistering, tearing, cracking, separating, losing granules, and deteriorating.  Other plaintiffs share similar stories.

            IKO’s warranty is very specific.  They stated that the shingles were free from manufacturing defects, conformed to all applicable industry standards and building codes, and would last for thirty years without problems or IKO would remedy the problem.  They further provided a five-year “Iron Clad Protection Period” that provides free shingle repairs or replacements for manufacturing defects. 

            IKO has denied warranty coverage for the defects experienced by plaintiffs and consumers across the country.

            Based on the facts of the case, the plaintiffs in this lawsuit allege the following violations:

  • Breach of Express Warranty
  • Breach of Implied Warranties
  • Violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law
  • Fraudulent Concealment
Article Type: 

Free Case Evaluation

Fill out the information for a FREE and prompt case evaluation.

About you

Additional Information

Latest Tweets

Join Us on Facebook