This lawsuit alleges that Tamko Building Products, Inc. (Tamko) manufactured and sold defective roof shingles that failed to perform according to advertised product warranties, in violation of California consumer protection laws.
Tamko, a “vertically integrated” Missouri based company that owns and operates its raw materials plants, produces and sells a wide variety of building products for both residential and commercial use. TAMKO roof shingles are sold by the company with warranties ranging from 30 to 50 years. Many homeowners have filed complaints regarding the Tamko shingles claiming premature deterioration of the shingles within 10 years of installation. Consumers allege that TAMKO has failed to honor product warranties and that expensive repairs were required due to product defects.
Homeowners have filed class action lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions alleging that TAMKO shingles are defectively designed and that TAMKO has failed to honor prodcut warranties. Consumer product complaints allege design and manufacturing defects that have resulted in the cracking, curling, blistering, degranulation, and general deterioration of their shingles which also caused related property damage.
The Tamko roofing products at issue in the suits are Tamko Architectural Roof Shingles, which product line includes various "Heritage" fiberglass roofing shingles:
Homeowners filing complaints regarding their Tamko shingles report:
In June 2014, several purchasers of Tamko shingles filed a class action suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois alleging defective product design and that the shingles are prone to early failure. The complaint alleges the Tamko shingles do not perform as advertised and are not in fact compliant wiht advertised industry standards, despite being marketed as being durable, reliable, and compliant with ASTM D3462 standards appropriate for use in homes and other structures. The suit charges Tamko with negligence/negligent design and unfair and deceptive trade practices, in violation of the California’s Unfair Competition Act, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Consumers seek compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, costs, attorneys’ fees, and other relief as a result of Tamko’s alleged willful, wanton, reckless, and/or grossly negligent conduct in causing consumers’ structures to be in a dangerous, defective and unsafe condition.