GAF Materials Corporation was named in two class action lawsuits earlier this summer alleging that its Timberline Shingles are defective. The GAF Timberline Shingle lawsuits were filed in Pennsylvania and Virginia on behalf of anyone who owns or owned a structure in the U.S. with Timberline Shingles manufactured after December 31, 1997. GAF Timberline Shingles […]
GAF Materials Corporation was named in two class action lawsuits earlier this summer alleging that its Timberline Shingles are defective. The <"https://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/GAF-Timberline-Shingles-Class-Action-Lawsuit-Degrading-Cracking">GAF Timberline Shingle lawsuits were filed in Pennsylvania and Virginia on behalf of anyone who owns or owned a structure in the U.S. with Timberline Shingles manufactured after December 31, 1997.
GAF Timberline Shingles are asphalt shingles with a fiberglass base that were marketed as 30-40 year shingles. But according to the GAF Timberline Shingle Class Action lawsuits, the shingles crack prematurely, and fail to meet American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards for fiberglass shingles. The lawsuits further allege that GAF management personnel concealed this, and failed to inform consumers, contractors and homeowners that the Timberline Shingles did not meet ASTM standards, and would degrade and crack prematurely. Finally, the lawsuits contend that any structure that contains these shingles manufactured after December 31, 1997 needs to be re-roofed.
According to both lawsuits, GAF was receiving complaints regarding premature cracking associated with its shingles, including Timberline shingles, by the late 1990s. From 2001 – 2002, GAF fiberglass shingle cracking claims increased 43 percent. It was internally noted by GAF that the shingles made at one of its plants was its “fastest growing problem.
Timberline Shingles are manufactured at several plant locations across the country, and each uses a different process to manufacture these products. According to the lawsuits, GAF’s own investigation concluded that the problems with the shingles stemmed from raw materials. Plants in Minneapolis, Minnesota; Baltimore, Maryland; Millis, Massachusetts; and Fontana, California, had manufactured shingles with these defective raw materials. Additional investigation found that manufacturing plants in Mobile, Alabama and Dallas, Texas also had the same problems.
Despite changing its specifications for raw materials, GAF never informed consumers about the problems with the shingles about their defects, or issued a recall of the Timberline Shingles, the lawsuits claim.
Both GAF Timberline Shingle lawsuits seek compensation for damages suffered by the plaintiffs and class members, as well as attorneys fees. The lawsuits also ask that GAF be required to initiate a post-sale instruction and warning campaign, to conduct further testing, and to refrain from making unlawful representations about warranty claims.
These are just the latest class action lawsuits to allege GAF Timberline Shingles are defective. Similar lawsuits have been filed in other states, including Alabama and South Carolina.
