Lawsuits Over Andersen Doors. Our firm is currently investigating a class action lawsuit against Andersen Windows, Inc. over its allegedly defective patio doors. Homeowners are reporting that their Andersen doors are peeling and delaminating prematurely, which ends up costing them extra in repairs. Reports suggest that some Andersen doors and windows were manufactured with this defect, but Andersen has done little to correct the issue.
Homeowner Complaints to Andersen Allegedly Ignored
According to homeowner complaints, some Andersen patio doors are manufactured with faulty glue, which causes the exterior surface of the door to peel and sometimes separate from the unit altogether. Some homeowners are even reporting that 75 percent of the door panels are delaminating. This unsightly defect can result in the homeowner having to replace the entire patio door and frame, a costly adjustment that should not have to happen. Allegedly, Andersen knew about the peeling and delaminating early on but chose not to help their customers. Instead, it is alleged that the company simply ignored the problem and waited for the manufacturer’s warranty to expire. Some homeowners who have complained to Andersen report that they would have to pay out of pocket for a new installation, despite the fact that this product failed prematurely.
Andersen Doors That May Be Subject to Premature Peeling
Andersen Windows, Inc., a part of Andersen Corporation, prides itself on being the largest window and door manufacturer in North America. They are the most used brand in the window and patio door industry.
Andersen makes a number of door types that may be subject to early peeling and delamination. Their models include:
- A-series (from Andersen Architectural Collection)- based on architecture
- E-Series/Eagle- Many customizations, comes with VeriLock
- 400 Series- The most commonly used brand, uses Perma-Shield exteriors
- 200 Series- Involves the most common sizes and options
- 100 Series- Made with Fibrex
Andersen is no stranger to litigation. In 2010, the company was faced with a federal lawsuit alleging that it knowingly sold defective windows to thousands of Minnesota customers. The suit alleged that the windows were manufactured with a gap in the seal, allowing moisture to come in; this caused rotting, along with and mold and fungus growth on the exterior of the window.