The issue seems to be one of exclusions – what is or isn’t covered under an applicable insurance policy contract? Of course, the answer depends on the contract in question and will vary from consumer to consumer, circumstance to circumstance. The issue being exclusions, however, has been raised by some companies as being applicable to Chinese drywall by way of labeling the presence of it as “pollution” – courts however, require for the exclusion to apply it must be narrowly construed to “traditional environmental damage.” How then, can Chinese drywall be considered to be excepted by a “pollution exclusion theory” when the term “traditional environmental damage” seems to suggest something occurring either naturally and/or externally, bearing some relationship to the “environment.”
There has been an undeniable migration of manufacturing from the U.S. to other countries in the past decade. Business expert Jim Pinto summarizes the situation, “[I]n the U.S. today, big factories are despised and penalized with high taxes, strict zoning regulations and infinite bureaucracy. ‘Not In My Backyard’ attitudes are driving manufacturing offshore [whereas] . . . China and many other countries seem to be inviting industry with open arms and deferred taxes.”
An order was issued Thursday by Judge Fallon in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern Division of Louisiana. The order was construed to be a judgment of sorts against a manufacturer entity known as Taishan Gypsum. According to the order, the defendant “failed to plead or [even observe] or defend the action.”
Following the heels of the Chinese drywall crisis currently facing the Nation, there are sure to be numerous consequences, effects, and repercussions on felt on many levels. One aspect of this broad category of consequences may be, in essence, an evolving level of consumer distrust with regard to foreign producers, coupled with a shift in public policy and/or market trends.
Last Thursday, the Consumer Product Safety Commission indicated that its scientific testing, which has been implemented with cooperation with various federal agencies, has yielded a partially favorable result to the victims of toxic drywall. The agency stated that samples of Chinese manufactured drywall contained much more sulfur generating bacteria, when compared to North American produced [...]
Not only are homeowners suing Knauf, but homebuilders have sought to do so as well, relating to defects in products. According to the group America’s Watchdog and its Chinese Drywall Complaint Center, “the easiest way to check to see if you have [Knauf] drywall is to go to your attic, and see if Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin is written on the back of the drywall in your attic. The time lines are 2001 to 2008…”
Lennar was named as a defendant in a class action lawsuit, and disclosed the suit with a filing with the SEC back in April. The allegations are that the drywall is emitting fumes and smells associated with sulfur compounds. Additionally and more significantly, corrosion to metals and household appliances – even jewelry – are included in complaints. For updates and developments in details regarding the lawsuits, thechinesedrywalllawyer.com is a useful resource.
Chalk up the tally of pending lawsuits regarding allegedly defective Chinese drywall – NaplesNews reported that nine new lawsuits have been filed which accuse a home builder of knowingly installing Chinese drywall into homes located in Collier County.
As reported by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, reports of defective and/or harmful drywall have been increasing in both number and breadth. The number of states implicated has now reached 26. While Florida has been the source of the most complaints, Virginia has seen numerous reports as well.
The Defective Drywall in America (DDIA) workgroup has recently stated that it is spending 90% of its time in finding a solution to the issue at hand, with 10% of the focus on the problems. A remediation proposal has surfaced that encompasses:
