Class Certification Granted Against Pella
Beginning in 1991, Pella began selling its “Proline” casement windows. Owners of buildings with these Proline windows filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the windows contain a design defect. The Proline windows are constructed with an aluminum cladding over wood. According to the plaintiffs, the window design allows moisture to seep behind the aluminum cladding and prematurely rot the wood. In order to handle the volume of replacements due to the alleged defect, Pella created the Pella Proline Customer Service Enhancement Program (PCSEP) to compensate customers. However, Pella did not notify its customers of the defect or of the program. Furthermore, the consumer-plaintiffs alleged that Pella, through the PCSEP, modified the Pella warranty without notifying the consumers.
In Pella v. Salzman, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois certified two classes of consumers. One class includes members nationwide who own buildings containing the Proline windows that have not yet manifested the alleged defect or have shown signs of rotting but have not been replaced. The second class is a group of six statewide classes from Illinois, New York, New Jersey, California, Florida and Michigan, wherein Pella’s failure to disclose the defect is alleged to have violated those states’ consumer fraud laws. The members in the second group owned windows that manifested the defect and had their windows replaced.
The district court granted certification but limited the issue of the class certification to liability. Accordingly, the class action jury will only decide: (1) if there was a design defect present in the windows; (2) whether Pella had a duty to disclose the defect; and (3) whether Pella attempted to modify its warranty. Issues concerning causation and damages will be decided on an individual basis.
Pella appealed the certification of the classes. However, for the first time, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the certification in a consumer fraud action. The 7th Circuit explicitly stated that “there is not and should not be a rule that” consumer fraud actions cannot be granted class certification. Pella Corp. v. Saltzman, 606 F.3d 391, 393 (7th Cir. 2010). Rather, the panel agreed with the district court’s finding that the individual issues that typically arise in consumer fraud actions would not be preclude class treatment of the limited issues of liability presented in the Pella case.
We had to replace our Pella Proline casement window in October 2010. It was extremely rotted on the bottom seat part of the bay window. Our contractor costs were $1,700. How can I join in the lawsuit to try to get some of the $1,700 back?
Thank you.
Lawrence A. Deren