As of 2015, the lawsuit over IKO shingles claims that the organic shingles are defective and may deteriorate or curl despite the company's claims that the shingles are durable, according to Halunen & Associates. Plaintiffs allege that the company knew about the problems as early as 1984, states ClassAction.org.Continue Reading
The shingles were manufactured and distributed under various trade names, including IKO Manufacturing Inc., IKO Industries Inc., IKO Industries Ltd., IKO Midwest Inc., and IKO Production, Inc., explains GotAClassAction.com. They were sold under product names that include Ch��teau, Renaissance, Renaissance XL, Aristocrat, Total and Armour Seal. Additional brands were Superplus, Armour Lock, Royal Victorian, New Englander and Imperial Seal 20. More companies marketed the shingle under the names of Cathedral XL, Ultralock 25, Armour Plus 20, Armourtite and Cambridge Ultra Shadow. Still others included Crowne 30, Vista, Supreme 20, Fastlock 25 and Leading Edge, as well as Nordic, Quantum 35, Seville 25, Superlock, Superseal and Skyline.
Marketing materials for these products claimed a product lifespan of 20 to 50 years or more. The lawsuits allege that defects in the shingles' design allows water to invade the shingles, causing the shingles to crack, blister, curl or even blow off the roof, reports ClassAction.com. Once the shingles are compromised, water can damage interior walls, ceilings and other household structures. The lawsuit alleges that, even thought the company was aware of the problems, it failed to alert customers or issue a recall.
Law360 states that IKO Manufacturing Inc. has responded that the claims are time-barred because the plaintiffs claim to have shared a common injury upon delivery of the shingles, but failed to file claims until after the four-year limitations period.Learn more about Law