The Oasis Composite Decking lawsuit claims that Mastic and Deceuninck failed to make proper disclosures about defects. The manufacturers, designers, and distributors failed to test, develop, manufacture, or distribute this type of decking in a manner that would protect the public from these risks. As a result, homeowners are seeking compensation for the costs and inconvenience they have endured. To learn more about the lawsuit, continue reading this article.
Problems with Oasis Composite Decking
If you’re considering installing Oasis Composite Decking and Rails on your deck, you’ve probably heard about the lawsuits filed against the manufacturers of the product. The company, Ply Gem Holdings Inc., as well as other suppliers, are being sued for allegedly selling defective decking. According to the lawsuit, the product’s design allows water to seep into the material through cracks, resulting in uneven walking surfaces and safety hazards.
But what about the quality of the Oasis decking? The manufacturer has a 25-year warranty, so you’re covered if something goes wrong. However, the decking can warp, crack, and cup a few years after installation. And after that, it’s prone to mildew, warping, and discoloration. Because of the numerous complaints, the company has stopped production of composite decking products.
This Oasis Composite Decking lawsuit seeks to hold Mastic and DNA liable for the alleged design flaws in Oasis composite decking. The companies are accused of knowingly concealing their knowledge of the defective materials and failing to properly warn consumers about their hazards. In August 2007, Pagliaroni began to experience problems with the deck and contacted Mastic to discuss the problem. Mastic denied the claims, and DNA is appealing the case.
Plaintiffs have filed a class action suit against Deceuninck and Mastic Home Exteriors, alleging that the Oasis composite decking is defective and prone to warping, cracking, and discoloration. The company has denied any liability for the damage. Plaintiffs also claim that Mastic failed to properly test, manufacture, distribute, and market Oasis composite decking products.
The company DNA designed Oasis from 2004 to 2008 and sold it exclusively through Mastic. Its components are wood flour, high-density polyethylene, and micro-ingredients such as talc. But the company’s product is not without its share of problems, including premature failure. Those problems have been attributed to the company’s inconsistent manufacturing processes. This report is intended to provide information to consumers and help them determine if the product will be a good choice for their outdoor living space.
The company has received dozens of warranty claims. In all, over 80% of claims have been approved. However, more than half of the claims have been denied. The company claims that many of these cases are unfounded or incorrect. For example, in one case, the company denied payment for 80% of claims, citing the fact that the product was not made of the material is claimed to be.
Oasis Composite Decking and Rail are linked to premature failure. A class action lawsuit against manufacturers of the decking has been filed. Designed to look like wood, Oasis composite decking and railing have been known to warp, cup, and split. The manufacturer, Mastic Home Exteriors, is responsible for the product defects. Read on to learn more about this lawsuit and how it can affect your home.
Although the plaintiffs’ claims are compelling, the case is flawed by its design. The company didn’t adequately warn consumers about the potential for failure. Moreover, the plaintiffs failed to meet the prerequisites for class certification under Rule 23. The court concluded that a class is not typical unless it can provide individualized proof of the issues and damages incurred by the class. This case is still ongoing. If you have recently installed Oasis composite decking, this lawsuit is a good opportunity to get your money back.
A class action lawsuit has been filed against two manufacturers of Oasis Composite Decking and Rail materials for premature failure. While the company claims the product is like real wood and doesn’t require ongoing maintenance, consumers have reported that the composite material can cup and split. The lawsuit cites several instances where consumers have experienced problems with the product, including stains and peeling. This article will discuss some of the main causes of the defect and the potential legal recourse.
According to the lawsuit, the composite decking was prone to design flaws. The manufacturer’s warranty stated that covered products would not warp, crack, or suffer structural damage. However, complaints have emerged that composite decking can crack, cup, or warp after installation, and may also suffer from mildew and discoloration. The manufacturer has agreed to settle the lawsuit in an attempt to avoid lengthy litigation.