Lincoln Windows

Please note: The deadline to file a claim for this class action was February 6, 2017. All claims have been adjudicated and the case is now closed.

Between 2014 and 2016, Justin Lucey and co-counsel successfully prosecuted a South Carolina class action against window manufacturer Lincoln Wood Products, Inc. The suit concerned double-hung, wood and aluminum-clad wood, exterior glazed Windows manufactured between April 1, 1999 and January 1, 2007, as well as certain Lincoln “replacement kits” marketed and sold to South Carolina homeowners for these windows. The lawsuit alleged that these Lincoln Exterior Glazed Windows are inherently defective in that they often fail prematurely due to leaks and water absorption. A settlement was reached in 2016, and a court-approved notice program was initiated utilizing a combination of direct-mail notices, digital notices, and print notices published in periodicals state-wide. Proceeds were distributed to qualifying South Carolina homeowners who submitted complete Claim Forms pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.

The document(s) below will provide you with further information on this case.

Lumber Liquidators, Inc.


Lucey Law Firm is representing South Carolina consumers in a class-action lawsuit against Lumber Liquidators, Inc., a laminate wood flooring manufacturer and distributor, for allegedly selling flooring tainted with unsafe levels formaldehyde.

Summary of Class Action

The lawsuit filed on March 9, 2015 in the U.S. District Court of South Carolina, Florence Division alleges that Lumber Liquidators falsely advertised and sold their composite flooring manufactured in China as meeting or exceeding California Air Resources Board (CARB) emissions standards. In fact, this flooring emits and off-gases excessive levels of formaldehyde, a gas which is categorized as a known human carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Contrary to Lumber Liquidators’ advertising, the composite flooring fails to comply with all relevant and applicable formaldehyde standards.

Formaldehyde gas can cause cancer, asthma, chronic respiratory irritation and other ailments including skin and breathing problems. The risk of these health problems is significantly greater for children.

A report from “60 Minutes” recently stated that all laminate flooring carried by Lumber Liquidators bears a label indicating that it is CARB Phase 2-compliant, but that its flooring manufactured in China that bears this label is in fact not compliant. The report revealed that the glue and resin used to bond the pressed wood together can be significant source of formaldehyde gas.

Lumber Liquidators has reportedly failed to alert consumers about the alleged high levels of formaldehyde in its laminate wood flooring.


Atlas “Chalet” Shingles


Lucey Law Firm has a pending South Carolina class action regarding roofing shingles which are blistering, cracking, suffering from granule loss, or otherwise failing prematurely. These shingles, sold under the “Chalet” brand name, were manufactured by the Atlas Roofing Corporation from 1999 until 2010, at which point Atlas discontinued the Chalet Shingle product. The South Carolina action has been consolidated with numerous other similar actions from around the nation to be prosecuted in Atlanta, Georgia for pre trial proceedings. Lucey Law remains a lead participant in the national, consolidated proceeding.

 Summary of the Class Action

In 2013, Lucey Law Firm filed a class action complaint on behalf of two plaintiff homeowners representing a proposed class of South Carolina homeowners who own residences or other structures containing allegedly defective Atlas Chalet Shingles. The proposed class consists of South Carolina homeowners who, between January 1, 1999 to the present, have had the Atlas Chalet Shingles installed on their residences or other structures, shingles which have since blistered, cracked, suffered granule loss or otherwise failed prematurely. The proposed class will likely be expanded to include 1997-1998 homeowners, depending on Atlas’s sales records.

The Chalet Shingles are alleged to contain manufacturing and/or design defects which lead to blistering, cracking, granule loss, and premature failure.  These issues, according to the allegations, cause damage to the homes or other structures on which the Chalet Shingles are installed. Additional allegations include that:

  • The Chalet Shingles do not perform as marketed, represented and warranted by Atlas;
  • The Chalet Shingles do not satisfy industry standards;
  • The Chalet Shingles require repair or replacement sooner than is reasonably expected;
  • Atlas failed to honor the Limited Warranty accompanying the Chalet Shingles; and
  • Atlas knew the Chalet Shingles were defective, yet continued to sell and market the Shingles to the general public.

Filed in a South Carolina federal court (U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina: Rock Hill Division), the South Carolina class action is now part of a multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) which consolidated similar, Chalet Shingle cases from federal courts across the nation into one proceeding for pre-trial discovery purposes. The Atlas MDL (No. 2495) is currently pending in a Georgia federal court (U.S. District Court for the District of Northern Georgia: Atlanta Division).

Summary of the Atlas Chalet Shingle

According to court records, the Atlas Chalet Shingle was supposedly created to provide an affordable shingle with the curb-appeal of the more expensive, architectural shingle. Thus, while the Atlas Chalet Shingle is not an “architectural shingle,” the Chalet Shingle is similar in appearance – it’s a three tab shingle that contains a shadow line and an extra, laminated “pad” on the top of the shingle tabs.

Chalet Brochure

Chalet Brochure

Atlas’ marketing materials for the Chalet Shingles allegedly portray the product as durable, defect-free and compliant with ASTM (formerly the American Society for Testing and Materials) standards. The Atlas Chalet Shingles were also sold with either a 25-year or 30-year limited warranty, which certain consumers believed to be a guarantee of the shingles’ quality:

25 Year Warranty

30 Year Warranty

Based on reports from many consumers, the Atlas Chalet Shingles installed on their residences are not durable as the shingles show signs of premature deterioration, sometimes within one to two years after installation. These signs of premature deterioration reported by consumers whose residences contain the Atlas Chalet Shingles include, but are not limited to

  • Blistering or Bubbling
  • Cacking
  • Curling
  • Granule Loss
  • Loss of Shingle Surfacing
  • Shingle Tears
  • Shingle Blow Offs
  • Shingle Pitting or Wear Pits
  • Shingle Holes or Craters
  • Roof Leaks
  • Moisture Penetration
  • Reduced Life Expectancy

Atlas Chalet Shingles Examples

Plaintiffs’ engineering experts have inspected many roofs which contain Atlas Chalet Shingles and have observed the following conditions:

1. Blistering/Broken Blisters

2. Cracking

3. Loss of Shingle Surfacing/Craters

4. Significant Granule Loss

4. Roof Leaks/Water Intrusion

The Next Steps for Homeowners With Atlas Chalet Shingles

For further information regarding the class action or to tell us about your problems or experiences with Atlas Chalet Shingles, we encourage you to please select the “Contact us” link below or call our office (843) 849-8400 to speak with attorney, Dabny Lynn.

MI Windows and Doors, Inc.

Please note: All claims have been processed to conclusion.  No new claims will be permitted in this closed class action settlement.  The deadline to file a claim was December 28, 2015.

In 2015, Lucey Law Firm and other MDL counsel settled a class action regarding MI Windows (“MIWD”) for windows which leak. The case was part of a collection of state-wide class actions against MIWD for leaky windows which were consolidated in Charleston, South Carolina for joint prosecution. The class action included all MIWD Windows vinyl, aluminum, and composite windows manufactured between July 1, 2000, and March 31, 2010 which relied upon glazing tape to seal the intersection between the glass and the window frame. The windows get/accumulate a residue (crud) line above or below the lift handle.  The residue/curd line results from water penetration through Window glazing, as a result of MIWD using “glazing tape” to glaze (waterproof) its windows.  The glazing tape prematurely fails, resulting in water penetration through the Window glazing.  The windows also suffer from water intrusion at the lower window corners (frame joints) that results in stained (rust or black colored joints) and other leaks.  In addition to the premature window failure and leaking, the windows can cause staining of the window stool (the wood sill) and adjacent paint finishes, drywall, or trim.

Information regarding the class action was disseminated through direct mailings and publication, online and in print, in accordance with the court-approved notice plan.  Homeowners who submitted the required forms and photographs under the Settlement Agreement were eligible to receive relief.  All repairs or replacements of sashes and cash payments for consequential damages under this class action settlement have been awarded.

The document(s) below will provide you with further information on this case.


LP Trim Board Claims

In 2008, Justin Lucey and co-counsel reached a class action settlement with Louisiana Pacific for compensation to home owners and others for damaged Trimboard on their structures. Trimboard is a manufactured or composite wood trim product, sometimes referred to as medium density fiberboard, which is used as trim on the exterior of structures. It comes in different widths, and is often used as trim around windows and doors, at corners of structures as corner board, as or over the band board at the base of the first floor, as fascia or soffit near the roof line, and/or as decorative trim on columns, rail posts, and along porches or stair stringers.

Plaintiff alleged that the Trimboard was unsuitable for exterior use, and that it often failed prematurely due to water absorption, resulting in swelling or decay. The settlement provided for compensation of $17 per foot for partial replacement of damaged Trimboard; or $14 per foot for complete replacement of damaged Trimboard, less attorney fees of one third.

The document(s) below will provide you with further information on this case.

Charleston Gypsum EIFS Claims

EIFS Class Action relating to Parex brand Exterior Finish and Insulation Systems sold by 
Charleston Gypsum (principally in the Charleston, South Carolina MSA/Tri-County Area)

Justin Lucey and co-counsel prosecuted a class action against a distributor known
as Charleston Gypsum, previously located in North Charleston, SC. The suit concerned the Parex
brand EIFS (Exterior Finish and Insulation System) sold by Charleston Gypsum in the 1991-mid 
1995 time frame.

EIFS, also commonly referred to as synthetic stucco, is an exterior cladding system consisting of 
layers of EPS board (analogous to Styrofoam), fiberglass mesh, and plasticized stucco. Plaintiffs 
alleged that this system is inherently defective in that it permits water intrusion behind it at 
terminations/penetrations, e.g. windows, and allows damage to occur unnoticed within the 
structure’s walls.

A settlement was reached and proceeds were distributed to Charleston residents who were identified in the Defendants’ records.

The document(s) below will provide you with further information on this case.