A new class action lawsuit has been filed against Atlas Chalet World LLC, based in Urbana, IL. This class action lawsuit claims that Atlas made, designed, sold, and installed defective shingles in many states for years, and that although it was told of the defective shingles in the early stages, it didn’t do anything to correct them, or to warn prospective customers of them. In fact, according to the complaint, Atlas didn’t fix or replace the defective units for two years, even as homeowners began to ask for their money back. The defective shingles have caused injuries and property damage, including personal injury and property damage, as well as medical expenses, missed days of work, lost income, and more.
The class action lawsuit claims that because of these facts, and because of the “defective design, manufacturing, sales and service,” Atlas “committed fraud against its clients.” Specifically, the complaint claims that the atlas failed to warn consumers that the atlas shingles were not designed to withstand certain types of weather, that the atlas chalets contained a metal core, that the atlas shingles were not built for thermal resistance, that the atlas chalets were not built for soundproofing, that the atlas chalet failed to warn customers that “a small leak from the roof system,” which could result in “a hazardous building and injury,” could happen, and also that because of these “deficiencies,” customers who bought the chalets from the atlas “faced dangerous building and injury risks.” The complaint further claims that because the atlas furnace “contained a metal retractable element,” there was a “danger that if it breaks, or comes apart while in use, it could launch shrapnel or flying metal objects into the air, which could cause serious personal injury or property damage.” Finally, the complaint claims that because of this “defective design, manufacturing, sales and service,” Atlas failed “to exercise reasonable care” when designing and selling the products.
These lawsuits arise out of two separate situations. The first situation is a case of consumer harm whereby, through the negligence of Atlas Chalet Shingles Co. Inc. customers purchased an improperly designed shingle, which was susceptible to breaking and launching shrapnel or flying objects into the air. The second situation is a case of injury or property damage due to the design flaws of the chalet itself. In both cases, the lawsuits seek damages for injuries, lost wages, medical bills, pain and suffering, and property damage. (It should be noted that in either case, if the court rules for the plaintiffs, or the defendants, the defense may attempt to argue that the Granules actually caused the injuries.)
The class action lawsuit against Atlas Chalet Shingles Co. comes from the second situation mentioned above-a case of damage or injury to a customer or consumer from the defective design of one of the atlas roofing company’s chalets. The shingle complaint essentially says that because of this “defective design, manufacturing, sales and service,” Atlas failed “to exercise reasonable care” when designing and selling its products. The class action lawsuit then seeks damages for those injuries, lost wages, medical bills, pain and suffering, and property damage. (It should be noted that in both cases, the defense may attempt to argue that the Granules actually caused the injuries, or that the warrant was invalid because it was never intended to provide coverage for shingle breakage.)
In response to these lawsuits, the atlas chalet owners have filed their own defense, arguing that the product claims are false and unreasonable. In the first place, they point out that the lawsuits are based on “fallacies, double standard and uncertainty,” and that there is “no direct evidence” that shingling breaks down or is defective. Also, they note that the class action complaint itself is a violation of tort law, which protects homeowners from frivolous or meritless lawsuits. Furthermore, they claim that the claims are not based on any legitimate science-unless, of course, you consider that the roofing shingling business is somehow related to science, or the cause of baldness. The defense further points out that in cases like this, courts do not allow plaintiffs to recover damages unless the products are defective.
However, the defense fails to acknowledge that these lawsuits arise from the very same factors that cause shingling to break down-uniformity, poor design and manufacturing, and inadequate warranty service. Moreover, in two class action lawsuits filed against the chalet owner and operator of Atlas Chalet Shingles Co. in January and March 2021, the plaintiffs allege that the owner and operator “wanted” to sell their shingle system to other customers, but were unable to do so because the system was defective. Furthermore, they further charge, “There is no evidence that [the chalet owner and operator’s] conduct caused actual injuries or damage.” Hopefully, a judge will take the same view of the case as well, as this lawsuit may set a precedent for similar cases across the country.